Fun fact 2021 saw the fewest hurricane-strength tropical cyclones observed globally since at least 1980

[longview]

Storing energy as hydrogen gas is far more efficient than converting into gasoline. We won't even need gasoline at all very soon. There is a place for methanol but it is a small piece of the puzzle. We cannot keep using I/C engines for transportation they are far too inefficient.

https://www.siemens-energy.com/glob...odV3Nu95jyGYu6d-TqFlmM0BYbbHqysRoCEQIQAvD_BwE

Except that hydrogen is difficult to store, and we do not have a massive distribution infrastructure and demand already in place.
Consider if in the next few year oil stabilizes at over $100 a barrel, and the refineries find it is more profitable to purchase surplus electricity
and make their own fuel from atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen. A new fuel handle shows up at the pump with 100 octane
carbon neutral gasoline, that is about the same price as regular.
By the way, Exxon Baytown is bringing up a unit that will do most of this right now.
ExxonMobil planning hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage at Baytown complex
Exxon's fuel will not be carbon neutral...yet, as they will initially source the hydrogen from natural gas,
but the carbon will come from captured CO2.

 

[Rexedgar]

After the last few years, the old girl could use a breather……..

 

[iguanaman]

Have we suddenly fixed the storage and manufacturing problems for hydrogen?

I must have blinked, because we still seem to be a long way for that.

You are mistaken...Grasshopper..

Here’s how HyTech’s SES works: Power comes in (from solar panels or wind turbines, ideally) to run the electrolyzer. The hydrogen produced either goes into a fuel cell (yes, Johnson built his own) or is bonded as hydrides and stored in a tank. When power is needed, the hydride bonds are broken using waste heat from the system, freeing more hydrogen for the fuel cell.

By avoiding compression and finding a hydride bond weak enough to be broken by waste heat, Johnson has markedly improved efficiency. He’s improved efficiency further with another clever technique. Most hydrogen storage uses huge electrolyzers and fuel cells, which cannot precisely scale energy production to demand. Johnson modularized his system: it contains stacks of smaller electrolyzers and fuel cells, which can be brought online one at a time as demand increases. “Stupid simple,” he says with a smile.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

 

[iguanaman]

Except that hydrogen is difficult to store, and we do not have a massive distribution infrastructure and demand already in place.
Consider if in the next few year oil stabilizes at over $100 a barrel, and the refineries find it is more profitable to purchase surplus electricity
and make their own fuel from atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen. A new fuel handle shows up at the pump with 100 octane
carbon neutral gasoline, that is about the same price as regular.
By the way, Exxon Baytown is bringing up a unit that will do most of this right now.
ExxonMobil planning hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage at Baytown complex
Exxon's fuel will not be carbon neutral...yet, as they will initially source the hydrogen from natural gas,
but the carbon will come from captured CO2.

We will not have much surplus electricity when all our cars are electric. Storing hydrogen as hydrides that are easily converted to gas takes care of the storage problem too.

 

[longview]

We will not have much surplus electricity when all our cars are electric. Storing hydrogen as hydrides that are easily converted to gas takes care of the storage problem too.

Again hydrogen is difficult to store, hydrides is a good plan, but will take a long time to build out the infrastructure.
We could have carbon neutral fuels that will run all the applications not just cars, which are not as important
as Ships, Jets, Heavy Trucks, and Tractors.
Currently battery electric car owners have to compromise their driving habits to allow for the
fact that the range is not as good, and the recharge time is longer.
They may work out the problems, but if the same emissions cuts can be had by making carbon neutral fuel
it is a sustainable path forward.

 

[MamboDervish]

You seem to have twisted two different concepts together.
One is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 additions will cause some warming,
Almost everyone agree with this.
The second is because the first part is correct, So are all the catastrophic predictions about AGW.
The problem with convoluting the two ideas, is that the catastrophic predictions are contingent
on the climate having a high sensitivity to added CO2, and that is simply not showing up in any of the empirical evidence.

What are you talking about? I've made no mention whatsoever about catastrophic predictions, nor have I convoluted any two different ideas.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are mistaken...Grasshopper..

Here’s how HyTech’s SES works: Power comes in (from solar panels or wind turbines, ideally) to run the electrolyzer. The hydrogen produced either goes into a fuel cell (yes, Johnson built his own) or is bonded as hydrides and stored in a tank. When power is needed, the hydride bonds are broken using waste heat from the system, freeing more hydrogen for the fuel cell.

By avoiding compression and finding a hydride bond weak enough to be broken by waste heat, Johnson has markedly improved efficiency. He’s improved efficiency further with another clever technique. Most hydrogen storage uses huge electrolyzers and fuel cells, which cannot precisely scale energy production to demand. Johnson modularized his system: it contains stacks of smaller electrolyzers and fuel cells, which can be brought online one at a time as demand increases. “Stupid simple,” he says with a smile.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...drogen-fuel-technology-economy-hytech-storage

I see....

It's fairy dust...

The challenge with hydrides has been twofold: a) creating a bond weak enough to be broken without undue energy when the hydrogen needs to be released, and b) increasing the energy density of the resulting fluid. (To date, most hydride fluids have been less energy dense than compressed hydrogen, and far short of fossil fuels. They weigh too much for the energy they provide.)​

​

Johnson thinks he’s cracked both problems. He won’t reveal the details of the hydrides involved, but he’s got the power-to-weight ratio high enough to beat lithium-ion batteries (which are very heavy) and the hydride bond weak enough that it can be broken using only the redirected waste heat from the engine (no added heat or pressure required).​

Really now... he "thinks" he cracked the problem?

LOL...

He wont reveal...

Like I said, it's not ready.

 

[longview]

What are you talking about? I've made no mention whatsoever about catastrophic predictions, nor have I convoluted any two different ideas.

Let's put your claims to the test.

I've made no mention whatsoever about catastrophic predictions

Hum, "all for the profit of big oil, and all at the expense of human life on the planet."
Sound fairly catastrophic to me the expense of Human life on the planet,
Again the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not really in question,
how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is still a very open question.
By convoluting the two concepts into one, you equate CO2 being a greenhouse gas, with ending Human life on the planet!
They are not the same thing!
Post #7

Facts are facts. They interview the actual people responsible for deliberately generating a false narrative on global warming - people on the payroll of Exxon, and the American Petroleum institute. In other words, you get to see and hear, right from the horses mouths, the deliberate misinformation and misleading propaganda flooding the public airwaves, and see first hand how the lobbyists bought our elected representatives so they would crush vital legislation, all for the profit of big oil, and all at the expense of human life on the planet.

 

[justoneman]

Did we ever figure out who to blame the dustbowl of 1934 on?

Yeah, it was Trump.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah, it was Trump.

I thought it was all the Hummers going back in time. Could they go 88 MPH though?

 

[justoneman]

I thought it was all the Hummers going back in time. Could they go 88 MPH though?

 

[iguanaman]

I see....

It's fairy dust...

The challenge with hydrides has been twofold: a) creating a bond weak enough to be broken without undue energy when the hydrogen needs to be released, and b) increasing the energy density of the resulting fluid. (To date, most hydride fluids have been less energy dense than compressed hydrogen, and far short of fossil fuels. They weigh too much for the energy they provide.)​

​

Johnson thinks he’s cracked both problems. He won’t reveal the details of the hydrides involved, but he’s got the power-to-weight ratio high enough to beat lithium-ion batteries (which are very heavy) and the hydride bond weak enough that it can be broken using only the redirected waste heat from the engine (no added heat or pressure required).​

Really now... he "thinks" he cracked the problem?

LOL...

He wont reveal...

Like I said, it's not ready.

Yes and the car will never replace the horse either.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes and the car will never replace the horse either.

I'm not saying hydrogen will never happen. I said it wasn't ready, and indicated not any time soon.

You respond with an article saying I am wrong, but it also indicates its not ready.

Please think before you type. You just look foolish.

 

[iguanaman]

Let's put your claims to the test.

Hum, "all for the profit of big oil, and all at the expense of human life on the planet."
Sound fairly catastrophic to me the expense of Human life on the planet,
Again the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not really in question,
how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is still a very open question.
By convoluting the two concepts into one, you equate CO2 being a greenhouse gas, with ending Human life on the planet!
They are not the same thing!
Post #7

And you'll believe when you see it. We know the drill. You don't have to be right....just create doubt. It getting too late for that old bard. Time to pick sides. It's yes or no . Either you believe in science or you don't. It's that simple.

 

[justoneman]

Yes and the car will never replace the horse either.

When the technology is there, you will not have to talk people into it.

 

[iguanaman]

When the technology is there, you will not have to talk people into it.

True, and there is no use fighting it either. It is coming.. Mankind will come through.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have already stated I like the idea of hydrogen for fixed place uses. I don't see a problem with using the existing natural gas pipelines to deliver a clean heating fuel to homes. I would think that with little modifications, existing gas appliances would work perfect on hydrogen.

It's just a matter of liberating enough hydrogen fast enough at an economical cost.

 

[uptower]

Consider it a gap year

 

[longview]

And you'll believe when you see it. We know the drill. You don't have to be right....just create doubt. It getting too late for that old bard. Time to pick sides. It's yes or no . Either you believe in science or you don't. It's that simple.

I believe the science, it says that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is quite low,
and perhaps getting even lower.

 

[iguanaman]

I believe the science, it says that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is quite low,
and perhaps getting even lower.

That is not what science says. You can't make up your own science. You are a science denier and a dinosaur. CO2 has been the root cause for several mass extinctions and we are heading for another.

Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species​

Figure 6: The Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum.​

In February 2013, CO2 levels had risen to near 396.80ppm at Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, compared to 393.54ppm in February 2012. This rise - 3.26ppm per year - is at the highest rate yet recorded. Further measurements show CO2 is at near 400ppm of the atmosphere over the Arctic. At this rate the upper stability threshold of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at about 500–600ppm CO2 would be reached later this century (although hysteresis of the ice sheets may slow down melting).​

Our global carbon reserves - including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sands, gas and coal-seam gas - contain considerably more than 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon (see Figure 5). This amount of carbon, if released into the atmosphere, is capable of raising atmospheric CO2 levels to higher than 1000ppm. Such a rise in atmospheric radiative forcing will be similar to that of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum (PETM), which happened about 55 million years-ago (see Figures 1, 2 and 4). But the rate of rise surpasses those of this thermal maximum by about ten times.

https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

 

[longview]

That is not what science says. You can't make up your own science. You are a science denier and a dinosaur. CO2 has been the root cause for several mass extinctions and we are heading for another.

Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species​

Figure 6: The Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum.​

In February 2013, CO2 levels had risen to near 396.80ppm at Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, compared to 393.54ppm in February 2012. This rise - 3.26ppm per year - is at the highest rate yet recorded. Further measurements show CO2 is at near 400ppm of the atmosphere over the Arctic. At this rate the upper stability threshold of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at about 500–600ppm CO2 would be reached later this century (although hysteresis of the ice sheets may slow down melting).​

Our global carbon reserves - including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sands, gas and coal-seam gas - contain considerably more than 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon (see Figure 5). This amount of carbon, if released into the atmosphere, is capable of raising atmospheric CO2 levels to higher than 1000ppm. Such a rise in atmospheric radiative forcing will be similar to that of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum (PETM), which happened about 55 million years-ago (see Figures 1, 2 and 4). But the rate of rise surpasses those of this thermal maximum by about ten times.

https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

Sorry, physics does not change because of what you want to believe!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we have a poor understanding of how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
Yes the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum had high CO2 levels, but that is not to say the
high CO2 levels caused Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum.
CO2 levels could have just as easily increased as a results of a mass die off of plants and animals.
What we do know about the climate's sensitivity to added CO2, is that there is about a decade between
emission and maximum warming, and that the warming of all the increases in CO2-eq up to 2010,
have already happened.
The IPCC said we have warming of 1.07C, of which ~0.28C is natural before 1950, so 0.79C of unknown warming.
NOAA AGGI shows that the CO2-eq increased from 280 ppm to 469 ppm by 2010.
That natural log math says that 0.79C/ln(469/280) =1.53, so 1.53 X ln(2)=1.06C.
All the CO2 emitted so far only produced a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.06C.
The computer models can simulate whatever they want, with whatever assumptions they make,
but the observed data shows a log climate sensitivity.

 

[Buzz]

Sorry, physics does not change because of what you want to believe!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we have a poor understanding of how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
Yes the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum had high CO2 levels, but that is not to say the
high CO2 levels caused Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum.
CO2 levels could have just as easily increased as a results of a mass die off of plants and animals.
What we do know about the climate's sensitivity to added CO2, is that there is about a decade between
emission and maximum warming, and that the warming of all the increases in CO2-eq up to 2010,
have already happened.
The IPCC said we have warming of 1.07C, of which ~0.28C is natural before 1950, so 0.79C of unknown warming.
NOAA AGGI shows that the CO2-eq increased from 280 ppm to 469 ppm by 2010.
That natural log math says that 0.79C/ln(469/280) =1.53, so 1.53 X ln(2)=1.06C.
All the CO2 emitted so far only produced a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.06C.
The computer models can simulate whatever they want, with whatever assumptions they make,
but the observed data shows a log climate sensitivity.

More denialist BS!!!

Longview is using NOAA's AGGI but his cited 280 ppm is not the level in 1950 as he incorrectly suggests. 280 ppm is the amount from 1700 to 1750. He should be using a level of about 335. Plus... he is ignoring the cooling from man-made aerosols again.

Oh... and the last line that the observed data shows only a low climate sensitivity is just another of his often cited denialist lies.

 

[longview]

More denialist BS!!!

Longview is using NOAA's AGGI but his cited 280 ppm is not the level in 1950 as he incorrectly suggests. 280 ppm is the amount from 1700 to 1750. He should be using a level of about 335. Plus... he is ignoring the cooling from man-made aerosols again.

Oh... and the last line that the observed data shows only a low climate sensitivity is just another of his often cited denialist lies.

I did not say the AGGI level was 280 ppm in 1950, I said that the warming before 1950 was mostly considered natural.
To be fair the AGGI at the beginning of the instrument record was more like 290 ppm, not 280 ppm,
NOAA AGGI Figure 4 shows the 1850 AGGI level ~ midway between 280 and 300 ppm.
Also the IPCC's 1.07 C already included aerosol cooling.
IPCC AR6 SPM

A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I did not say the AGGI level was 280 ppm in 1950, I said that the warming before 1950 was mostly considered natural.
To be fair the AGGI at the beginning of the instrument record was more like 290 ppm, not 280 ppm,
NOAA AGGI Figure 4 shows the 1850 AGGI level ~ midway between 280 and 300 ppm.
Also the IPCC's 1.07 C already included aerosol cooling.
IPCC AR6 SPM

Don't you love how he doesn't understand what people say?

 

[Buzz]

I did not say the AGGI level was 280 ppm in 1950, I said that the warming before 1950 was mostly considered natural.
To be fair the AGGI at the beginning of the instrument record was more like 290 ppm, not 280 ppm,
NOAA AGGI Figure 4 shows the 1850 AGGI level ~ midway between 280 and 300 ppm.
Also the IPCC's 1.07 C already included aerosol cooling.
IPCC AR6 SPM

Addressed here.