Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

Raven

The Tories are dead, fuck Reform!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
45,592
I know @Scouse has a phobia of hydrogen, but if farmers devoted "some" land to solar/wind, or even deep bore hydroelectric, to produce hydrogen, and used it for hydrogen plant vehicles, and winter power requirements then they would not be so open to such sudden and unexpected cost hikes.

 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
38,536
I know @Scouse has a phobia of hydrogen
No I don't. Not at all.

But right now it's mostly a white elephant.

Look at your own sentences - deep bore hydroelectric? I mean, there is indeed a niche use case for underground pumped hydro. But I suspect you mean geothermal? Either way the exhorbitant cost of producing energy this way is going to massively exceed the currently inflated oil prices by at least an order of magnitude.

If you've solar or wind in your field you simply use that power.

If you talk blue hydrogen - you're just paying for oil and gas anyway whilst introducing inefficiencies everywhere, so where's the protection from cost hikes?

Details matter.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,606
It's useful to create hydrogen when we have too much renewable energy available. But I don't see much point in creating it at any other time.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
38,536
It's useful to create hydrogen when we have too much renewable energy available. But I don't see much point in creating it at any other time.
100%.

And BP literally just pulled the plug on a blue hydrogen plant - one that kept burning their oil and gas - so if they can't be bothered to make it with their own oil and gas, then it seems to me that not a lot of people are going to bother with hydrogen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom