Well Paul I worked in the gas industry for 39 years. Gas pressure.managment then the national grid working for National Grid. I dod pig runs and other major operations and can tell you the system is failing apart. Nothing works.... So hydrogen is a joke. I had the hydrogen team on the phone to me asking for advice because they haven't got a clue. And we are being fed this nonsense. I'm one of the few left that looked after gas holder stations. In my younger days I used to be in contact with brilliant engineers who would guide me. They we're like statemen who had a lot of respect for me. You remind me of these fine gentlemen all gone now. I respected these gentlemen who weren't looking for praise but appreciated people like myself who would look to them for there wisdom and advice. They're all gone..... But you are one of them ❤
Does using hydrogen in gas mains not require the return of the local gas holder. Can not see how with hydrogen pump stations can control pressure. Hydrogen, expensive to manufacture and difficult to supply to domestic users. Don't understand how it would work.. No one yet answered any of the problems
@@caterthun4853 Gas holders stored a tiny tiny amount of very low pressure gas. After coal gas were used to supplement the distribution network at peak demands then refilled off peak. The gas storage you refer to stored in high pressure pipelines by simply increasing up to 90 bar. Or salt cavities (which I believe are not used here anymore, not sure) But the lower pressure distribution network increased from around 2bar to around 7bar which was the end of gas holders. The hydrogen will simply be pumped into the network. How they can make as much hydrogen as there is has beyond me. It's all part of the massive con to control us.
As producing hydrogen is so expensive (both in energy and financial terms) I can only see it being useful where energy is abundant but would be wasted if not stored or where other sources are more expensive. I would examine its use by wind farms when they are producing electricty the grid doesn't need. They are still paid in that situation. Only paying them if the energy is stored and delivered to the grid later would mean at least we get something for our money. Especially if that storage has to be of a certain efficiency. This would motivate those produces to drive storage efficiency. Gradually increasing that efficiency factor overtime may also help.
Thanks, Paul. I await, with a certain amount of glee, the moment when the 'rock' [=every Government's abject failure to ever admit to making a mistake] meets 'a hard place' [=reality]. Something's got to give soon.
We just aren't putting enough things on top of other things. The last Government put fewer than 5 things on top of other things and backtracked on the previous Labour Government's plans to bridge both peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro. This Government have already put dozens of things on top of other things - suits, dresses, glasses, Taylor Swift concert tickets, sausages. I've been very impressed seeing them touring factories and hospitals dressed just like real workers, asking "And what does this machine do?" - "This is the machine that goes PING!" - "Very impressive! Carry on!" - It IS a carry on.
Carbon capture and hydrogen are just different ends of the same turd. Energy intensive for absolutely no gain or purpose. I'm nit sure which is the more insane.
I just can’t get over the slick presentation on hydrogen as the wundarfuel of the future. As though the thermodynamics and engineering of the process was oh SO Simple!! It’s like the human race has been so silly as to burn hydrocarbons when hydrogen was the amazingly versatile energy we’ve been looking for all the time. Heavens above is our futures going to be cold and hungry - with occasionally explosions of hydrogen - adopting this dystopian hydrocarbon fuel free future. Who thinks up the drivel?
I received 2 leaflets amongst this morning’s mail. One was about Public consultation meetings for the Mersey Tidal Energy project and the other was information on how to prepare for power cuts. Ironic or what. Hydrogen is yet another bonkers “Net Zero” idea. Good luck with the operation Paul
The lunacy of all these fringe renewable solutions never ceases to amaze me! How on earth is it possible that so many politicians all over the world are taken in by all of this? There is no way in hell that I will own a hydrogen car or use a transport fleet, whether bus, train, or airline. All you have to do is send out thousands of copies of the Hindenburg explosion video to convince everyone of how futile and stupid the idea that hydrogen is an alternative fuel for any normal transport is.
The Government's are all following the WEF agenda. I believe most of them are fully aware that it won't work, the others are stupid enough the actually believe it will work.
Let the propaganda adds play out. You are immune to them so you are draining their funds and hopefully some money goes to the producer of the truthful content. Enjoy monetising the enemy!
Unfortunately, subjects such as science and engineering have taken a back seat with our political class and education system. This is why many of us are in for a rude awakening in the coming years. It’ll probably be too late by then. Thank you for keeping us informed Paul. Much appreciated.
Paul. They've already started replacing the old pipe network. They did our area about four months ago. Talking to the workmen, they'd been told it was part of a switch to methane and hydrogen mix.
Thank you for this very practical and informative video , i have not seen these subjects in previouse Hydrogen subject matter , i myself spent many years involved in automoive ICE development And as you said there is no problem to begin whith appart from perhaps ICE component quality vs cost ,planned obsolescence ect in fact ICE engines have never been so clean and we can make them cleaner without the nonsence being proposed many thanks for this super information.
In propper old school engineering (what do you put in - what do you get out) diesel engines are the future.....but the powers that be killed them. Imagine a straight 6 diesel with a turbo and a nitrous oxide capture a re-injection. Probably too nerdy for this channel but folks, we are being conned at every turn.
Another great video and thank you for all the work you put into your videos , it does make it much easier for a layman such as me to understand and thank goodness for all your good knowledge on these subjects .
Great content . Just to echo what you said . There is no way to keep hydrogen liquid above -240 c , so inorder to carry reasonable amount s of hydrogen fuel you are left with very high pressure vessels .
I believe you would require 4 x as much hydrogen to create the same level of energy as natural gas, if so that would mean force the gas through the existing pipe network much faster, which can’t be done, plus hydrogen burns in air to create NOX 🤔
Thank you Paul for all your hard work. We appreciate your continued hard work. Looking forward to your comments on the Cardiff energy fiasco. More environmental damage to save the planet!
If you thought hydrogen storage was bonkers, check out the plans to build the world's largest LAES (Liquid Air Energy Storage) plant in Scotland. It involves using surplus renewable energy to cool air into a liquid, which can then be heated up to operate turbines during peak loads. Apparently this will store 2.5GwH, with no indication of the cost per GwH, but the Bravehearts on the SNP Newspaper comments section seem to think this will be a good ruse to control England's power supply :-) Now they REALLY are bonkers.......
What the hell? So they want to expend loads of energy to store air, so they can blow it at the windmills to make some more energy? At some point, they’ll twig and put everyone on any form of benefit to work pedalling a bike generator for 12 hours a day (or have your benefit stopped). These people are bonkers.
I think they want the high costs. That works for the super rich people so they can control the rest of us. None of us will be able to afford transport with the massive rising costs. I think we should stick to oil and gas, because that is the way forward.
Are those new gas powered generating stations only being allowed because we may only have 10 years of gas supply left in the North Sea, giving a convenient excuse to convert them to hydrogen, import hugely expensive LNG from America or cancel the ban on Russian gas. Obvious answer to me would be start fracking and stop relying on imported electricity, or the gas to generate power in the UK.
Carbon capture and storage, possibly the stupidest answer to an imaginary problem yet. Henry's Law explains how cold water absorbs gases from the atmosphere and warm water releases them, so rising CO2 levels are beyond our control as the oceans contain 50-100 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. On any timescale where these processes are detectable, temperature change ALWAYS leads CO2 levels, so it is because the planet is warmer that CO2 has increased, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Satellites have detected that since the turn of the century, plant growth has increased by around 18%, or twice the area of the USA, which far exceeds the amount of CO2 that our "emissions" have ever added. You can find an article at NASA's website that confirms this. Nature circulates more than our annual contribution to the carbon cycle every few days, rendering our emissions into background noise. The notion that it is only our emissions that remain in the atmosphere and accumulate year on year is abject nonsense. There are far larger processes at work. CCS will have ZERO effect on these processes.
Much, much dafter. Mindless, I’d say. And for what? Just to brag about achieving a pointless target to avoid a non-crisis whilst creating an economic one.
Thanks for that Paul, it was really enlightening. What a pity the poly's do not want to understand the studies and ideas you and others report. Hope the op went well.
Hi Paul. We seem to go round in ever decreasing circles , till eventually we will discover that physics and thermodynamics have to be the deciding factor . The energy contained within a fossil fuel per given unit has no existing rival , and definitely not one that doesn’t produce more carbon in its production . But this is totally lost on those who are trying to achieve the impossible , of course we may one day find a way but that’s years away if ever . Meanwhile we have to live and prosper to get to the future in the first place . As a point of interest Paul a certain Lord has a new video out , if you can manage to track it down ? 😀👍
Hi Paul, thank you for your excellent and detailed work - it is appreciated. My house is probably one of the closest to the proposed Hynet scheme in Cheshire. On thursday they are hosting an opportunity to go and ask questions. This is not a public meeting or presentation but you walk in and talk to them. They are clearly scared of a community debate and meeting. I will be raising this with my MP and the local councillors. Do you have any advice on questions to ask from the Hynet team?
How does carbon created from renewables = net zero? All those wind turbines and batteries in electric cars creates a lot of carbon in their manufacture.
On percentages, if something doubles in cost, that's a 100% increase and it costs 200% of what it was before. The "increases" in the video didn't subtract the original 100%.
the % increase = %now - %before. we take the 100% it costs now minus the 50% it costed before....100% - 50% = 50%. the increase is only 50%. ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Hydrogen does make sense for jet engines because of its significantly higher energy density than aviation fuel. Carbon fibre tanks are old hat. Graphene based tanks are under development for air frames, reducing the weight of the aircraft thus improving operational efficiency. The notion is to use excess wind energy that we are paying for anyway for when wind turbines are switched off when demand is low (something you have criticised previously).
my recently installed boiler is rated as being ok with 20% hydrogen. As for the pipes in the house to it no one will comment ( cast iron ) . the pipe to the meter was recently lined with a plastic tube ( ergo smaller !! )
@ClimateRealism Don't you need austenitic 316 stainless steel for hydrogen ? Doable but eyewateringly expensive. Maybe a sleeved composite solution could be developed, although those pesky small hydrogen molecules like to diffuse out of pressurised systems. I was looking at a carbon fibre compressed hydrogen vehicle fuel tank recently at an exhibition and was not very convinced by either its longevity or crashworthiness prospects.
One US gallon of gasoline has a density of 2.85769 kg, 13% (0.3715 kg) is (efficient) hydrogen, 87% (2.48619 kg) is (inefficient) carbon, 0.3715 kg of hydrogen * 33.33333 kwh of hydrogen energy = 12.38333 kwh of hydrogen energy per gallon. So my gas tank holds 21.4 US gallons, (61.15 kg) and 13% (7.95 kg) is hydrogen. Fuel efficiency for my machine is 513 miles ÷ 21.4 gallons = 24 miles per gallon. But, I can increase efficiency simply by converting miles per gallon of gasoline to miles per kg of hydrogen, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 0.3715 = 64.53 miles per kilogram of hydrogen. Or I can decrease efficiency by converting to miles per kg of gasoline, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 2.85769 = 8.39 miles per kg of gasoline. Or electric, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 12.38333 = 1.94 miles per kwh. Or I can convert to, 7950 ÷ 513 = 15.5 grams of hydrogen per mile. So I’m already burning hydrogen and it’s all good and I really don’t care about any problems shell might have with production, until the gasoline is in my tank, it ain’t my problem.
Can I ask a fundamental question? How do we KNOW water is H2O? We believe but do we know? Does the hydrogen come from the water or the breakdown of the electrode? I’ve seen a couple of videos doubting the whole make up of air and water. Do we have yet another huge proposed change in how we live based on a story?
Yes but the journeys were tiny and the fuel tanks occupied an enormous part of the plane - the entire point is that the fuel is incredibly expensive and there is no CO2 savings unless you use green hydrogen plus it makes the plane at least half it carrying capacity. Why do you think they converted it to gas?
I was trying to support your point. The flight time of Tu-155 on hydrogen was 120mins and only 1 of 3 engines was on hydrogen, and if you look at cabin layout it takes most of the room. There is link to a Russian article which I cannot post her, which goes into great detail on safety and other systems needed for commercial use, and also why they switched to LNG
I like our debates. My point here was that a superpower has built a commercial hydrogen liner during energy crysis and abandoned it, so it's a stronger example than a few privateers having a go.
Despite Alstom's "defective" German trains, hydrogen fuel cell trains would save huge infrastructure and train costs for the Trans-Penine route that would otherwise be electrified. Many existing tunnels are too small to accommodate catenary. New tunnels would be much smaller and bridges would not need to be reinforced to carry the 2,500V overhead catenary or trains to have pentograms and associated onboard equipment. The economics are not as simple as described here.
The trans-Pennine route is fine with diesel trains, no? The rush to electrify at all costs isn’t practical. (It’s pantograph, not pentagram, though the idea of Sheffielders sending trains topped with pentagrams to the wrong side of the Pennines tickles me 😂)
@@ClimateRealism Yes I agree on the C02 issue. They are currently looking at India and other countries with pollution problems. The idea would be to fit it to all the Tuk Tuks. The owners of the vehicles cant afford a catalytic converter but could easily afford to fit a TSG. The Indian government may even mandate its use.
In your car comparison did you take into account that petrol and diesel you pay VAT on the fuel duty, so effectively 52.9p per litre means about 10.5p VAT on the duty?
Hi Paul I agree and disagree at the same time let me explain, pumping hydrogen or transportation around the country is stupid for all the reasons you stated. However, because we are paying wind farms to stop production of electricity when the wind blows too much this is also stupid. So what I would propose is one large electric to hydrogen conversion plant with storage on site and when the wind does not blow the hydrogen can be converted back to electricity. The grid could divert excess power to he plant when it is oversupplied and call on it for power when required. Yes I know and understand we lose about 70% of the energy, but for load balancing it could work. Of course not building all these stupid windmills is the real answer but our current energy minister is hell bent on building the dam things so if he gets his way the hydrogen balancing might be the only way to stop paying these wind farms to do nothing. What do you think?
Keith, you may be surprised at how little high level wind generation there is, it is a small fraction of overall wind generation. A small scale analysis showed (over a nine year period) that wind generation only exceeded 80% nameplate (i.e. full output) for approximately one week in a year, it was at or below 20% nameplate for twenty weeks of the year. This is due to the fact that power output of a wind turbine varies as the cube of wind speed. Thus small wind speed variation makes a large power output variation. Any large plant like a hydrogen hydroliser and compression \storage requires full power 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It's not a part time operation.
@@ClimateRealism I'm not so sure if you used the site of an old coal power station it would be connected to the grid. Giving you cone tion for excess power in and out, you store the hydrogen you make when we have too much green energy, stored under pressure and when you need it use the hydrogen like gas to make power that you feed back into the grid. Think of it like a hydrogen denoric
No - the cost is many times the cost of gas energy. You actually start with say expensive wind, the surplus is the same price as the used stuff, then lose a lot of energy - di you actually watch the video?
@@ClimateRealism Maybe i don't spell it correctly. It is known that many wind farms are stopped when is sunny or energy from solar is abudant about noon, so instead of disconecing it can be used to produce hydrogen in those moments (we don't have industrial scale storage for now). And i don't insist to use this hydrogen as fuel to drive cars etc., it can be easily burn in gas powerstations or used to make other needed chemicals.
@@AK-vx4dy Sorry, you miss the point. They spat wind energy is at full price, we even pay them to switch off at full price. So you would take high price energy , store it and convert back to electric at huge costs losing up to 70% of the energy en route. That is madness.
This is how politicians think. Since we pay windfarms NOT to produce energy, then if they DO produce energy, it's free and so hydrogen is cheap. Reality, you just paid £200/MWh for the energy, and then pump into hydrogen so that's what £500+ or whatever numbers Paul used in his Video.
I agree with you about all things except the biggest one, that climate change isn't happening. If it isn't then how come we have these effects. We have no snow or real winters anymore. We have every single glasier melting and retreating. We have rain on Greenland. We have sea surface temperature at 5 degrees c above normal, which is a huge anomaly. We have shrinking sea ice volume and no multi year ice. We have temperature records falling day after day. We have more moisture in the atmosphere leading to poor summers and higher rainfall events. These are just a few things that seam to prove the climate change theory to me. I'd also like to say that even if it wasn't happening then we are still poisoning the environment and killing off all the flora and fauna which we rely on for survival with our growth and activities. Where are the insects and the birds and why are you not concerned about the 6th mass extinction that is taking place at a rapid pace. You seam very relaxed that everything is a OK while anyone with eyes can see that we are in deep trouble caused by our overshooting of our planets carrying capacity.
you I agree with you about all things except the biggest one, that climate change isn't happening. Me I say it is happening. The alarmists say it is not a nay change must be caused by man. You If it isn't then how come we have these effects. We have no snow or real winters anymore. Me we have left the little ice age - part of climate change. You We have every single glasier melting and retreating. Me Simply not true but even if it was it is nothing more than normal cycles. YOU We have rain on Greenland. Me Greenland has been stable for many years. The mass balance has little to no change. YOU We have sea surface temperature at 5 degrees c above normal, which is a huge anomaly. Me Simply not true, totally untrue. YOU We have shrinking sea ice volume and no multi year ice. Me Again not true You We have temperature records falling day after day. Me Totally untrue and based on absurd airport and UHI tmeprtures. YOU We have more moisture in the atmosphere leading to poor summers and higher rainfall events. Me True as we warmed the atmosphere has more moisture but fewer droughts and floods. YOU These are just a few things that seam to prove the climate change theory to me. I'd also like to say that even if it wasn't happening then we are still poisoning the environment and killing off all the flora and fauna which we rely on for survival with our growth and activities. Me CO2 has caused huge vegatation growth and record harvests. YOU Where are the insects and the birds and why are you not concerned about the 6th mass extinction that is taking place at a rapid pace. You seam very relaxed that everything is a OK while anyone with eyes can see that we are in deep trouble caused by our overshooting of our planets carrying capacity. Me I am sure you mean well but you have fallen for a false narrative. Watch my three Isle of man talks where I cover all of your points.
Where are the glasiers growing then Do you agree that co2 is changing the pH of the sea Do you realise that 60 odd other greenhouse gasses are also warming the environment or are they all doing nothing as well, eg methane, nitrous oxide and many others. Are you saying there is no rise in the sea temps I've watched you other films and haven't the time to do it again. Just breifly what is you response to the collapse of the planets wildlife. We have paved over and industrialised Africa for instance. Do you not think that the huge rise in human populations are a cause for concern. Thanks for the reply Paul. I do love your analysis of the joke that is so called sustainable energy but I think you deliberately miss lead on the real harms. I'm sure not all the measurements of heat records have been taken at airports as you say. I see many of the effects that the climate change people predicted and none that your camp would predict
You can't say at all that co2 has caused record harvests. Harvests are terrible in large parts of the world now due to poor and inconsistent summers, too hot, too cold, too dry then too wet. Any increase in harvests over the years are due to modern firtilisers and pesticides but this has destroyed the living soil and is only a short tearm gain. Its certainly not as you say down to extra co2.
@@jonthornalley1344 NASA states it has caused huge amounts of extra growth - today we have record cereal and rice harvests all over the world - look at World i nDat on google. About 30% of the harvest increase according to NASA etc due to extra CO2 .The plants evolved in CO2 levels 2 to 34 time that of today - it is why we pump it into greenhouses. Watch my videos with all the links and evidence.
30 percent of what increase and since when, I'm sure that's rubbish. I think that the idea that we are producing 30 percent extra crops just because of extra co2 is totally wrong.
@@ClimateRealism thank you for replying , I actually was trying ( and failing , sorry , my appologies ) to point ou the video showing the Hindenburg burning as a " hydrogen event" has often by many others been mis-represented as such as a hydrogen event when the flames can be clearly seen as smokey and therefore Desiel ( used in the engines to manouver the airship). As for you video about the pointless of hydrogen as fuel (its a vector) is much appreciated . Please keep up the good work and I look forward to you next vid.
Not up to your usual high standard, I feel. First, oil. Oil causes wars and supports grotesque hegemonies. Hydrogen, relative to its potential, has been scandalously eschewed. Some further points: -- As I suspected would be the case, you have completely ignored the matter of 'white' (naturally occurring) hydrogen, of which, it is now known, there are *huge* reserves in the USA, France and indeed in all the inhabited continents. White hydrogen was long regarded as the Holy Grail of alternative energy, but governments strangely ignore it. - The costs you speak of are small compared with the cost of manpower and other resources in the $1.5 trillion green-energy industry. - An egregious failing is that you totally ignore the fact that industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysis could be carried out in, for example, the Sahara desert using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's rays to a point. There is talk of using airships to transport it; but other options are boat and pipeline. -- Hydrogen storage tanks can be re-used thousands of times; the issues you speak of are minor. -- Sources other than yours were placing the fuel costs at just a few pence per mile above petrol and that was *before* the massive price rises of the past couple of years! And you did not so much as mention the fact that when the infrastructure is geared towards hydrogen, the cost both of production of vehicles and of fuel drops dramatically! - You speak of hydrogen-powered vehicles without distinguishing between the two kinds, which have very different performance: the fuel cell (which uses iridium) and the combustion engine (which doesn't, and H2 ICE technology has come on in leaps and bounds). Hydrogen-fuel vehicles are now in superb shape -- look, for example, at what JCB have managed to do with it! -- Ambulances in the UK currently run on hydrogen, and are doing very well because of it! You give no details as to why the hydrogen bus project fell out of favour. -- Regarding contemporary politics, the issue of using hydrogen for vehicles is surely secondary to production for the National Grid. (Nevertheless hydrogen for short-haul flights is looking extremely promising, with refuelling costs being ridiculously small). I can't see why you attack hydrogen power. It offers a superb and glaringly obvious alternative to covering our countryside with toxic solar panels and windfarms.
You First, oil. Oil causes wars and supports grotesque hegemonies. Hydrogen, relative to its potential, has been scandalously eschewed. Some further points: Me Silly point - people cause wars. YOU -- As I suspected would be the case, you have completely ignored the matter of 'white' (naturally occurring) hydrogen, of which, it is now known, there are huge reserves in the USA, France and indeed in all the inhabited continents. White hydrogen was long regarded as the Holy Grail of alternative energy, but governments strangely ignore it. ME White hydrogen is tiny in scale as a replace,ent for fossil fumes and you still have all the other costs. You - The costs you speak of are small compared with the cost of the wastage of manpower and other resources in the $1.5 trillion green-energy industry. ME Do not understand your point. YOU - An egregious failing is that you totally ignore the fact that industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysis could be carried out in, for example, the Sahara desert using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's rays to a point. There is talk of using airships to transport it; but other options are boat and pipeline. ME Total dreamworld codswallop. YOU - Hydrogen storage tanks can be re-used thousands of times; the issues you speak of are minor. ME I giveat this point, you are making dreamworld claims that belong to another planet. -
@@ClimateRealism I venture to suggest that the reason the German hydrogen bus project was called off is that it showed itself to be too good. Didn't you know that Western governments want to cut us off from nature and phase out farming by telling us that covering our countryside with solar and wind farms is the only viable option?
@@ClimateRealism + I venture to suggest that the reason the German bus project was pulled is that hydrogen started looking *too* good as an alternative.
Why have you totally ignored Hydrogen Internal Combution Engines? How do you propose to minimise Wind Turbine Curtailment costs if they aren't used to generate Hydrogen for energy storage? You've said yourself that batteries, pumped hydro, etc aren't practical storage tech. Why can't Hydrogen be stored uncompressed in facilities such as the Rough natural gas storage facility. I'm not a net zero fan and would much sooner stay with fossil fuels, but you've criticised others for ignoring parts of the net zero discussion (such as storage costs) and here you seem to be guilty of the same sin yourself.
Thisis a video on the NESO report. Please watch my video on hydrogen to understand why it is nuts. th-cam.com/video/RPvQZgafvzA/w-d-xo.html I do not want the wind farms at all and the idea of using the excess power which is still at full price to make hydrogen is absurd. I cannot cover all subjects in one video and have over 160 videos out on climate change - you are being unfair in stating I ignored anything. Wow should not be building the wind farms to begin with.
a laugh a minute as usual - the potential (but not real) increase in cost arising from a loss of converting 100 kwh to 38kwh is 163% , not 263% . Anything else you are deluded about?
Think of not this way - a person gets 38Kwh of energy and pays for it. However they are charged for the 100KWh hence they pay 263% more than they should have - I was correct. It costs 263% more to buy your electric 100/38 = 2.63 You are so quick to ignore the entire point of the movie and try to jump on your gotcha moment - where were all the other laughs a minute?
What you mean is that there is an additional 163% of expense. However if you pat twice as much for something which is the context I was using, then you pay 200% more as a ratio.
@@ClimateRealism Thankyou for very good effort at focusing on facts, rather than some worth-less opinion pieces on the issues. Uninformed opinions drive politically silly decisions... BUT both "sides" suffer from a similar ignorance spectrum. Your video isn't free from cherry-picked numbers or subtle jibes at the "others". Here are some more facts... rebuttal welcome... Firstly, there is global scientific consensus that climate change at a damaging level is indeed being driven by human activity, and we're only just seeing the start of it. Constricting CO2 outflow is only part of what's required to limit damaging levels of climate change. It's really not a non-existent threat, as may be the opinion of some. Asking someone if we spend $$$£££¥¥¥€€€ to reach net zero how much it's going to reverse the situation is silly. Presently the focus is only about trying to avoid the problem getting worse. We've benefited greatly by exploting fossil fuels, but it was only back in the 1970s that some people foresaw we're borrowing from a future where the real costs might be incurred later. Reaching net zero is the start, and it is a cost we should bear for past activity of ancestors. This is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for politicians that need to demonstrate positive results of their policies before the next election. They can't: it's a global problem, and everyone looking after their own back yard is the only attainable goal, for now. Adding a new government department somewhat protected from the whims of politicians is a great idea. Hydrogen storage has been touted as a great buffer, but consensus is definitely slewing to other forms of storage. Batteries incredible drop in price, and their ability to prop up supply, maintain voltage and frequency and compensate for reactive power within milliseconds is demonstrable. These 4hr storage devices will continue to be part of the grid as they do an even better job than huge steam turbines. Your point made about combined cycle gas generators is moot in the light if this. They'll respond in a timely enough manner given the increasing amount of short-term storage. It's also misleading not to distinguish between gas powered steam engines (traditional) and gas fuelled turbines, which can respond very quickly... and are present in combined cycle generating anyway. Capturing CO2 has nothing to do with dispatchability, combined cycle or not. The propaganda film is pretty darn rose-coloured, oversimplifying as you've said. I believe this isn't the product of informed people, but some people trying to sugar-coat those aforementioned nasty pills. The elephant in the room is the premise that these newly efficient gas generators are only a practical stop-gap implementation before better long-term storage and other dispatchable generation can come online. Catering for multiple fuels is useful, but it is indeed silly unless the H2 is generated with *free* electricity... which it can be in times of curtailment. Key idea: the last thing you really want to do is H2 combustion for energy generation. You can, in a pinch, but it's misleading the uninformed that it's a fundamental part of the strategy. Even when net zero is reached, and in a pinch you might burn up all your stored H2, it's not a complete failure to pull up some CH4 to tide you over. It's silly to focus on bichrome absolutes. There's another key idea missed in the propaganda: it makes much more sense to electrify as much as possible. Upcoming medium term storage is going to shake up any numbers one might calculate today. The energy landscape is full of quick to market innovations. It makes much more sense to generate H2 onsite, or nearby, than retrofit long pipes. Steelmaking, and fertiliser production that contribute greatly to worldwide emissions can be making H2 just-in-time reducing need for storage. The sugar-coating is in the propaganda's pretense that spending can be mitigated by reusing old pipelines. It's been/being tested that CH4/H2 mixes in existing pipes are viable... in the short term. That's the thing about transitions, keeping stuff working long enough until everyone converts to heat-pumps, for example, while taking positive action sooner rather than later. Similarly in road transport, the recent price drops of batteries reduces H2 viability, where once it might have been considered. Shipping though... maybe, however in the end I believe green NH3 will be the winner. It works in cars too, but batteries have the momentum. Aircraft are unlikely to make changes to their fuels, given safety requirements, justifiably so... regardless of practicalities of squeezing H2 or NH3 into the fuselage. Synthetic fuels can only be mandated, with additional costs being bourne by passengers, justifiably so. H2 storage does have applications like those quiet shipping container sized temporary power-packs replacing temporary diesel monsters. You did muddle up energy density though. By weight, H2 has huge energy, which is let down by its by volume metric. Don't forget that cryogenically or compressed H2 also require energy input to counter the cooling effect of its expansion. Good application for rocket nozzles mind. Conversion to NH3 hugely mitigates the storage problem. It only takes a bit of catalyst to split a tad to H2 to make it satisfactorily combustible... which makes retrofitting combustion engines possible, but I feel only practical for huge expensive ships that could find a bit more room to store the fuel. Your cost computations are disingenuous as you pick sources that fit an argument. Why talk about costs of green hydrogen generation quickly followed by a graph about how pointless it its to use hydrogen because of the current CO2 releases in generation. Shame on your picking without clarifying context. CCS with fossil extraction as a comparison would carry less bias, but the error bands on this prediction, you'll agree, have to be even wider than those with a myriad of water splitting technologies being tested. So don't make a big deal about something that no sane body is claiming a panacea anyway. We agree uninformed propaganda and decision makers aren't to be believed, and we should stick to facts. Yet halfway through the presentation your good self has strayed. It's wrong to say you can't drink the water generated in a fuel cell. It's right to say you can't leave it exposed outdoors without some heating in subzero conditions. It's poor form not to acknowledge the usefulness of fuel cells when this isn't the case. Batteries nowadays are the more sensible energy store in busses, fuel cells are the more sensible energy store to accompany thirsty astronauts to the moon. The efficiency of combined cycle power generation doesn't come from an option to add H2 into the mix, but from wasting less heat - technology fact. I'm pretty sure the current builds of gas power generation are due to pragmatism. New builds are much more efficient than all other fossil power options, and can accelerate the retirement of older inefficient infrastructure. No need to sugar-coat the likelihood they'll be increasingly be relegated to those "limited" in-a-pinch moments, in which case you'll just have to cope with volatile fossil's market prices. Bonus: everyone should know that newer chemistry batteries now entering the market, especially for static storage, don't suffer from the same thermal runaway issues as possible in your smartphone. An essay in the interest of truth.
@@ChrisNotTheKing OK, nice long comment deserving answers. YOU "Firstly, there is global scientific consensus that climate change at a damaging level is indeed being driven by human activity, and we're only just seeing the start of it. Constricting CO2 outflow is only part of what's required to limit damaging levels of climate change. It's really not a non-existent threat, as may be the opinion of some." Answer There is no such thing as a consensus in science. Its meaningless. Watch my IoM part 1 talk, I discuss that very point. YOU Asking someone if we spend $$$£££¥¥¥€€€ to reach net zero how much it's going to reverse the situation is silly. Presently the focus is only about trying to avoid the problem getting worse. We've benefited greatly by exploting fossil fuels, but it was only back in the 1970s that some people foresaw we're borrowing from a future where the real costs might be incurred later. Answer What is getting worse? Extreme weather has reduced since 1850, so the basis of your point is incorrect. Cost matters in the real world. YOU Reaching net zero is the start, and it is a cost we should bear for past activity of ancestors. This is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for politicians that need to demonstrate positive results of their policies before the next election. They can't: it's a global problem, and everyone looking after their own back yard is the only attainable goal, for now. Adding a new government department somewhat protected from the whims of politicians is a great idea. Answer All based on swallowing the cool aid with actually providing evidence. YOU Hydrogen storage has been touted as a great buffer, but consensus is definitely slewing to other forms of storage. Answer Facts matter. The video dis that. YOUBatteries incredible drop in price, and their ability to prop up supply, maintain voltage and frequency and compensate for reactive power within milliseconds is demonstrable. These 4hr storage devices will continue to be part of the grid as they do an even better job than huge steam turbines. Answe Total ,totally nonsense. Costs are so way out it is unacceptable. YOU Your point made about combined cycle gas generators is moot in the light if this. They'll respond in a timely enough manner given the increasing amount of short-term storage. It's also misleading not to distinguish between gas powered steam engines (traditional) and gas fuelled turbines, which can respond very quickly... and are present in combined cycle generating anyway. Capturing CO2 has nothing to do with dispatchability, combined cycle or not. Answer That is simply wrong. CCS gas takes time to respond and it is why open cycle gas is preferred. YOU The propaganda film is pretty darn rose-coloured, oversimplifying as you've said. I believe this isn't the product of informed people, but some people trying to sugar-coat those aforementioned nasty pills. The elephant in the room is the premise that these newly efficient gas generators are only a practical stop-gap implementation before better long-term storage and other dispatchable generation can come online. Catering for multiple fuels is useful, but it is indeed silly unless the H2 is generated with free electricity... which it can be in times of curtailment. Answer There is no long term viable storage. Sorry but I have to stop there. Your questions are founded on a belief and everything you are stating is simple based on that rather than evidence. rI think you are honest and sincere but you has accepted based belief that is simply wrong.
Well Paul I worked in the gas industry for 39 years. Gas pressure.managment then the national grid working for National Grid. I dod pig runs and other major operations and can tell you the system is failing apart. Nothing works.... So hydrogen is a joke. I had the hydrogen team on the phone to me asking for advice because they haven't got a clue. And we are being fed this nonsense. I'm one of the few left that looked after gas holder stations. In my younger days I used to be in contact with brilliant engineers who would guide me. They we're like statemen who had a lot of respect for me. You remind me of these fine gentlemen all gone now. I respected these gentlemen who weren't looking for praise but appreciated people like myself who would look to them for there wisdom and advice. They're all gone..... But you are one of them ❤
That made my day. Thank you.
@@ClimateRealism ♥️
Does using hydrogen in gas mains not require the return of the local gas holder. Can not see how with hydrogen pump stations can control pressure. Hydrogen, expensive to manufacture and difficult to supply to domestic users. Don't understand how it would work.. No one yet answered any of the problems
@@caterthun4853 Gas holders stored a tiny tiny amount of very low pressure gas. After coal gas were used to supplement the distribution network at peak demands then refilled off peak. The gas storage you refer to stored in high pressure pipelines by simply increasing up to 90 bar. Or salt cavities (which I believe are not used here anymore, not sure) But the lower pressure distribution network increased from around 2bar to around 7bar which was the end of gas holders. The hydrogen will simply be pumped into the network. How they can make as much hydrogen as there is has beyond me. It's all part of the massive con to control us.
As producing hydrogen is so expensive (both in energy and financial terms) I can only see it being useful where energy is abundant but would be wasted if not stored or where other sources are more expensive.
I would examine its use by wind farms when they are producing electricty the grid doesn't need. They are still paid in that situation. Only paying them if the energy is stored and delivered to the grid later would mean at least we get something for our money. Especially if that storage has to be of a certain efficiency. This would motivate those produces to drive storage efficiency. Gradually increasing that efficiency factor overtime may also help.
Excellent video, Paul - I did laugh out loud (in a sarcastic cackle-kind of way) at the 100kw of energy used to produce 38kw!! 🤦♀
Thanks I hope your operation goes well.
NESO already issued a blackout warning today (retracted later on), earlier this winter than expected.
Thanks, Paul. I await, with a certain amount of glee, the moment when the 'rock' [=every Government's abject failure to ever admit to making a mistake] meets 'a hard place' [=reality]. Something's got to give soon.
We just aren't putting enough things on top of other things. The last Government put fewer than 5 things on top of other things and backtracked on the previous Labour Government's plans to bridge both peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro. This Government have already put dozens of things on top of other things - suits, dresses, glasses, Taylor Swift concert tickets, sausages. I've been very impressed seeing them touring factories and hospitals dressed just like real workers, asking "And what does this machine do?" - "This is the machine that goes PING!" - "Very impressive! Carry on!" - It IS a carry on.
Carbon capture and hydrogen are just different ends of the same turd. Energy intensive for absolutely no gain or purpose. I'm nit sure which is the more insane.
Great work once again Paul. Hope your operation is successful and look forward to more factual information. All the best.
I just can’t get over the slick presentation on hydrogen as the wundarfuel of the future. As though the thermodynamics and engineering of the process was oh SO Simple!! It’s like the human race has been so silly as to burn hydrocarbons when hydrogen was the amazingly versatile energy we’ve been looking for all the time. Heavens above is our futures going to be cold and hungry - with occasionally explosions of hydrogen - adopting this dystopian hydrocarbon fuel free future. Who thinks up the drivel?
I received 2 leaflets amongst this morning’s mail. One was about Public consultation meetings for the Mersey Tidal Energy project and the other was information on how to prepare for power cuts. Ironic or what. Hydrogen is yet another bonkers “Net Zero” idea. Good luck with the operation Paul
See my video where is cover the Liverpool tidal energy madness
th-cam.com/video/W9UTilAGSqQ/w-d-xo.html
I wish you all the best for your operation, and thank you for everything you do.
Many thanks for an informative and measured video that tells the truth
The lunacy of all these fringe renewable solutions never ceases to amaze me! How on earth is it possible that so many politicians all over the world are taken in by all of this? There is no way in hell that I will own a hydrogen car or use a transport fleet, whether bus, train, or airline. All you have to do is send out thousands of copies of the Hindenburg explosion video to convince everyone of how futile and stupid the idea that hydrogen is an alternative fuel for any normal transport is.
The Government's are all following the WEF agenda. I believe most of them are fully aware that it won't work, the others are stupid enough the actually believe it will work.
Why does every climate truth video have nil carbon adverts locked in. I am sick of all the propaganda from the climate freaks
Let the propaganda adds play out. You are immune to them so you are draining their funds and hopefully some money goes to the producer of the truthful content. Enjoy monetising the enemy!
It's a cult ! I use a browser called *b*r*a*v*e. Without the stars, obviously . I hope this helps
Thank you again Paul, and yes, I too hope your operation resolves the problem. However, the glasses are cool. Maybe keep them!
They live!
Im all for sticking to fossil fuels, not even going towards alcohol fuel mixtures for public use is a good idea.
Unfortunately, subjects such as science and engineering have taken a back seat with our political class and education system. This is why many of us are in for a rude awakening in the coming years. It’ll probably be too late by then.
Thank you for keeping us informed Paul. Much appreciated.
Good luck with your ooeration and thank you for all the informative videos.
They are making us poorer for a fairy tale
Thanks Paul!
That is a very silly walk indeed
Yes but it matches the walk towards Net Zero.😀
Paul. They've already started replacing the old pipe network. They did our area about four months ago. Talking to the workmen, they'd been told it was part of a switch to methane and hydrogen mix.
Its an excuse just like the new gas stations.
Happened in my area a while ago.
But it works perfectly fine in SimCity
Thank you for this very practical and informative video , i have not seen these subjects in previouse Hydrogen subject matter , i myself spent many years involved in automoive ICE development
And as you said there is no problem to begin whith appart from perhaps ICE component quality vs cost ,planned obsolescence ect in fact ICE engines have never been so clean and we can make them cleaner without the nonsence being proposed many thanks for this super information.
BANG ! Saw you on voice of Wales yesterday, informative and very funny ! Keep on doing what you do. Much respect. 😎
Yes, an appearance without glasses because it was at a distance. Striches out on Friday.
In propper old school engineering (what do you put in - what do you get out) diesel engines are the future.....but the powers that be killed them. Imagine a straight 6 diesel with a turbo and a nitrous oxide capture a re-injection. Probably too nerdy for this channel but folks, we are being conned at every turn.
Thankyou Paul, please don't give up the fight. You're my my main source of info when I try to wake up friends and family to the climate con.
Hi the 95/5 chart and commentary at 13:20 refer to CO2, whereas it should be H2. Interesting presentation though and I fully agree.
sorry, never noticed that.
Good luck with your operation Paul and keep up the good work. Thank you.
Another great video and thank you for all the work you put into your videos , it does make it much easier for a layman such as me to understand and thank goodness for all your good knowledge on these subjects .
Thank you. I with you on all your points
Great content . Just to echo what you said . There is no way to keep hydrogen liquid above -240 c , so inorder to carry reasonable amount s of hydrogen fuel you are left with very high pressure vessels .
Co2 is the gas of life. But like in 2020 most people are easily fooled by bs.
I believe you would require 4 x as much hydrogen to create the same level of energy as natural gas, if so that would mean force the gas through the existing pipe network much faster, which can’t be done, plus hydrogen burns in air to create NOX 🤔
Yes, as I stated you need 4 times the amount and four times plus the storage.
The hydrogen would strop the pipework.
Thank you Paul for all your hard work. We appreciate your continued hard work.
Looking forward to your comments on the Cardiff energy fiasco. More environmental damage to save the planet!
If you thought hydrogen storage was bonkers, check out the plans to build the world's largest LAES (Liquid Air Energy Storage) plant in Scotland. It involves using surplus renewable energy to cool air into a liquid, which can then be heated up to operate turbines during peak loads. Apparently this will store 2.5GwH, with no indication of the cost per GwH, but the Bravehearts on the SNP Newspaper comments section seem to think this will be a good ruse to control England's power supply :-) Now they REALLY are bonkers.......
I so agree with you. Breaking new thresholds of bonkers.
What the hell? So they want to expend loads of energy to store air, so they can blow it at the windmills to make some more energy?
At some point, they’ll twig and put everyone on any form of benefit to work pedalling a bike generator for 12 hours a day (or have your benefit stopped). These people are bonkers.
Trouble is you cannot argue with stupid !
I bet you could sell MillyBand non-nuclear helium power - it’s VERY safe chemically and can’t pollute anything. 😁
If renewables are so cheap then why do they have to be subsidised
Because they are very, very expensive.
I think they want the high costs. That works for the super rich people so they can control the rest of us. None of us will be able to afford transport with the massive rising costs. I think we should stick to oil and gas, because that is the way forward.
True.
Thank You , Paul....
Are those new gas powered generating stations only being allowed because we may only have 10 years of gas supply left in the North Sea, giving a convenient excuse to convert them to hydrogen, import hugely expensive LNG from America or cancel the ban on Russian gas. Obvious answer to me would be start fracking and stop relying on imported electricity, or the gas to generate power in the UK.
Is carbon capture as daft as it sounds?
Carbon capture and storage, possibly the stupidest answer to an imaginary problem yet. Henry's Law explains how cold water absorbs gases from the atmosphere and warm water releases them, so rising CO2 levels are beyond our control as the oceans contain 50-100 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. On any timescale where these processes are detectable, temperature change ALWAYS leads CO2 levels, so it is because the planet is warmer that CO2 has increased, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Satellites have detected that since the turn of the century, plant growth has increased by around 18%, or twice the area of the USA, which far exceeds the amount of CO2 that our "emissions" have ever added. You can find an article at NASA's website that confirms this.
Nature circulates more than our annual contribution to the carbon cycle every few days, rendering our emissions into background noise. The notion that it is only our emissions that remain in the atmosphere and accumulate year on year is abject nonsense. There are far larger processes at work. CCS will have ZERO effect on these processes.
It worse than that.
Much, much dafter. Mindless, I’d say. And for what? Just to brag about achieving a pointless target to avoid a non-crisis whilst creating an economic one.
Thanks for that Paul, it was really enlightening. What a pity the poly's do not want to understand the studies and ideas you and others report. Hope the op went well.
This is by the Ministry of funny handshakes 👁️
Is there only one knob in the climate change/net zero energy department trying to control CO2?
Yes.
Hi Paul. We seem to go round in ever decreasing circles , till eventually we will discover that physics and thermodynamics have to be the deciding factor . The energy contained within a fossil fuel per given unit has no existing rival , and definitely not one that doesn’t produce more carbon in its production . But this is totally lost on those who are trying to achieve the impossible , of course we may one day find a way but that’s years away if ever . Meanwhile we have to live and prosper to get to the future in the first place . As a point of interest Paul a certain Lord has a new video out , if you can manage to track it down ? 😀👍
My gas bill includes 'volume correction' of 1.022640 which I believe relates to loss within the supply network.
Hi Paul, thank you for your excellent and detailed work - it is appreciated.
My house is probably one of the closest to the proposed Hynet scheme in Cheshire. On thursday they are hosting an opportunity to go and ask questions. This is not a public meeting or presentation but you walk in and talk to them. They are clearly scared of a community debate and meeting. I will be raising this with my MP and the local councillors.
Do you have any advice on questions to ask from the Hynet team?
How does carbon created from renewables = net zero?
All those wind turbines and batteries in electric cars creates a lot of carbon in their manufacture.
Net zero is not zero..It means getting as low as possible. It's wrongly named I think
@@caterthun4853 Do you believe carbon(CO2) is a problem/
It’s carbon Capture again. How I laughed. Do they run on rainbow fairy dust? Unicorn farts?
I love the fact that vw ev cars are advertised on your videos here in nz.....hahaha
The bottom line should always be cost and not suppositions.
On percentages, if something doubles in cost, that's a 100% increase and it costs 200% of what it was before. The "increases" in the video didn't subtract the original 100%.
the % increase = %now - %before. we take the 100% it costs now minus the 50% it costed before....100% - 50% = 50%. the increase is only 50%. ha ha ha
ha ha ha.
@@echelonrank3927 Its all relative !
It all boils down to fooling the public whilst fleecing them of their money.
One Big Moneygrab for the Unicorn believers.
Thanks Greta.😠
Hydrogen does make sense for jet engines because of its significantly higher energy density than aviation fuel. Carbon fibre tanks are old hat. Graphene based tanks are under development for air frames, reducing the weight of the aircraft thus improving operational efficiency. The notion is to use excess wind energy that we are paying for anyway for when wind turbines are switched off when demand is low (something you have criticised previously).
Yes but in practice we actually cannot use the varying demand for the process.
You are a national treasure, good luck with your eye surgery.
This video is roughly saying the exact same things that Robert Bryce said in his article : The H Stands For Hype (May 09 2024}
Are they planning a Hydrogen /Natural gas blend at 10% for the mains pipes
There would be no point in that.
my recently installed boiler is rated as being ok with 20% hydrogen. As for the pipes in the house to it no one will comment ( cast iron ) . the pipe to the meter was recently lined with a plastic tube ( ergo smaller !! )
@@the_forbinproject2777 You cannotmrun hydrogen through any metal pipes.l
@ClimateRealism Don't you need austenitic 316 stainless steel for hydrogen ? Doable but eyewateringly expensive. Maybe a sleeved composite solution could be developed, although those pesky small hydrogen molecules like to diffuse out of pressurised systems. I was looking at a carbon fibre compressed hydrogen vehicle fuel tank recently at an exhibition and was not very convinced by either its longevity or crashworthiness prospects.
@@philhealey4443 It would not work neither should we even pursue trying too solve a problem that does not exist.
One US gallon of gasoline has a density of 2.85769 kg, 13% (0.3715 kg) is (efficient) hydrogen, 87% (2.48619 kg) is (inefficient) carbon, 0.3715 kg of hydrogen * 33.33333 kwh of hydrogen energy = 12.38333 kwh of hydrogen energy per gallon. So my gas tank holds 21.4 US gallons, (61.15 kg) and 13% (7.95 kg) is hydrogen.
Fuel efficiency for my machine is 513 miles ÷ 21.4 gallons = 24 miles per gallon.
But, I can increase efficiency simply by converting miles per gallon of gasoline to miles per kg of hydrogen, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 0.3715 = 64.53 miles per kilogram of hydrogen.
Or I can decrease efficiency by converting to miles per kg of gasoline, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 2.85769 = 8.39 miles per kg of gasoline. Or electric, 513 ÷ 21.4 ÷ 12.38333 = 1.94 miles per kwh.
Or I can convert to, 7950 ÷ 513 = 15.5 grams of hydrogen per mile. So I’m already burning hydrogen and it’s all good and I really don’t care about any problems shell might have with production, until the gasoline is in my tank, it ain’t my problem.
Can I ask a fundamental question? How do we KNOW water is H2O? We believe but do we know? Does the hydrogen come from the water or the breakdown of the electrode? I’ve seen a couple of videos doubting the whole make up of air and water. Do we have yet another huge proposed change in how we live based on a story?
That is all silly nonsense.
Hi Paul, for hydrogen in aviation a better example would be Tu-155 experimental jet that flew 5 times on hydrogen, not the gimmick in the video.
Yes but the journeys were tiny and the fuel tanks occupied an enormous part of the plane - the entire point is that the fuel is incredibly expensive and there is no CO2 savings unless you use green hydrogen plus it makes the plane at least half it carrying capacity. Why do you think they converted it to gas?
I was trying to support your point. The flight time of Tu-155 on hydrogen was 120mins and only 1 of 3 engines was on hydrogen, and if you look at cabin layout it takes most of the room. There is link to a Russian article which I cannot post her, which goes into great detail on safety and other systems needed for commercial use, and also why they switched to LNG
I like our debates. My point here was that a superpower has built a commercial hydrogen liner during energy crysis and abandoned it, so it's a stronger example than a few privateers having a go.
The rich making money on ir
Despite Alstom's "defective" German trains, hydrogen fuel cell trains would save huge infrastructure and train costs for the Trans-Penine route that would otherwise be electrified. Many existing tunnels are too small to accommodate catenary. New tunnels would be much smaller and bridges would not need to be reinforced to carry the 2,500V overhead catenary or trains to have pentograms and associated onboard equipment. The economics are not as simple as described here.
I agree, I have simplified but the trains did not work and the green hydrogen would be super expensive. Why not just normal engines?
The trans-Pennine route is fine with diesel trains, no? The rush to electrify at all costs isn’t practical.
(It’s pantograph, not pentagram, though the idea of Sheffielders sending trains topped with pentagrams to the wrong side of the Pennines tickles me 😂)
Paul: How did you get on with your investigation of the cavitation/ball lightning device the Thunderstorm Generator?
I think it has legs, not on CO2 but ion the other gases it greatly reduces. Its a long road to acceptance though.
@@ClimateRealism Yes I agree on the C02 issue. They are currently looking at India and other countries with pollution problems. The idea would be to fit it to all the Tuk Tuks. The owners of the vehicles cant afford a catalytic converter but could easily afford to fit a TSG. The Indian government may even mandate its use.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 that movie
sooo funny
it's as tho they have never looked at the periodic table
😂🤣😂🤣
using same pipes! 😂🤣
it's a low carbon gas 😂🤣😂🤣
french have made their nukes follow wind - they can vary by 50% , obviuosly its not very efficent
In your car comparison did you take into account that petrol and diesel you pay VAT on the fuel duty, so effectively 52.9p per litre means about 10.5p VAT on the duty?
YES, that is right .I was aware off it when I ran through the video but let it go - it makes the position even worse.
There was loads of airships years ago and they were safe.
Yes and I did not enter the debate on hydrogen safety and declared at the outset the dangers could be mitigated.
they were helium filled - the source of the helium is nat gas wells . er no problem here, right ?
Anything coming on the recent hurricane Milton Paul? All i heard was various outlets blaming climate change and the warm seas
Video coming out soon.
In the meantime DeSantis explains some home truths.
th-cam.com/video/Xw98QrscDnQ/w-d-xo.html
Hi Paul I agree and disagree at the same time let me explain, pumping hydrogen or transportation around the country is stupid for all the reasons you stated. However, because we are paying wind farms to stop production of electricity when the wind blows too much this is also stupid. So what I would propose is one large electric to hydrogen conversion plant with storage on site and when the wind does not blow the hydrogen can be converted back to electricity. The grid could divert excess power to he plant when it is oversupplied and call on it for power when required. Yes I know and understand we lose about 70% of the energy, but for load balancing it could work. Of course not building all these stupid windmills is the real answer but our current energy minister is hell bent on building the dam things so if he gets his way the hydrogen balancing might be the only way to stop paying these wind farms to do nothing. What do you think?
Your proposal wouldn't work. The infrastructure needed would be crippling and even when you have the hydrogen, you have mega issues with its use.
Keith,
you may be surprised at how little high level wind generation there is, it is a small fraction of overall wind generation.
A small scale analysis showed (over a nine year period) that wind generation only exceeded 80% nameplate (i.e. full output) for approximately one week in a year, it was at or below 20% nameplate for twenty weeks of the year. This is due to the fact that power output of a wind turbine varies as the cube of wind speed. Thus small wind speed variation makes a large power output variation.
Any large plant like a hydrogen hydroliser and compression \storage requires full power 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It's not a part time operation.
@@iareid8255 Very good point.
@@ClimateRealism I'm not so sure if you used the site of an old coal power station it would be connected to the grid. Giving you cone tion for excess power in and out, you store the hydrogen you make when we have too much green energy, stored under pressure and when you need it use the hydrogen like gas to make power that you feed back into the grid. Think of it like a hydrogen denoric
@@iareid8255 I bow to your knowledge I thought the wind would be overproducing most windy days
Hydrogen making seems good solution to use excess energy from renewables, wich normaly is lost so 38% to 0% is benefit
No - the cost is many times the cost of gas energy. You actually start with say expensive wind, the surplus is the same price as the used stuff, then lose a lot of energy - di you actually watch the video?
@@ClimateRealism Maybe i don't spell it correctly. It is known that many wind farms are stopped when is sunny or energy from solar is abudant about noon, so instead of disconecing it can be used to produce hydrogen in those moments (we don't have industrial scale storage for now). And i don't insist to use this hydrogen as fuel to drive cars etc., it can be easily burn in gas powerstations or used to make other needed chemicals.
@@AK-vx4dy Sorry, you miss the point.
They spat wind energy is at full price, we even pay them to switch off at full price. So you would take high price energy , store it and convert back to electric at huge costs losing up to 70% of the energy en route. That is madness.
This is how politicians think. Since we pay windfarms NOT to produce energy, then if they DO produce energy, it's free and so hydrogen is cheap.
Reality, you just paid £200/MWh for the energy, and then pump into hydrogen so that's what £500+ or whatever numbers Paul used in his Video.
@@ClimateRealism So we stop pay them to switch off. Madness indeed.
I agree with you about all things except the biggest one, that climate change isn't happening. If it isn't then how come we have these effects.
We have no snow or real winters anymore.
We have every single glasier melting and retreating.
We have rain on Greenland.
We have sea surface temperature at 5 degrees c above normal, which is a huge anomaly.
We have shrinking sea ice volume and no multi year ice.
We have temperature records falling day after day.
We have more moisture in the atmosphere leading to poor summers and higher rainfall events.
These are just a few things that seam to prove the climate change theory to me.
I'd also like to say that even if it wasn't happening then we are still poisoning the environment and killing off all the flora and fauna which we rely on for survival with our growth and activities. Where are the insects and the birds and why are you not concerned about the 6th mass extinction that is taking place at a rapid pace. You seam very relaxed that everything is a OK while anyone with eyes can see that we are in deep trouble caused by our overshooting of our planets carrying capacity.
you
I agree with you about all things except the biggest one, that climate change isn't happening.
Me
I say it is happening. The alarmists say it is not a nay change must be caused by man.
You
If it isn't then how come we have these effects.
We have no snow or real winters anymore.
Me
we have left the little ice age - part of climate change.
You
We have every single glasier melting and retreating.
Me
Simply not true but even if it was it is nothing more than normal cycles.
YOU
We have rain on Greenland.
Me
Greenland has been stable for many years. The mass balance has little to no change.
YOU
We have sea surface temperature at 5 degrees c above normal, which is a huge anomaly.
Me
Simply not true, totally untrue.
YOU
We have shrinking sea ice volume and no multi year ice.
Me
Again not true
You
We have temperature records falling day after day.
Me
Totally untrue and based on absurd airport and UHI tmeprtures.
YOU
We have more moisture in the atmosphere leading to poor summers and higher rainfall events.
Me
True as we warmed the atmosphere has more moisture but fewer droughts and floods.
YOU
These are just a few things that seam to prove the climate change theory to me.
I'd also like to say that even if it wasn't happening then we are still poisoning the environment and killing off all the flora and fauna which we rely on for survival with our growth and activities.
Me
CO2 has caused huge vegatation growth and record harvests.
YOU
Where are the insects and the birds and why are you not concerned about the 6th mass extinction that is taking place at a rapid pace. You seam very relaxed that everything is a OK while anyone with eyes can see that we are in deep trouble caused by our overshooting of our planets carrying capacity.
Me
I am sure you mean well but you have fallen for a false narrative. Watch my three Isle of man talks where I cover all of your points.
Where are the glasiers growing then
Do you agree that co2 is changing the pH of the sea
Do you realise that 60 odd other greenhouse gasses are also warming the environment or are they all doing nothing as well, eg methane, nitrous oxide and many others.
Are you saying there is no rise in the sea temps
I've watched you other films and haven't the time to do it again. Just breifly what is you response to the collapse of the planets wildlife. We have paved over and industrialised Africa for instance. Do you not think that the huge rise in human populations are a cause for concern.
Thanks for the reply Paul. I do love your analysis of the joke that is so called sustainable energy but I think you deliberately miss lead on the real harms. I'm sure not all the measurements of heat records have been taken at airports as you say. I see many of the effects that the climate change people predicted and none that your camp would predict
You can't say at all that co2 has caused record harvests. Harvests are terrible in large parts of the world now due to poor and inconsistent summers, too hot, too cold, too dry then too wet. Any increase in harvests over the years are due to modern firtilisers and pesticides but this has destroyed the living soil and is only a short tearm gain. Its certainly not as you say down to extra co2.
@@jonthornalley1344 NASA states it has caused huge amounts of extra growth - today we have record cereal and rice harvests all over the world - look at World i nDat on google. About 30% of the harvest increase according to NASA etc due to extra CO2 .The plants evolved in CO2 levels 2 to 34 time that of today - it is why we pump it into greenhouses. Watch my videos with all the links and evidence.
30 percent of what increase and since when, I'm sure that's rubbish. I think that the idea that we are producing 30 percent extra crops just because of extra co2 is totally wrong.
the Hinderburg actually shows how the desile burns - hydrogen burn with a blue nearly invisible flame
However that video is complete Rollocks
I never went into the dangers. `Hydrogen burnt first snd it rose.
What video is complete bollocks?
@@ClimateRealism thank you for replying , I actually was trying ( and failing , sorry , my appologies ) to point ou the video showing the Hindenburg burning as a " hydrogen event" has often by many others been mis-represented as such as a hydrogen event when the flames can be clearly seen as smokey and therefore Desiel ( used in the engines to manouver the airship).
As for you video about the pointless of hydrogen as fuel (its a vector) is much appreciated .
Please keep up the good work and I look forward to you next vid.
Not up to your usual high standard, I feel.
First, oil. Oil causes wars and supports grotesque hegemonies. Hydrogen, relative to its potential, has been scandalously eschewed. Some further points:
-- As I suspected would be the case, you have completely ignored the matter of 'white' (naturally occurring) hydrogen, of which, it is now known, there are *huge* reserves in the USA, France and indeed in all the inhabited continents. White hydrogen was long regarded as the Holy Grail of alternative energy, but governments strangely ignore it.
- The costs you speak of are small compared with the cost of manpower and other resources in the $1.5 trillion green-energy industry.
- An egregious failing is that you totally ignore the fact that industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysis could be carried out in, for example, the Sahara desert using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's rays to a point. There is talk of using airships to transport it; but other options are boat and pipeline.
-- Hydrogen storage tanks can be re-used thousands of times; the issues you speak of are minor.
-- Sources other than yours were placing the fuel costs at just a few pence per mile above petrol and that was *before* the massive price rises of the past couple of years! And you did not so much as mention the fact that when the infrastructure is geared towards hydrogen, the cost both of production of vehicles and of fuel drops dramatically!
- You speak of hydrogen-powered vehicles without distinguishing between the two kinds, which have very different performance: the fuel cell (which uses iridium) and the combustion engine (which doesn't, and H2 ICE technology has come on in leaps and bounds). Hydrogen-fuel vehicles are now in superb shape -- look, for example, at what JCB have managed to do with it!
-- Ambulances in the UK currently run on hydrogen, and are doing very well because of it! You give no details as to why the hydrogen bus project fell out of favour.
-- Regarding contemporary politics, the issue of using hydrogen for vehicles is surely secondary to production for the National Grid. (Nevertheless hydrogen for short-haul flights is looking extremely promising, with refuelling costs being ridiculously small).
I can't see why you attack hydrogen power. It offers a superb and glaringly obvious alternative to covering our countryside with toxic solar panels and windfarms.
You
First, oil. Oil causes wars and supports grotesque hegemonies. Hydrogen, relative to its potential, has been scandalously eschewed. Some further points:
Me
Silly point - people cause wars.
YOU
-- As I suspected would be the case, you have completely ignored the matter of 'white' (naturally occurring) hydrogen, of which, it is now known, there are huge reserves in the USA, France and indeed in all the inhabited continents. White hydrogen was long regarded as the Holy Grail of alternative energy, but governments strangely ignore it.
ME
White hydrogen is tiny in scale as a replace,ent for fossil fumes and you still have all the other costs.
You
- The costs you speak of are small compared with the cost of the wastage of manpower and other resources in the $1.5 trillion green-energy industry.
ME
Do not understand your point.
YOU
- An egregious failing is that you totally ignore the fact that industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysis could be carried out in, for example, the Sahara desert using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's rays to a point. There is talk of using airships to transport it; but other options are boat and pipeline.
ME
Total dreamworld codswallop.
YOU
- Hydrogen storage tanks can be re-used thousands of times; the issues you speak of are minor.
ME
I giveat this point, you are making dreamworld claims that belong to another planet.
-
@@ClimateRealism I venture to suggest that the reason the German hydrogen bus project was called off is that it showed itself to be too good. Didn't you know that Western governments want to cut us off from nature and phase out farming by telling us that covering our countryside with solar and wind farms is the only viable option?
@@ClimateRealism + I venture to suggest that the reason the German bus project was pulled is that hydrogen started looking *too* good as an alternative.
@@j.jackj.9057 Sorry there is no reason or evidence to support that claim.
@@ClimateRealism Last time I wrote this my post was deleted (no links were included). But... (see next reply)
Why have you totally ignored Hydrogen Internal Combution Engines? How do you propose to minimise Wind Turbine Curtailment costs if they aren't used to generate Hydrogen for energy storage? You've said yourself that batteries, pumped hydro, etc aren't practical storage tech. Why can't Hydrogen be stored uncompressed in facilities such as the Rough natural gas storage facility.
I'm not a net zero fan and would much sooner stay with fossil fuels, but you've criticised others for ignoring parts of the net zero discussion (such as storage costs) and here you seem to be guilty of the same sin yourself.
Thisis a video on the NESO report.
Please watch my video on hydrogen to understand why it is nuts.
th-cam.com/video/RPvQZgafvzA/w-d-xo.html
I do not want the wind farms at all and the idea of using the excess power which is still at full price to make hydrogen is absurd.
I cannot cover all subjects in one video and have over 160 videos out on climate change - you are being unfair in stating I ignored anything.
Wow should not be building the wind farms to begin with.
a laugh a minute as usual - the potential (but not real) increase in cost arising from a loss of converting 100 kwh to 38kwh is 163% , not 263% . Anything else you are deluded about?
Think of not this way - a person gets 38Kwh of energy and pays for it. However they are charged for the 100KWh hence they pay 263% more than they should have - I was correct. It costs 263% more to buy your electric 100/38 = 2.63
You are so quick to ignore the entire point of the movie and try to jump on your gotcha moment - where were all the other laughs a minute?
What you mean is that there is an additional 163% of expense. However if you pat twice as much for something which is the context I was using, then you pay 200% more as a ratio.
This video should be censored for promulgating untruths of its own
What untruths?
Why not debate the evidence instead of censoring to close discussion.
@@ClimateRealism I did post a comment... several times, and it kept being deleted. Apparently I'm only supposed to write inflammatory comments.
@@ClimateRealism
Thankyou for very good effort at focusing on facts, rather than some worth-less opinion pieces on the issues. Uninformed opinions drive politically silly decisions... BUT
both "sides" suffer from a similar ignorance spectrum.
Your video isn't free from cherry-picked numbers or subtle jibes at the "others". Here are some more facts... rebuttal welcome...
Firstly, there is global scientific consensus that climate change at a damaging level is indeed being driven by human activity, and we're only just seeing the start of it. Constricting CO2 outflow is only part of what's required to limit damaging levels of climate change.
It's really not a non-existent threat, as may be the opinion of some.
Asking someone if we spend $$$£££¥¥¥€€€ to reach net zero how much it's going to reverse the situation is silly. Presently the focus is only about trying to avoid the problem getting worse. We've benefited greatly by exploting fossil fuels, but it was only back in the 1970s that some people foresaw we're borrowing from a future where the real costs might be incurred later.
Reaching net zero is the start, and it is a cost we should bear for past activity of ancestors. This is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for politicians that need to demonstrate positive results of their policies before the next election. They can't: it's a global problem, and everyone looking after their own back yard is the only attainable goal, for now.
Adding a new government department somewhat protected from the whims of politicians is a great idea.
Hydrogen storage has been touted as a great buffer, but consensus is definitely slewing to other forms of storage.
Batteries incredible drop in price, and their ability to prop up supply, maintain voltage and frequency and compensate for reactive power within milliseconds is demonstrable. These 4hr storage devices will continue to be part of the grid as they do an even better job than huge steam turbines.
Your point made about combined cycle gas generators is moot in the light if this. They'll respond in a timely enough manner given the increasing amount of short-term storage. It's also misleading not to distinguish between gas powered steam engines (traditional) and gas fuelled turbines, which can respond very quickly... and are present in combined cycle generating anyway. Capturing CO2 has nothing to do with dispatchability, combined cycle or not.
The propaganda film is pretty darn rose-coloured, oversimplifying as you've said. I believe this isn't the product of informed people, but some people trying to sugar-coat those aforementioned nasty pills. The elephant in the room is the premise that these newly efficient gas generators are only a practical stop-gap implementation before better long-term storage and other dispatchable generation can come online. Catering for multiple fuels is useful, but it is indeed silly unless the H2 is generated with *free* electricity... which it can be in times of curtailment.
Key idea: the last thing you really want to do is H2 combustion for energy generation. You can, in a pinch, but it's misleading the uninformed that it's a fundamental part of the strategy. Even when net zero is reached, and in a pinch you might burn up all your stored H2, it's not a complete failure to pull up some CH4 to tide you over. It's silly to focus on bichrome absolutes.
There's another key idea missed in the propaganda: it makes much more sense to electrify as much as possible. Upcoming medium term storage is going to shake up any numbers one might calculate today. The energy landscape is full of quick to market innovations. It makes much more sense to generate H2 onsite, or nearby, than retrofit long pipes. Steelmaking, and fertiliser production that contribute greatly to worldwide emissions can be making H2 just-in-time reducing need for storage. The sugar-coating is in the propaganda's pretense that spending can be mitigated by reusing old pipelines. It's been/being tested that CH4/H2 mixes in existing pipes are viable... in the short term. That's the thing about transitions, keeping stuff working long enough until everyone converts to heat-pumps, for example, while taking positive action sooner rather than later.
Similarly in road transport, the recent price drops of batteries reduces H2 viability, where once it might have been considered. Shipping though... maybe, however in the end I believe green NH3 will be the winner. It works in cars too, but batteries have the momentum. Aircraft are unlikely to make changes to their fuels, given safety requirements, justifiably so... regardless of practicalities of squeezing H2 or NH3 into the fuselage. Synthetic fuels can only be mandated, with additional costs being bourne by passengers, justifiably so.
H2 storage does have applications like those quiet shipping container sized temporary power-packs replacing temporary diesel monsters.
You did muddle up energy density though. By weight, H2 has huge energy, which is let down by its by volume metric. Don't forget that cryogenically or compressed H2 also require energy input to counter the cooling effect of its expansion. Good application for rocket nozzles mind.
Conversion to NH3 hugely mitigates the storage problem.
It only takes a bit of catalyst to split a tad to H2 to make it satisfactorily combustible... which makes retrofitting combustion engines possible, but I feel only practical for huge expensive ships that could find a bit more room to store the fuel.
Your cost computations are disingenuous as you pick sources that fit an argument. Why talk about costs of green hydrogen generation quickly followed by a graph about how pointless it its to use hydrogen because of the current CO2 releases in generation. Shame on your picking without clarifying context. CCS with fossil extraction as a comparison would carry less bias, but the error bands on this prediction, you'll agree, have to be even wider than those with a myriad of water splitting technologies being tested.
So don't make a big deal about something that no sane body is claiming a panacea anyway.
We agree uninformed propaganda and decision makers aren't to be believed, and we should stick to facts.
Yet halfway through the presentation your good self has strayed.
It's wrong to say you can't drink the water generated in a fuel cell. It's right to say you can't leave it exposed outdoors without some heating in subzero conditions. It's poor form not to acknowledge the usefulness of fuel cells when this isn't the case. Batteries nowadays are the more sensible energy store in busses, fuel cells are the more sensible energy store to accompany thirsty astronauts to the moon.
The efficiency of combined cycle power generation doesn't come from an option to add H2 into the mix, but from wasting less heat - technology fact. I'm pretty sure the current builds of gas power generation are due to pragmatism. New builds are much more efficient than all other fossil power options, and can accelerate the retirement of older inefficient infrastructure. No need to sugar-coat the likelihood they'll be increasingly be relegated to those "limited" in-a-pinch moments, in which case you'll just have to cope with volatile fossil's market prices.
Bonus: everyone should know that newer chemistry batteries now entering the market, especially for static storage, don't suffer from the same thermal runaway issues as possible in your smartphone.
An essay in the interest of truth.
@@ClimateRealism
Offline clipboard 🙂
@@ChrisNotTheKing OK, nice long comment deserving answers.
YOU
"Firstly, there is global scientific consensus that climate change at a damaging level is indeed being driven by human activity, and we're only just seeing the start of it. Constricting CO2 outflow is only part of what's required to limit damaging levels of climate change.
It's really not a non-existent threat, as may be the opinion of some."
Answer
There is no such thing as a consensus in science. Its meaningless. Watch my IoM part 1 talk, I discuss that very point.
YOU
Asking someone if we spend $$$£££¥¥¥€€€ to reach net zero how much it's going to reverse the situation is silly. Presently the focus is only about trying to avoid the problem getting worse. We've benefited greatly by exploting fossil fuels, but it was only back in the 1970s that some people foresaw we're borrowing from a future where the real costs might be incurred later.
Answer
What is getting worse? Extreme weather has reduced since 1850, so the basis of your point is incorrect.
Cost matters in the real world.
YOU
Reaching net zero is the start, and it is a cost we should bear for past activity of ancestors. This is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for politicians that need to demonstrate positive results of their policies before the next election. They can't: it's a global problem, and everyone looking after their own back yard is the only attainable goal, for now.
Adding a new government department somewhat protected from the whims of politicians is a great idea.
Answer
All based on swallowing the cool aid with actually providing evidence.
YOU
Hydrogen storage has been touted as a great buffer, but consensus is definitely slewing to other forms of storage.
Answer
Facts matter. The video dis that.
YOUBatteries incredible drop in price, and their ability to prop up supply, maintain voltage and frequency and compensate for reactive power within milliseconds is demonstrable. These 4hr storage devices will continue to be part of the grid as they do an even better job than huge steam turbines.
Answe
Total ,totally nonsense. Costs are so way out it is unacceptable.
YOU
Your point made about combined cycle gas generators is moot in the light if this. They'll respond in a timely enough manner given the increasing amount of short-term storage. It's also misleading not to distinguish between gas powered steam engines (traditional) and gas fuelled turbines, which can respond very quickly... and are present in combined cycle generating anyway. Capturing CO2 has nothing to do with dispatchability, combined cycle or not.
Answer
That is simply wrong. CCS gas takes time to respond and it is why open cycle gas is preferred.
YOU
The propaganda film is pretty darn rose-coloured, oversimplifying as you've said. I believe this isn't the product of informed people, but some people trying to sugar-coat those aforementioned nasty pills. The elephant in the room is the premise that these newly efficient gas generators are only a practical stop-gap implementation before better long-term storage and other dispatchable generation can come online. Catering for multiple fuels is useful, but it is indeed silly unless the H2 is generated with free electricity... which it can be in times of curtailment.
Answer
There is no long term viable storage.
Sorry but I have to stop there. Your questions are founded on a belief and everything you are stating is simple based on that rather than evidence.
rI think you are honest and sincere but you has accepted based belief that is simply wrong.
Bollocks advert,😂just pure propaganda 🙄
Communism in action