Originally Posted by xyzdonna  ..."The results from this analysis show that the price of hydrogen from a 50,000 kg/day wind-hydrogen system can range from $5.69 per kilogram of hydrogen in the near term to $2.12 per kilogram of hydrogen in the long term."
....
But the calculations are that in the future the price could come down considerably and probably here there is some speculation..... |
The whole thing is speculation, the facility does not exist.
Let's go back a little bit to the start of this whole discussion because it definitely has drifted into alternate energy sources but actually started out on the topic of reducing CO2 emissions. And most of these references you are coming up with have the "in the future" component. What is important right now, as important as cost, is timeliness.
I am repeating myself somewhat but I will reprise the issues raised by the IPCC people.
Global Warming is occurring.
Human activity is to blame.
Something must be done.
If nothing is done quickly we will pass 'tipping points' and go into irreversible warming.
The time deadline for one of the tipping points is 20 years away or something like that.
CO2 emissions must be halved by the year 2050.
This can be done without destroying the world's economy.
This is not a complete list but I think it is correct as far as it goes.
My contention is that nothing can be done without destroying the global economy simply because energy consumption and economic activity are inseparably linked. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and fossil fuels are the major source of energy. There are two options that are inescapable; simply reduce energy use drastically or find alternate energy sources that can substitute for fossil fuels.
There are no viable substitutes never mind cost; cost is a minor problem compared to the quantity of energy required. The only alternate energy source that could potentially deliver the magnitude of energy required is nuclear and this would take years to bring on stream and would create an immense upfront surge in CO2 emissions. For at least ten years, more realistically in my view at least twenty years, CO2 emissions would be climbing and by then we are past the 'tipping point'. And anyone who thinks that consideration of the design and construction of literally hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide is going to be entertained is certainly dreaming.
It is simply not possible to find substitute energy. Conservation could reduce consumption by a few percent but again it is necessary to be careful of up front costs. If everyone ran out and bought a hybrid car, quite apart from the fact that a lot of raw materials for the electrical/electronic side would be in short supply, the manufacture of these would creat a near term surge in emissions. The same thing applies to many other conservation/efficiency improvements and the only thing that could reduce emissions in the near term without an initial surge are the simple ones like turning the thermostat down or up depending on whether you are heating or cooling, and driving less. Going deeper you could start consuming less; did you read my post about 3 days out of 20 which describes lowering energy consumption by 15% simply by doing literally nothing for the 3 days. What I describe would work, energy consumption would go down. But if everyone consumed 15% less in general that would trigger a world wide recession to beat everything.
There is no fix we have to adapt to the change. Consumption certainly has to decline but it has to do so incrementally and slowly to avoid creating a situation which would make the Great Depression seem like a picnic.