This article gives a very good overview of the advantages and disadvantages of using hydrogen as a fuel - in a maritime context - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...onise-shipping
Well worth reading. There are big problems with trying to reduce CO2 and other emissions from the atmosphere, and technical solutions may still be very difficult to find or manage. Politicians such as BJ are perhaps jumping on a technology bandwagon with not enough understanding to get a really good outcome.
We have seen how the public at large will often find ways round the rules with clearly bad side-effects - the latest one being people who buy food in pubs and then immediately throw it away - in order to get round coronavirus restrictions.
Hydrogen as a fuel could either be a real game changer in the energy market, depending on how it is made, and whether regulations could ensure that it is used effectively. At one extreme it is a good thing, and the other it is definitely not - depending on how it is used. The same goes for other methods of decarbonising the world, including electric vehicles, which are good if the electricity used is produced without burning fossil fuels, but less good otherwise, though overall these do still seem to be better than using petrol or diesel fuel.
Sometimes a priority shift may make a big difference. In the UK a very significant amount of fossil fuel is burnt for domestic heating, yet improved and enforced building standards could reduce energy wasted. The UK is poor at enforcing building standards for low energy housing.
From the article, a significant amount of the energy used for shipping is for transporting goods between Asia and the US. There should be several ways of reducing that, including:
1. reducing demand
2. relocating manufacturing
and maybe some more, but it's hard to get some of those principles into play in the world in which we live. Big business and global trade isn't necessarily bad. It is sometimes much more effective and efficient - but also it is sometimes ineffective and inefficient when viewed holistically.
Well worth reading. There are big problems with trying to reduce CO2 and other emissions from the atmosphere, and technical solutions may still be very difficult to find or manage. Politicians such as BJ are perhaps jumping on a technology bandwagon with not enough understanding to get a really good outcome.
We have seen how the public at large will often find ways round the rules with clearly bad side-effects - the latest one being people who buy food in pubs and then immediately throw it away - in order to get round coronavirus restrictions.
Hydrogen as a fuel could either be a real game changer in the energy market, depending on how it is made, and whether regulations could ensure that it is used effectively. At one extreme it is a good thing, and the other it is definitely not - depending on how it is used. The same goes for other methods of decarbonising the world, including electric vehicles, which are good if the electricity used is produced without burning fossil fuels, but less good otherwise, though overall these do still seem to be better than using petrol or diesel fuel.
Sometimes a priority shift may make a big difference. In the UK a very significant amount of fossil fuel is burnt for domestic heating, yet improved and enforced building standards could reduce energy wasted. The UK is poor at enforcing building standards for low energy housing.
From the article, a significant amount of the energy used for shipping is for transporting goods between Asia and the US. There should be several ways of reducing that, including:
1. reducing demand
2. relocating manufacturing
and maybe some more, but it's hard to get some of those principles into play in the world in which we live. Big business and global trade isn't necessarily bad. It is sometimes much more effective and efficient - but also it is sometimes ineffective and inefficient when viewed holistically.
Comment