Ports will be much quieter, much less polluted, much less of a greenhouse gas emitter, and much more efficient. Everyone will be better off at the end of this process. Well, except for the people who invested heavily in hydrogen for energy.
The result of all these puts and takes is a lower demand in the end than I’d originally projected for 2100. My original projection was around 90 million tons, now it’s slightly under 80 million tons.
Rebates and tax credits are helping people in the US to switch to household electrification. Award for startups are also helping climate action to become a reality — if only more people were aware of them.
Like the tiny corkscrew, blade, and toothpick on the Swiss Army knife, hydrogen just isn’t the go-to molecule if there are alternatives, and there are almost always alternatives. And in hydrogen’s case, a lot of the current use cases are going to diminish due to economic and climate imperatives, not grow.
But MEPs should mandate deeper emissions cuts by 2030 and extend the targets to all truck types.
Maerk’s dual-fuel ships, when they run on methanol at all, will be very unlikely to be burning green methanol directly, at least not for a long time.
I am betting on collective sanity, rational behavior of governments, and funding getting into the right hands as opposed to into the hands of people working on useless frippery.
This tectonic shift, while it will take decades instead of the seconds of the Christchurch cataclysm, will be more broadly disruptive. We can manage it wisely or foolishly, yet it will still occur.
Last week I had the opportunity to talk with over 300 participants in an Australian Smart Energy Council webinar. It … [continued]
Recently I had the opportunity to talk with a few hundred mostly Australian participants in a Smart Energy Council webinar. … [continued]
