Iceland Bullish On Hydrogen (VIDEO)
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Advertisement
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
Personally, I wouldn’t put my money on hydrogen for transportation fuel. I’d put my money on battery-electric vehicles. But numerous companies, researchers, and governments are still putting a lot into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and no one knows for sure what the future holds.
Iceland has also been a clear clean energy leader and aims to get 100% of its energy from renewable resources. This leadership is also quickly highlighted in the video below, yet another excellent GE video.
http://youtu.be/uziXr2hIy9I
h/t Future360
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
Its focus forward film day!
GEeee
“The world will not follow Iceland. We will have to follow the world.”
The last two sentences should be printed out somewhere that the guy who said that would see it a few times every day. The world is not moving toward hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but toward electric vehicles.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology simply does not make financial sense. The only way FCEVs gain a market share is if we find it impossible to build a 200 mile range EV for less than $25k. And if someone builds a FCEV for well under $20k.
Renewable electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity is just too lossy and the infrastructure expensive.
I’ve spent a few days in Iceland. I rented a car and drove about half way around the island. I got the impression that there is not a lot of long distance driving done there. A great place for EVs. Just install plenty of charge outlets so that people can get in pre-warmed cars with happy batteries during the cold part of the year.
My thoughts exactly….(although I haven’t been there;-)
Hydrogen Fuel cells make on-board electricity for EVs — so they are EVs. And in Iceland electricity (and Hydrogen) is almost free – made by generators powered by volcanic steam. There are more than 100 ways to produce hydrogen from water without electrolysis.
Several problems with LI-ion battery cars
1. Batteries are heavy
2. Batteries are expensive
3. Li-ion batteries explode ( as happened in cell phones, laptops, cars, air-crafts)
4. Limited range due to lack of charging stations
5. Long charging times unless a battery swap is possible
6. Lithium is polluting
7. This technology is confined to the developed world
Hydrogen Fuel cells are cheap to make and are already in use world wide in trucks( Plug power Gendrives) and standby on-site power generation( Fuel Cell solutions). In the not too distant future, if current technologies develop, people will be able to make hydrogen at home from tap water.
That’s a bit over the top…
At one time there were a few incidents of lithium ion batteries catching on fire. They did not explode.
No EV batteries have exploded. There have been three incidences of batteries burning when damaged.
There are far more EV charging stations than there are hydrogen stations.
EV recharging is about 20 minutes at a rapid charging. FCEV refueling is about 5 minutes. Less than 5% of our driving days would we need a rapid charge.
Driving with hydrogen is 3x or more expensive than driving with electricity.
Lithium pollution is not an issue.
Current li-ion batteries do not explode. They can catch fire but it’s rare and generally only happens if the cells are punctured or overloaded. The latest chemistry is a lot safer than the old cobalt based chemistry and far safer than the lead acid batteries conventional cars use, which have exploded on one of my colleagues before.
Batteries are heavy but this will hopefully change. Even so, since electric cars are over 90% efficient compared to internal combustion engines, the future is only looking fantastic as battery weight and charge times come down as energy density goes up.
More charging stations will and currently are appearing.
Lithium may be polluting but the ‘over-exaggerated’ impact it has on the environment due to electric car demand is a myth. The aluminium in the batteries is far more harmful than the lithium. Whilst the batteries aren’t perfect (very little in life is) they are more than 90 per-cent recyclable so we’re not talking about a high level of waste, assuming the car companies are sensible about this and don’t just chuck the batteries in landfill instead – which would be stupid.
Hydrogen is a great solution for larger public transport vehicles that need the range. It’s also great for Iceland if they can hit 100% renewable rates. Many countries will, until batteries develop substantially and reach optimal levels of energy density (current lithium is 100-200 WH/kg), prefer to use hydrogen fuel cells for heavy duty applications such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, construction equipment, buses, etc where the battery range is not acceptable yet.
It’s also possible we’ll see commercial airlines using hydrogen cells, possibly by around 2040, estimates predict.
Vikings helping us get to the future via hydrogen.
Heavy leaky and slow to charge batteries require too much new infrastructure.
The ease of setting up a hydrogen pump at an existing convenience store and letting a person fill up in 5 minutes instead of 5 hours? Let’s get real.
Hydrogen is one for one swap with gasoline, with the results being the complete elimination of CO2 pollution. There’s no other choice.
Go Hydrogen!
How about doing the math for us John?
Here’s what you need to calculate.
1) The cost of building as much hydrogen generation capacity as we now have oil refineries.
2) The cost of replacing every gas station with hydrogen stations. Looks like we have something around 121,500.
3) The cost of replacing our fuel tanker trucks with hydrogen delivery trucks. Since hydrogen is bulkier to transport you’ll need to replace and enlarge the fleet.
You get that done and I’ll calculate the cost of installing a simple electrical outlet for the 40% of all drivers who currently don’t have a place to plug in. We already have the generation capacity and distribution system in place.
If they are looking to make some money selling their excess thermal energy they should make methane. Much easier to ship about the world as a replacement fuel for fred flintstone vehicles. I’m assuming this guy is getting his funding because the country knows it is sitting on the equivalent of hot gold.
They should drop a UHVDC cable over to the Ireland and the British Isles and sell their extra into Europe. Anyone who can sell hydro for wind/solar fill-in is going to have a nice market. Their competition would be stored wind and gas peakers.
Seriously a 1200mi cable might be doable with only a 10% loss. Quickly patent the idea!
The idea has been out there. It was part of Desertec and I think it’s part of EHighway 2050.
Like the video says, Iceland started experimenting with hydrogen fueled transportation in 2007 and it just hasn’t gone anywhere. A couple of car companies that have long term FCEV programs are going to introduce some cars, but they’re struggling to get manufacturing cost under $100k.
At the same time, just about every car manufacturer, along with a number of start-ups, is marketing EVs and PHEVs. Car manufacturers have the ability to hire very knowledgeable people and they can sign non-disclosure agreements with battery manufacturers so that they will know what’s in the pipeline.
If pretty much everyone is positioning themselves for an electricity future rather than a hydrogen future, well, make your own assumptions….
Honestly, I’m not really a fan of building undersea cable just to transport grid electricity for sale, thats a lot of copper going under water. Its a lot more economical to have certain industries moved to Iceland instead, like building data centres or even the aluminum plant powered by that huge hydropower dam.
You’d need to do the math for the amount of energy lost in shipping electricity vs. shipping raw materials to Iceland and finished materials back.
Iceland shouldn’t do manufacturing, they will do well with data center/server farm that requires cooling(which they naturally have), lots of electricity, and less labor intensive
Put those server centers just downstream from hydro plants. Use the spill water to cool the servers on its way downstream. Lose almost no electricity via transmission.
I wonder how the distance from other places would work into the cost of all that fiber optic?
Google did that with an abandoned former textile factory in Charlotte(or is it Finland?), since textile factory have plenty of water supply, using the water as cooling agent.
Interestingly fiber optic have been circling the globe for quite a while without the issue of cost being mentioned.
Found a study relating to the question — which is better for the environment, hybrids or EV’s? A recent study indicated in 39 states where fossil fuels are the predominant grid fuel, (gas) hybrids are the best choice. In 11 states with high and growing proportions of grid fuel from renewables, EV’s and plug-in hybrids are best. These are: Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Idaho, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, South Carolina, California, and South Dakota.
You’ll have to pardon us, Dave, we’re just passing through.
Check back this time next year and you’ll find that 39 number a bit smaller. And a year after that, smaller yet. And on it will go….
In a few years there are unlikely to be any states where gas hybrids will be cleaner than EVs. Coal plants are being closed. Wind and solar installation rates are soaring.
Big transition underway.
On the surface this strikes me as crazy. If a hybrid is more efficient than an EV. Then a regular auto would be more efficient than a hybrid.
What am I missing?
If a grid has a high coal input the net CO2 output could be a little higher with an EV than with a very efficient hybrid.
Thing is, with all the coal plants on schedule to be closed we aren’t going to have many, if any, coal-heavy grids a couple years from now.
Got the coal plants going away concept.
I don’t at all agree a fuel efficient fossil car is better for the environment than a Tesla getting its power from a coal plant.
I’ve read three different studies comparing CO2 emissions from an EV charged with 100% coal-electricity vs. a gasmobile. Two of the three found that the EV produced a bit more CO2 than the gasmobile. Overall the amounts weren’t much different.
I can’t recall the MPG for the gasmobile they used. If they used a 30 MPG car rather than a 50 MPG hybrid then the EV would have produced significantly more CO2.
I suspect that if you charged a Tesla off a high-coal grid you might be putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Of course that doesn’t mean if you live in Indiana, Kentucky, wherever you should avoid buying an EV. Buy away. Stick some solar panels on your roof. Produce no CO2. Stick it to the oil barons.
I’m copying from someone else’s (Jim1961) comment here…
“Argonne National Laboratories has something called the GREET model. (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) I downloaded the so-called GREET model but it turned out to be quite complicated. Then I found what they call their “mini-tool” which gives a summary of various vehicle/fuel technologies. You can find it here: http://greet.es.anl.gov/results Click where it says “here” to download the Excel spreadsheet. After you open the spreadsheet go to the bottom and click on the “per_mi” tab.
These greenhouse gas calculations are well-to-wheels. In other words, ALL energy expenditures are included such as drilling, transporting of crude, refining, and transportation to the pump, etc, etc. The units are grams of CO2 equivalent per mile. I picked out some of the most common vehicles and fuels.
Conventional ICE gasoline……451
HEV gasoline……………………323
FFV corn ethanol E85…………371
FFV switchgrass E85…………119
CNG ICE…………………………391
Diesel ICE……………………….386
Renewable diesel-soybean……92
Electricity EV U.S. Mix……….333
Electricity EV CA Mix…………172
Electricity EV Coal…………….579
Electric EV NGCC……………..243″
http://www.plugincars.com/winning-coal-burning-electric-plants-vs-burning-gas-tailpipe-argument.html
From those numbers I would guess the studies I’ve read used ‘conventional ICE’ cars at 451 grams CO2/mile which is somewhat better than a coal-powered EV at 579.
The EV and hybrid roughly tie with the US mix. And the EV wins with the CA mix.
Those co2 numbers are consistent with the numbers Tesla came up with when they did the research. Their website actually has a page here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity
and if you scroll down and click on West Virginia which has a shockingly awful 96% coal and 4% renewable mix, you’ll see the average ‘gas car’ produces 77% more co2 than the Tesla Model S over the same distance.
Conversely, Washington state, which is 69% hydroelectric shows you how much more efficient the car is running on a much greener grid, where the ICE car is 1355% more polluting. I shit you not. Just under FOURTEEN times more co2 per distance.
Next time someone tells you ‘but coal is dirty blah blah blah’ link them to http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity
From this study , renewable diesel and Ethanol are clear winners!!
In terms of CO2, yes.
What is not in that list is an EV charged with 100% renewable energy. And that’s where we’re headed.
What it also not in that list is cost per mile. Renewable diesel and ethanol can’t compete with electricity.
As you may know, the first EV was demonstrated in 1862 and pre-dates cars powered ICEs. Countless manufacturers have produced various EVs in various sizes and shapes over the last 100 years without much acceptance due to limitations. The flexibility of ICEs triumphed over EVs. The same reasons that held back BEVs of yore are still holding back BEVs despite obvious advantages over ICEs
1. Most countries produce electricity from fossil fuels( so not green)
2. Battery storage is inconvenient ( charging times)
3. battery storage is expensive.
4. Low power to weight ratio ( large battery required)
Solar and wind power has overcome the first objection ( fossil fuels) but as these power sources are weather dependent, cannot be relied upon to provide standby power in any country. And zero power in very northern countries such as Siberia. And the problems with batteries still persist
1. Charging time
2. Batteries are heavy and expensive.
Pure BEVs maybe okay in California but a definite no in India and China – worlds most populous nations — where daily grid breakdowns are not uncommon. Even is US there are occasions where some towns go without power for weeks. What good is a BEV then?
This is the reason why Toyota and Honda are betting on Hydrogen cars. Different countries will adopt different fuels. In Brazil Ethanol is cheap – ICEs running on E85 is common. In Finland and Iceland, where geothermal steam power Generators , BEVs are a good bet. In countries where there is a surplus of Soya – BioDiesel maybe a better energy source for cars than electricity.
Different countries will adopt different technologies for present.
“Pure EVs maybe okay in California but a definite no in India and China – worlds most populous nations –because of lack of electricity and grid breakdowns.”
News Flash!!!
They have sunshine and wind in both China and India. And, remarkably, both China and India are installing solar panels and wind turbines.
China installed more solar in 2013 than the US has since Moses took up stone carving.
Furthermore if you lived in a place with an unreliable grid you’d probably also be living in a place with an unreliable hydrogen supply as well. But you’d have the option of putting some solar panels on your house or place of business and charging up your EV.
Dear Bob,
90% of Solar and Wind systems are Grid tie systems- as is the case in US. Very few with battery back up. When the grid goes – there goes your solar panel and Wind power!
Solar PV panel out put ( Watts ) vary every minute – same with wind power. Cannot function properly without the grid or battery back up. Solar power looks great in theory – but in practice a little more complicated than that. They require positioning and cleaning to get the quoted output.
It’s not at all complicated to set your solar system up with battery storage. When the grid goes down, you stay up.
Rather than a grid-tie only inverter you install a grid-tie inverter with battery backup.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/grid-tie-battery-backup.html
With a battery backup grid-tie inverter and a battery bank when the grid goes down your home/business switches to the battery bank for power. It’s exactly like using a UPS for your computer, except the batteries are large enough to keep your house running for hours.
Having spent a lot of time in places that have unreliable grids (India, Nepal, Central America, etc.) I know a bit about the power suddenly and frequently going off.
And having lived off the grid for over 25 years I have a pretty good understanding of running a solar system. For example, you can size your array a bit larger and not bother with seasonal repositioning. And in places where it rains you may not gain much by cleaning.
I live is in Asia and You are lecturing to a person who has been using Inverters and battery back-up for over twenty years. A decent Battery back up system ( 2 -3 Kw) costs as much or more than a Solar system. And the inverters are guaranteed only for ten years – and replacements cost plus battery replacement costs are prohibitive. For anyone investing $20,000 plus on a system is really paying his electricity bills up-front for twenty years.If you lived in India you will know that the vast majority of Indians who have no electricity, and who live in the margins of society, cannot afford to buy a roll of toilet tissue to wipe their a$$, let alone a Solar system with a off-grid battery back -up. I think you are living on a different planet — California?
Are you intending to play a game of moving the goal posts? If so, don’t expect me to play along too long. It gets boring.
A ten year warranty does not mean that inverters have a ten year expected lifespan. When you purchase a new car with a 3 year, 30,000 mile warranty you don’t see the bumpers falling off at 37 months.
Talking to a couple of companies that sell inverters they say one should expect at least 20 years. There will be exceptions,. as with everything.
Yes, storage is not cheap. It will get cheaper.
Learn about micro-solar. Over 2 million systems have now been installed in Bangladesh and 80,000 more are being installed per month. India has one or more micro-solar programs. It’s now the “vast majority” are going to get their first electricity.
http://www.pv-tech.org/friday_focus/friday_focus_how_bangladesh_became_the_worlds_biggest_domestic_off_grid_pla
“As of January 2013, MGP operates micro grids in 155 villages of Uttar Pradesh serving 3,600 households with quality indoor lighting.”
http://meragaopower.com/
You are the one who is now changing the goal posts. Read beyond the headlines — these micro – solar grid systems provide electricity for only one bulb or two per home in most cases and are sponsored by charities or government sponsored. You wont be able to run your refrigerator or AC. Not the sort of a home owner who will by a BEV or a Tesla. We are talking about BEVs. Tell me how a BEV owner going to charge his Tesla when the whole town or village has lost power for several days or weeks? — which happens with alarming regularity in Florida and other states after storms and typhoons. And do you think you can charge a Tesla off a micro- electric grid in India?. Even you have to admit that most BEV owners have another car — so they are well to do people.
Let me remind you that you are the one who introduced the topic of the poorest –
“.If you lived in India you will know that the vast majority of Indians who have no electricity, and who live in the margins of society, cannot afford to buy a roll of toilet tissue to wipe their a$$, let alone a Solar system with a off-grid battery back -up. I think you are living on a different planet — California?”
I responded. Now, please don’t tell me what is happening when you haven’t bother to read.
People who have been living with kero (get yourself out and see what sort of light an open wick lamp gives – spend a few hours breathing the fumes – learn something about your own country) are moving to a couple nice, clean, bright LEDs. They’re charging their cell phone rather than paying someone else to do it, walking for miles, whatever. Some of the systems run a radio.
They are purchasing their systems. With the money they are not spending on kero and candles. Some of the programs offer the opportunity to upgrade to a larger system after the first system is paid off. Solar, being modular, will let them build up to a refrigerator if they have the money.
If you bothered to read the information I gave you then you would know that micro-solar is, by and large, not charity but an entrepreneurial model financed by the Grameen and World Banks.
—
“Tell me how a BEV owner going to charge his Tesla when the whole town or village has lost power for several days or weeks?”
13,000 average miles per year (US drivers) = 36 miles per day.
At 0.3 kWh/mile that’s 10.8 kWh per day.
4.5 average solar hours per day (US median) means a 2.4 kW array.
The UK, Germany and Australia are installing rooftop solar for $2/W. The US will get there soon.
2.4 kW * $2/W = $4,800 for the next 40+ years of “fuel”.
That’s what it takes to charge a Tesla for the ordinary US driver. If one has a Tesla why would they want a second car?
Just for fun I ran the numbers for driving a Prius on average priced gasoline vs. driving a LEAF with solar panels on your house. (Assuming net metering.)
$4.81/W average residential solar price Q2, 2013
$3.67/W w/30% fed sub
13,000 avg miles per year
35.6 avg miles per day
0.3 kWh/mile
11.75 kWh/day (includes 10% charging loss)
4.2 avg solar hours per day (not-sunny NE)
2.8 kW panels required
$10,270 for solar system to charge batteries
13,000 avg miles per year
41.3 avg MPG real world Prius Hybrids
315 gallons gasoline per year
$3.59/gallon
$1,130/year gasoline
9.1 year payoff for solar system. Faster if one adds in higher maintenance costs for Prius.
2013 Nissan LEAF $21,300 (after federal subsidy)
2013 Toyota Prius $24,200 (starting MSRP)
After the solar system is paid off it should provide free charging for another 20+ years.
This is overwhelming…
Were we installing at German/Australian prices of $2/W the cost of the solar system would be $5,600.
Subtract the $2.900 difference between the Prius and LEAF and initial purchase price for solar and LEAF would be $2,700.
Payoff time for the solar system would be 2.4 years. After that, no more “fuel” costs. At least three decades.
The more I play with EV/solar/wind numbers the less chance I think hydrogen FCEVs have.
Thinking about it from a different angle, assume we’re a couple years further down the road and residential solar is $2/W. $5,600 in the NE for three decades (conservatively) of fuel.
$5,600 / 30 yr = $187/yr (I’m leaving out financing cost)
$187 / 13,000 miles = $0.014/mile. That’s like running the Prius on 60 cent per gallon gas. How could you possibly produce and distribute hydrogen for “60c/gallon”?
It’s not the hydrogen FCEVs I’m having problems with. It’s a nice concept but the economics and technology are holding it back.
I’m having problems with how a hybrid can be more efficient than EVs and dinosaur cars. (When the EV is getting powered from an old generation coal plant.)
If a hybrid is more efficient than an EV it is because of the dinosaur engine. Only difference. Then a small efficient dinosaur car not lugging around batteries and motors would be even more efficient. So the hybrid would be less efficient than a pure dinosaur car.
Likewise if the hybrid were more efficient than the dinosaur car then a pure EV would be even more efficient than a hybrid.
Unless they are describing efficiency as something more than less carbon pollution.
A hybrid doesn’t
have a “dinosaur engine” under its hood. It has a very efficient system
that allows more of the energy embedded in the fuel to be transformed
into kinetic energy. It’s more efficient than a coal plant.
If you took the batteries out of the hybrid it would not be as efficient. The engine would have to rev up and down with speed changes rather than running at its optimal RPMs.
I’d like to see the CO2 numbers for an EV running on 100% coal-electricity with the coal being burned in one of the super-critical plants like Germany and China are building.
Seems like I’m learning all the time. So a hybrid would suck at freeway speeds, where a steady pressure on the gas gauge for long period of time without touching the breaks, but be great for city travel. Never realized this was how it a hybrid could be better than either.
The Prius does well during both highway and city driving. About 2 MPG less on highways.
Hybrids are pretty danged good, a lot better than pure ICEVs. They are a good way to cut our petroleum use while we develop better batteries and make our grids cleaner.
Bridges.
Is anyone talking seriously about gas turbines in hybrids? It would be more efficient that internal combustion, but would have to recoup its development costs before improved batteries come along.
My guess is that most car manufacturers see batteries developing fairly rapidly.
Look at how many companies are marketing/about to market an EV. They aren’t doing that because there’s a huge market right now and they want a piece. They smell market down the road, not too far away.
What we outsiders need to realize is that car companies have the cash to hire some very knowledgeable battery people, sign non-disclosure agreements, and send their experts into all/most of the companies who are developing EV batteries and see what it really happening.
If their battery experts were telling them that we won’t have adequate range batteries until 2020 or later I doubt that they would be investing in 2014 EVs, they’d kick back and let Nissan and a couple other companies sell into the tiny niche market.
The question for a car company is how to make electric vehicles profitable once battery costs come down. An EV is a much simpler, cheaper and longer-lasting machine than an ICEV. As standardized batteries, motors and control hardware become available, there’s less scope for extra-cost power train technology.
Now true, it’s going to take a while to perfect self-driving features, but some outfit like Magna here in Canada could offer a standard sensors and hardware platform that could be installed in a wide range of auto bodies and upgraded or customized with software every so often.
You build it. Calculate the cost. Add on whatever margin the market will bear.
Same as ICEVs.
After the initial round of EVs replacing ICEVs car companies may not be as profitable because car lifespans are likely to increase. Replace batteries after 100,000 / 120,000 miles /whatever and you’ve got a car that will perform like new for another whatever.
For a lot of people it will make sense to refurbish their 10 year old ride with some new paint and seat covers/carpet/whatever and drive it twice as long as they would an ICEV with a engine and transmission falling apart.
Of course there are going to be a lot more new car owners coming on line so car companies don’t need to worry for a long time.
What is better for the Environment :
Amish way of living with horse drawn carts without a doubt. For others:
1. Direct Solar powered cars — but not there yet
2. Indirect Solar Powered cars – BEVs ( half way there but not quite)
3. Indirect Solar – Hydrogen Fuel cell powered cars ( very promising and more flexible than BEVs). Hydrogen produced by Solar or other renewable sources
4. Diesel – Plug in Hybrid ( Volvo V60 – claimed 155 mpg – real 75 – 100 mpg) astonishing mileage for a big 4×4 wagon.
5. Micro-Turbine powered cars using natural gas( Methane)
6. Other Petrol Hybrids
EVs powered with wind, solar and other renewable technologies. Way out ahead of everything else.
Direct solar powered cars is probably not technically possible. There’s not enough surface area.
I suspect that the push for hydrogen is to try to ensure that the fuel we use for transportation will still have to come from centralized sources, e.g. Shell. Electricity is too ubiquitous to be controlled by a handful of companies that now control the supple of oil and gasoline.
Some people seem to be enthralled by large, complex systems. We see that with rebuilding the petroleum industry into the hydrogen industry and in using nuclear reactors for our electricity.
Solar panels and wind turbines are apparently don’t satisfy their need for really big stuff.
If there’s a desire to build “really big stuff” once fossil fuel extraction becomes unprofitable, I suggest the world’s industrialists build out my design for a “reverse river” to lift climate-scale water into regions that are getting dried out by global warming.
http://fractalicious.ca
The way things are looking in the American south-west, they could get a pretty good price for the water.
Yes, Bob, I understand. I just had to comment on Zach’s point. And did not want everyone too think the CO2 field was level and that EV (or plug-in hybrid) folks in heavy coal power generation states are (as yet) helping the GHG situation there. We are on the same page.