276
This Colombian conference is kicking ass already
meanwhile Australia is busy drilling for gas and oil and expanding coal mines.
The alternative is to remain dependant on Chinese gas and oil until they are no longer reliant on gas and oil. Is that a good idea?
Does China have gas and oil? I thought that they imported it all?
Next time it’ll be a decade later each. And so on…
Better just not even pretend to try or ever do anything then eh?
I think gas won't be phased out; it will be gradually enriched with renewably produced hydrogen (from electrolysis) until the gas mix is 100% renewable.
maybe but it's a ridiculous thing to do, so let's hope not.
Might as well just electrify. It's a massively inefficient way of making H, storage and transport of H is beyond tricky , H is a GHG so whatever fugitive emissions you have, which there's plenty of with a molecule that small, are ubiquitous.
That said, doing stupid things has never stopped humanity before, so who knows. Every H project in Australia has been shitballed, some are saying make Ammonia now instead but that's ripe with problems as well but it is significantly easier to store and transport.
It's far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.
From an energy point of view, generating hydrogen and burning it later is an absurdly inefficient cycle. It's also a very small molecule that is extremely difficult to contain (understand: leak very easily).
Electricity storage is an issue, but batteries are progressing at a much faster pace than electrolysis. As for transportation, it's also difficult, but in most parts of the world, we either have the infrastructure already in place, or the place in question lack both electricity and gas. In addition to that, electricity can be generated close to the point of consumption with renewables and batteries.
There are really no good reason to stand by hydrogen in a crushing majority of use cases.
It is no more inefficient than many other ideas. Hydrogen is not much more difficult to store than natural gas. In reality, we have more than enough renewable energy to justify making and storing hydrogen.
The narrative of "batteries are progressing" is becoming wishful thinking if not outright delusion. They are not progressing in a way that could actually solve their fundamental problems. Hydrogen for energy storage is necessary for a 100% green grid, as well as many other things. We can make hydrogen close to the point of consumption too.
Hydrogen is a viable option in nearly every situation. And in many sectors, practically the only option.
Doesn't really work like that. You can't put more than a bit of hydrogen into existing appliances or pipes without destroying them
they do it in germany and it works well
Yes, with a tiny amount of hydrogen. Exceed 25% and appliances explode and pipes corrode in new ways causing leaks. It will ultimately be a lot cheaper to electrify everything than to switch to hydrogen
The leakage of hydrogen in widespread use (eg: not just the chemicals Industry) means a set of reactions in the atmosphere which cause a bunch of warming as well.
do you have sources on hydrogen pipelines not being possible? because they are actively being built in germany right now. i doubt that somebody builds a billion-dollar pipeline for nothing.
Hydrogen pipelines are possible and have existed for decades.
They're very possible, but existing pipes used for natural gas aren't suitable, and replacing them is more expensive than electrification.
interesting. i remember reading that hydrogen transport through hydrogen pipes costs about half of what it costs to transport the same amount of power over the same distance through electric cables. iirc the figures are: 0.6 - 1 ct/kWh for cables, 0.3 ct/kWh for hydrogen (per 100 km or 1000 km, not sure anymore). could be that i'm mixing that up though and that the number is actually only for methane gas.
We're talking household distribution here, not long-distance transport. The economics are very different when you're talking about having to open up walls and dig new holes in foundations to put in pipes.
HVDC probably comes in cheaper for long-distance transmission at this point.
yeah hydrogen to the house might not make sense. after all, gas can only be used for heating / very specific applications (steel reduction, ammonia production) while electricity can be used for everything. most humans want that flexibility in their home. so electricity is better for that. and since you already have electricity, no need for gas anymore. lower fixed costs if you only need to build 1 cable instead of 1 cable + 1 pipe.
i meant hydrogen can be stored for a year or longer and used for industrial processes where it can be piped to. steel furnace, for example.
i read up and producing hydrogen (electrolysis) has 80% energy efficiency. storing it (high pressure at 700 bar) consumes 12% of the energy in the hydrogen. source (german wikipedia on the topic). so production + storage has a total of 70% efficiency. which is pretty good i would say. especially considering for how long you can store it that way.
Lol, that's hilarious 😂
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
276 points (100.0% liked)
Climate
8950 readers
621 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS