Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 392 62.92%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 163 26.16%
Not sure 37 5.94%
Climate change is a hoax 31 4.98%
Voters: 623. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2021, 11:09 AM   #2521
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Side bar:

Whatever happened to hydrogen technology? At first glance, it seems like it would be the better path, but it seems like all the major car manufacturers are focusing on electric vehicles. I can't help but wonder how many nations are so invested in the commodities required to manufacture electric vehicles making it more of a profit decision and not an environmental decision. Sort of the same reason why we got hooked on fossil fuels.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 11:30 AM   #2522
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Hydrogen would be great if it was just lying around.

But it isn't so it's basically a less efficient battery.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 11:46 AM   #2523
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Shell is very enthusiastic about hydrogen.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 01:38 PM   #2524
Mazrim
CP Gamemaster
 
Mazrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
I still don't understand how forcing electric vehicles would work logistically in many cities. For example, much of the Vancouver area is occupied by multi-tenant suites. You have detached homes that were designed for single families, that are now housing 2, 3 or even more families or households. This means that most of the parking is first-come-first-serve street parking. For example, it's not uncommon that I need to park several blocks from home if I work late. Charging up every night would be hit and miss.
The majority of people won't drive enough to need a charge every night. I think people in general get too hung up on thinking the battery should be at 100% all the time. It's healthier for the vehicle is the battery sits below maximum charge anyway.

Consider this - if charging plugs become commonplace, you will get enough charging time when you go shopping or run errands that you won't need to charge at home.
Mazrim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 01:55 PM   #2525
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Shell is very enthusiastic about hydrogen.
Of course they are. They want to leverage the hydrocarbon molecule to extract hydrogen.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 09-29-2021, 08:31 AM   #2526
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
Side bar:

Whatever happened to hydrogen technology? At first glance, it seems like it would be the better path, but it seems like all the major car manufacturers are focusing on electric vehicles. I can't help but wonder how many nations are so invested in the commodities required to manufacture electric vehicles making it more of a profit decision and not an environmental decision. Sort of the same reason why we got hooked on fossil fuels.
I posted this in the energy transitions thread. Hydrogen has a lot of issues:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
I've kind of ranted on this already, but here goes:

The only benefit to H2 Fuel Cell over battery is refueling times. It's much more expensive per km to fuel no matter what you do, it takes 2-4x more energy (at least probably more) well to wheel, the energy is very expensive to store (5000-10000psi gas and temp -253 C for liquid), more difficult to distribute and fill up a vehicle's tank (due to temperature changes with pressure changes), more expensive to transport, more expensive to store, and has more parts to go wrong. Worse yet is the fact that virtually all hydrogen currently made (95-98%) is made from methane or coal which produces a lot of CO2, and methane leakage from extracting and refining as well as escape from steam reforming may actually make H2 production as it is worse than burning gas. Hydrogen as a fuel is a dream for the O&G companies as it allows for continued operation in their current form. Just slap CCUS on it and keep going. Except that still doesn't stop some of the GHG emissions as some CO2 is still made and methane leaks are currently a major contributor to global warming as methane is 85x worse over a 20 year period than CO2.

We need an awful lot of green hydrogen to replace the methane/coal sourced hydrogen we currently use to make fertilizer or we'd all starve to death. That's a challenge all on it's own, never mind trying to make green hydrogen for road transport. We'd need 2-4x as much renewables as with battery just to make the hydrogen.


There are only 2 hydrogen cars available for currently for purchase (was 3 but one is now discontinued) with no new actual models announced that I can find, and global sales are diminishing not increasing. There are about 60-80 models of EVs depending on how you count available today and dozens more announced to go on sale in the next two years. Total Fuel Cell sales globally last year was 8500, there were 3,000,000 EVs sold last year and that's expected to be over 6M this year.

There are about 500 H2 fueling stations worldwide and they're very expensive to build. Comparatively, there are billions of electrical outlets and they're cheap. There's an estimated 7.5M EV chargers currently operational and billions of dollars is being poured into building more.

Sure things can suddenly change, but why would they?
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-10-2021, 07:28 AM   #2527
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

This is going well. India wants to get PAID.
Quote:
he resistance from India stands in contrast to its surprise announcement on Nov. 1, just as COP26 negotiations got underway, that it would set an ambitious new goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened the talks in Glasgow, Scotland, with a decision to increase his nation’s share of renewable electricity generation capacity alongside the long-term target to zero out carbon. At the same time, Modi demanded rich countries provide as much as $1 trillion in climate finance just for India—far more than the $100 billion a year for all poor countries sought under previous deals.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pay-1-trillion
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 08:05 AM   #2528
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald View Post
Of course they are. They want to leverage the hydrocarbon molecule to extract hydrogen.
I think they’re looking pretty hard at green hydrogen as well though.

But yeah, everyone is and should be excited about Grey hydrogen too, it’s still a huge positive step.

Just for everyone’s edification and to keep things as simple as possible for those that may not know (and if I have this wrong and somebody knows better please correct me):
-Grey Hydrogen = the hydrogen molecules are split from CH4 (natural gas) and used as an energy source
-Blue Hydrogen = same as above but the carbon emissions are then stored underground or sequestered
-Green Hydrogen = hydrogen split off of water (I think by electrolysis).
-Ammonia is what hydrogen gets transformed into (by adding Nitrogen) so that you can transport the hydrogen safely (it is basically a bomb if left as pure hydrogen). Once the ammonia reaches location the nitrogen is carved out again.

^^^^ loooooots of companies and research and capital being poured into all of this in Alberta. Like, probably every major company trying to capitalize on this type of stuff because we are so methane rich.
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 08:24 AM   #2529
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
This is going well. India wants to get PAID.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pay-1-trillion
Well why not. At this point we're just throwing billions around without any kind of realistic plan, so why not say 'oh hey, we need a few hundred billion too.'

Nevermind the fact that rich countries literally can't afford to pay for this with the insane debt loads and rising inflation rates.

Everyone is nuts.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 08:59 AM   #2530
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
I think they’re looking pretty hard at green hydrogen as well though.

But yeah, everyone is and should be excited about Grey hydrogen too, it’s still a huge positive step.

Just for everyone’s edification and to keep things as simple as possible for those that may not know (and if I have this wrong and somebody knows better please correct me):
-Grey Hydrogen = the hydrogen molecules are split from CH4 (natural gas) and used as an energy source
-Blue Hydrogen = same as above but the carbon emissions are then stored underground or sequestered
-Green Hydrogen = hydrogen split off of water (I think by electrolysis).
-Ammonia is what hydrogen gets transformed into (by adding Nitrogen) so that you can transport the hydrogen safely (it is basically a bomb if left as pure hydrogen). Once the ammonia reaches location the nitrogen is carved out again.

^^^^ loooooots of companies and research and capital being poured into all of this in Alberta. Like, probably every major company trying to capitalize on this type of stuff because we are so methane rich.
I'm not sure anyone should be excited about grey hydrogen. Even blue hydrogen is a transition step at best. Grey hydrogen may even be worse for greenhouse effect than methane itself
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 10:08 AM   #2531
Mr.Coffee
damn onions
 
Mr.Coffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Nm
Mr.Coffee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 12:53 PM   #2532
the_only_turek_fan
Lifetime Suspension
 
the_only_turek_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

I am not a climate denier at all. I do believe the planet is warming.

My issue with all of this is that people like me would take this a bit more serious if people like the 44th POTUS didn't fly all the way to Glasgow to deliver a speech on how burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

I think change is good. This change is going to be disruptive but good. It's a huge opportunity for new kinds of jobs.

However, I think symbolism matters. Doing COP26 over zoom like the rest of us have been doing meetings the last 18 months would make their pleas more palatable.
the_only_turek_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to the_only_turek_fan For This Useful Post:
Old 11-10-2021, 12:58 PM   #2533
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Doesn't sound like Cop really accomplished much over the last two weeks if you go by the Draft Document.



But at least Canada flew 300 delegates over and had a nice time.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 11-10-2021, 01:08 PM   #2534
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
This is going well. India wants to get PAID.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pay-1-trillion
Don’t give Trudeau ideas; he loves to send money we can’t afford to other countries.
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 02:49 PM   #2535
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan View Post
I am not a climate denier at all. I do believe the planet is warming.

My issue with all of this is that people like me would take this a bit more serious if people like the 44th POTUS didn't fly all the way to Glasgow to deliver a speech on how burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

I think change is good. This change is going to be disruptive but good. It's a huge opportunity for new kinds of jobs.

However, I think symbolism matters. Doing COP26 over zoom like the rest of us have been doing meetings the last 18 months would make their pleas more palatable.

How productive are your zoom meetings? Are you able to effectively influence people by having side IM chats with them? I mean I get that it’s a circus atmosphere and that most things of substance are probably hashed out ahead of time but having face to face gatherings to hash out world-changing decisions isn’t unreasonable. Jetting off everywhere else, sure.
edslunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2021, 03:43 PM   #2536
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan View Post
I am not a climate denier at all. I do believe the planet is warming.

My issue with all of this is that people like me would take this a bit more serious if people like the 44th POTUS didn't fly all the way to Glasgow to deliver a speech on how burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

I think change is good. This change is going to be disruptive but good. It's a huge opportunity for new kinds of jobs.

However, I think symbolism matters. Doing COP26 over zoom like the rest of us have been doing meetings the last 18 months would make their pleas more palatable.
I don't follow or listen to Greta Thunberg but I heard her speech on Friday when I had the news on and she had a few very good soundbites that were on point when it came to calling out COP26. She said that COP26 was a failure and that the conference was just a PR event for the leaders. She also said that COP26 was a global brainwashing festival.
calgarygeologist is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-10-2021, 05:27 PM   #2537
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan View Post
I am not a climate denier at all. I do believe the planet is warming.

My issue with all of this is that people like me would take this a bit more serious if people like the 44th POTUS didn't fly all the way to Glasgow to deliver a speech on how burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment.

I think change is good. This change is going to be disruptive but good. It's a huge opportunity for new kinds of jobs.

However, I think symbolism matters. Doing COP26 over zoom like the rest of us have been doing meetings the last 18 months would make their pleas more palatable.
Not sure I agree.

World leaders need to meet face to face. Even for me Zoom meetings are not the same, and when hammering out a deal or talking with a customer, face to face interactions are much better.

I have no issues with the world leaders coming together to meet. Security, personal interaction, discretion, comfort.....these things are important.

As for the rich losers that went over there to peddle their wares and tell the world how much they care when they really don't, yeah they could have stayed home.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Old 11-11-2021, 06:50 AM   #2538
SeeGeeWhy
#1 Goaltender
 
SeeGeeWhy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
Side bar:

Whatever happened to hydrogen technology? At first glance, it seems like it would be the better path, but it seems like all the major car manufacturers are focusing on electric vehicles. I can't help but wonder how many nations are so invested in the commodities required to manufacture electric vehicles making it more of a profit decision and not an environmental decision. Sort of the same reason why we got hooked on fossil fuels.
ATCO is acting to blend up to 20% hydrogen into their sales gas volumes within 3 years and wants to be 100% eventually. Industry has committed to expanding the Alberta carbon trunk line which should facilitate more projects that employ steam methane reformers or in-situ combustion schemes
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
SeeGeeWhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2021, 08:30 AM   #2539
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy View Post
ATCO is acting to blend up to 20% hydrogen into their sales gas volumes within 3 years and wants to be 100% eventually. Industry has committed to expanding the Alberta carbon trunk line which should facilitate more projects that employ steam methane reformers or in-situ combustion schemes
Does it make any sense to source that 20% from gray hydrogen, generated from natural gas, then burned, as opposed to just burning natural gas? Has anyone done the emissions math on that? Because in my mind, you have efficiency losses every time you convert. Clearly they aren't going to use green hydrogen.


Just found this. hrmmmm....
Quote:
A peer-reviewed study published in Energy Science & Engineering, an open-source journal, concludes "the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 percent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat and some 60 percent greater than burning diesel oil for heat," according to the paper.
Quote:
“Combined emissions of carbon dioxide and methane are greater for gray hydrogen and for blue hydrogen (whether or not exhaust flue gases are treated for carbon capture) than for any of the fossil fuels,” the study authors write in the paper. “Methane emissions are a major contributor to this, and methane emissions from both gray and blue hydrogen are larger than for any of the fossil fuels.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...tes-180978451/


Maybe we should think these policies through before assuming they are worth doing.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2021, 12:12 PM   #2540
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Does it make any sense to source that 20% from gray hydrogen, generated from natural gas, then burned, as opposed to just burning natural gas? Has anyone done the emissions math on that? Because in my mind, you have efficiency losses every time you convert. Clearly they aren't going to use green hydrogen.


Just found this. hrmmmm....


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...tes-180978451/


Maybe we should think these policies through before assuming they are worth doing.
The best quote I heard in regards to hydrogen:


Hydrogen is a hurdle to carbon emission reduction, not a tool to get there.

We need to replace the amount we use already and 95+% is grey hydrogen which is more carbon intensive than simply fossil fuel combustion. When taking into account upstream methane losses, even blue hydrogen is also more carbon intensive than methane combustion. If the goal is decreasing carbon emissions, only green hydrogen will work and it's more expensive (currently anyways). With scaling up of electrolyzers we should see a significant drop in costs and increase in efficiency, but it'll be a while before it's cheaper than straight methane combustion. And I'm not sure it'll ever be comparable to liquid fuels.

Alberta's plans with hydrogen are going to increase emissions, not decrease them.
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021