Also a geologist, I know there are smart people working on this stuff but I've also heard from folks that the modern carbon sequestration solutions are largely a grift.
Scalability is a big problem to tackle for sure and I largely agree that carbon sequestration should not be our number one solution to pollution. It infuriates me to no end that these things aren't even solved problems and yet still touted as reasons why we can keep pumping oil and gas and building pipelines.
Is this loss?
As far as I am aware, there are no unbound hydrogen gas reserves currently in production or even close to production. More than half of the currently operating hydrogen facilities in Canada are natural gas sources. Almost a third of all currently planned future production is from natural gas sources. This is in the report you linked.
Im not talking about the electrolysis facilities in the maritimes because i dont have issues with them. I am still skeptical of the long term payoff of such an industry, but my bigger concern is the subsidies that go to fossil fuel companies due to all the hype around hydrogen. I would be very happy if all future hydrogen facilities were just electrolysis facilities, but that is not going to be the case.
This is just a circular conversation at this point. I can only repeat myself so many times. I don't know if you work in thr hydrogen industry or if you're just a big fan of it, but ignoring real issues does not serve the promotion of it. If government is pumping in a bunch of money to promote and develop an industry, it's very reqsonable to ask where that money is going and whether it's actually going to provide the returns we expect.
Okay now you are just being purposely obtuse. Geological sources of hydrogen are primarily sourced from oil and gas reservoirs. Reservoirs that are dominantly hydrogen are very rare as discussed in the report you linked but in theory much cleaner than hydrogen produced by fossil fuel extraction. My issue is not with the "geological" part of hydrogen it's with the "fossil fuel" part.
What exactly are you trying to prove here? That the modern and projected hydrogen industry in Canada doesn't have any significant component related to fossil fuel extraction? Because the report you linked clearly indicates otherwise.
If you really want to engage on the existing methods that these companies use to capture and sequester carbon during fossil fuel and hydrogen production, we can talk about that. Instead you are here again suggesting that the issues I raise are illegitimate because I am using accurate and generic terminology for hydrogen extracted from the earth (mostly during fossil fuel production).
But perhaps I'm being selfish here, focusing the discussion on my concerns and questions. You very clearly do not want to talk about the potential issues and pitfalls of pumping up the hydrogen industry in Canada, so what is it you wanted to talk about on this topic?
I think that's fair enough but it kind of ignores the multitude of reasons that people live in cities, with job availability being just one factor. There are many areas in North America where people could go buy cheap land and set up a homestead and live this kind of lifestyle the author is advocating for but there isn't a mass movement of people out to those places.
One of my favorite things about solarpunk is that it feels like practical utopianism, achieving the changes you want to see in society in the place you live with the people and community that you are connected to. It doesnt really feel like a solution to hugh housing costs to say "just move people to rural areas". I think there is absolutely a place for some agrarian revival movement in solarpunk, but I prefer the vision of dense rural communities surrounded by farmland with accessibility to and from urban areas via public transit.
When did I say I was anti-hydrogen? I said I was skeptical of the promises and concerned that a lot of hype around hydrogen is to help greenwash oil and gas. If you want to talk about ignoring the facts, then why you keep ignoring that a large portion of current and projected future production is going to be from geological sources?
Looking back now, knowing what I know, it might have been better had I been raised in the hills of Romania, including the unpleasant bit of living under dictatorship
Is this a serious article? I'm all for getting rid of suburbs but the author seems to be advocating for the whole world to move into farming communes.
I think it lacks imagination to suggest that urban areas cannot be sustainable or developed sustainably and that instead we should all go live agrarian lifestyles.
I'm not proselytizing anything. I raised some concerns and you told me that I'm either uninformed or some kind of anti-hydrogen shill. You made no real attempt at engaging with what I said and you brush off the other commenter's in the thread that are also skeptical of the viability of hydrogen. What's the point of your post if you are going to attack anyone that has questions or skepticism about a technology that you are pumping up?
"The credit will apply to both electrolysis projects and natural gas reforming projects if emissions are abated with carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS)" referring to a tax credit for hydrogen development
Another one:
"Offers a 37.5% to 60% credit on the equipment necessary to capture, transport and store carbon emissions, benefitting facilities producing hydrogen from natural gas"
Also:
" The following uses of hydrogen can create CFR credits:
Over half of the hydrogen production facilities are from oil and gas:
"There are 13 low-carbon hydrogen production facilities in operation in Canada, comprising 6 electrolytic facilities and 7 projects that have adopted carbon capture to lower the emissions of traditionally carbon intensive hydrogen production"
Don't act like the concerns I raise are bullshit. I am trying to have a discussion about something you are clearly passionate about and you respond like an asshole. If you want to educate people on things then be prepared to actually discuss the topic rather than attack people becaise they dont want to spend time reading through a technical report to quote a specific reference.
A lot of hype around hydrogen results in government money that subsidizes fossil fuel companies, that's hardly a green initiative in my mind. Hydrogen production by electrolysis is absolutely a good thing, especially for applications like steel production. I truly hope that stuff works out as an international export. Storage and transport as ammonia seems promising, but comes at a substantial energy expense in the conversion process. Will that plus shipping costs still work out to be cheaper than producing domestically for other nations? Is investing in this technology really the best utilization of our excess energy or are we better off developing more energy intensive industries here? Or maybe even reducing electricity costs for domestic consumers?
Okay so let me be clear as to what my concerns are.
Hydrogen production, whether to be used as a fuel source or as a chemical reagent, is not problematic in isolation. However, even in this document you've linked hydrogen is being pitched largely as a green fuel source to in part replace fossil fuels in thr future. Much of the current hydrogen capacity and advance developments for hydrogen production come as a byproduct of oil and gas wells. That type of hydrogen is only considered "low carbon" because of current and potentiao future capabilities of carbon sequestration by oil and gas companies. The issues i have with carbon sequestration are a whole other story but let's just say I am also doubtful of its feasibility.
If other countries are buying our hydrogen, it's because it's cheaper than what they could potentially produce locally. If we stopped production of geological hydrogen for the purposes of reducing emissions, would it still be cheaper for other nations to import our hydrogen vs developing their own domestic production facilities? If we don't ramp down fossil fuel production, then hydrogen isn't really solving any problems and I would rather we invest money into actually decarbonizing the economy.
It just seems like to me hydrogen can either be a way to decarbonize the economy OR a way to boost economic development in canada, but I am skeptical that it can do both effectively.
I'm aware that hydrogen is useful for lots of industrial processes, but the line that is being sold for building up hydrogen capacity at a large scale is that there will be high demand for it to be used as a fuel. Besides, the same issues persist whether it's being used industrially or as a fuel, does Canada even have the domestic demand to justify a huge scale up of hydrogen production?
You are correct that I am not very knowledgeable about the hydrogen industry, which is in part why I am skeptical. My experience is limited to geology and I know that a lot of domestic hydrogen production occurs at oil and gas drilling sites, so I have been suspicious of the push for hydrogen being another greenwashing gambit by O&G companies to get more money from government to drill for more oil and gas.
I am not trying to discourage development of an industry but I don't think I'm asking unreasonable questions. If government is going to be investing a shit ton of money into this, we should be sure that it's a good investment.
I wish we had politicians brave enough to say they will make the hard and unpopular decisions. As it is, politicians only make unpopular decisions when it helps the business class. Federal NDP campaigned on removing the carbon tax. The Ontario NDP said they would by back the 407 and remove tolls. The only people I have seen with any ounce of courage and ambition so far are the ontario greens, but that's probably a byproduct of their long-shot odds of getting elected.
These policies don't happen because most people seem incapable of understanding what we are actually paying for with policies that increase affordability and access to things that are a net-negative on society like card, alcohol, and soda.
If fiscal conservatives were real, they would be the people rallying behind these ideas.