That article does not inform us how the hydrogen was made. In...

  1. 4,210 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1226
    That article does not inform us how the hydrogen was made. In 1918 circa 95% of all Hydrogen was produced from fossil fuels, so hyrddrogen may not be all that "green". Also, the Government of North Westphalia subsidised the project. The writer seems to have omitted these two inconvenient facts. If these projects were economically viable, why are they subsidised?

    I intuitively believe that solar-driven electrolysis of water should be viable, and I expect it will be in future, but every time I look into what could be a good hydrogen-as-a-fuel article, it is always marred by the fact that the projects were subsidised by some government agency or other. For example http://www.renewablessa.sa.gov.au/topic/hydrogen/hydrogen-projects which is subsidised by the SA Government, and the information at https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-largest-green-hydrogen-pilot-commences-operation-66722/, states, "The 6MW “CO2-neutral” hydrogen production facility is backed by 18 million ($A29 million) in funding from the European Union."

    If one Googles "Finkel" and "hydrogen" one can read the opinion of the Chief Scientist of Australia, Dr Alan Finkel, on green hydrogen. He advocates that Australia should produce green hydrogen, and export it to a hydrogen-hungry world. In my view, once the technology to produce green hydrogen is understood, there are many places in the world that would have the right combination of factors to jump onto the bandwagon.

    Green fuel is a wonderful way to suck money out of the public purse. Let the dreamers dream, and if they are believers, they can invest their own money, and that of fellow believers, to bring their dreams into reality.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.