We could rezone housing and build mass transit, make our cities actually workable in a low carbon world. Instead of borrowing money to pay extortionate developer fees in order to keep property taxes low on single family homes.

They are buying from the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland in particular, and it is all from wind, solar, and water power. Particularly electrolysis of water. None of the hydrogen is coming from fossil fuels. Read my links, stop flapping off to me unless you read the links. I did not ever say anything about it coming from fossil fuels, and neither did the links.

Canada has an overabundance of very cheap non-fossil-fuel sources of energy, so we can economically convert this abundant energy to hydrogen (ammonia) and export it. Better to export our excess electricity to Europe (via ammonia) than let the ungrateful Americans have it.

No matter how clear you try to be, it will always come out murky. You are o the wrong side of the arguement.

“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:

• Hydrogen used as a fuel or feedstock in the production of liquid fossil fuels
• Hydrogen used as a fuel or feedstock at a low-carbon-intensity fuel production facility
• Hydrogen used as a fuel in stationary applications (for example, hydrogen injected in natural gas pipelines)"

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?

You are not trying to have a discussion, you are trying to proselytize. The export of hydrogen as ammonia produced by non-fossil-fuel energy input is quite clearly dominant in the future hydrogen energy strategy. You can pull up all the small tidbits you want to support your proselytizing, but be clear that is all they are, small tidbits, in the overall strategy.

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?

I have no problem with those who bring factual considered qualified material to the table. I have a big issue with posters who bring spurious facts and points to the table just to push some dogma or other. You are anti-hydrogen just for the sake of being anti-hydrogen, without any consideration of the facts.

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?

And you are equating geological sources with just oil and gas? Well water comes from a ‘geological source’. Are you skeptical about the claims of the benefits of well water? Are all wells just a pretense for greenwashing the oil and gas industry?

Like I said, proselytizing your dogma. Trying to distort and obfuscate so that everything falls in your dogmatic proselytizing.

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?

No, the main geological resources of hydrogen are NOT from oil and gas. Read the links. Natural occurring geological sources of unbound hydrogen gas (not in association with oil and gas) are plentiful enough to provide our energy needs for hundreds of years, and Canada has the appropriate geology to have a substantial amount of these deposits. Also, you keep completely ignoring that the ammonia sent to Europe from the Maritime provinces is primarily from the electrolysis of water using non-fossil-fuel energy. You WANT it to be from gas and oil wells only because that is what fits your narrative, your dogma, and your proselytizing.

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.

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.