Biden Awards $7 Billion For 7 Hydrogen Hubs In Climate Fight Plan (reuters.com) 96
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. President Joe Biden traveled to Philadelphia on Friday to announce the recipients of $7 billion in federal grants across 16 states for the development of seven regional hydrogen hubs, advancing a key part of a plan to decarbonize the U.S. economy. The announcement of the funding to boost manufacturing and blue-collar jobs was held in Pennsylvania -- a state that could decide the 2024 presidential election -- underscoring the power Biden wields as he spends the upcoming months doling out money flowing from his landmark pieces of legislation that remain largely unknown to large swaths of the American public.
The seven proposed hubs involving companies ranging from Exxon Mobil to Amazon were selected, with their projects spanning 16 states from Pennsylvania to California. The program is intended to jump-start the production of "clean hydrogen" along with the infrastructure needed to get it to industrial users like steelmakers and cement plants. "I'm here to announce one of the largest advanced manufacturing investments in the history of this nation," Biden said," He noted that the total investment will reach $50 billion when taking into account additional investments from private companies.
The hub selections will now kick off a long process that includes multiple phases, from design and development to permitting, financing and construction. "It's not guaranteed that someone selected is even going to make it through negotiations and get awarded the money," said Jason Munster, who was involved in analyzing the projects for the Department of Energy and is now a hydrogen consultant at CleanEpic. The hubs selected will serve the Middle Atlantic, Appalachian, Midwest, Minnesota and Plains states, the Gulf Coast, Pacific Northwest and California. The two largest projects include $1.2 billion each for Texas and California -- the former an oil giant and the other a green energy leader.
The seven proposed hubs involving companies ranging from Exxon Mobil to Amazon were selected, with their projects spanning 16 states from Pennsylvania to California. The program is intended to jump-start the production of "clean hydrogen" along with the infrastructure needed to get it to industrial users like steelmakers and cement plants. "I'm here to announce one of the largest advanced manufacturing investments in the history of this nation," Biden said," He noted that the total investment will reach $50 billion when taking into account additional investments from private companies.
The hub selections will now kick off a long process that includes multiple phases, from design and development to permitting, financing and construction. "It's not guaranteed that someone selected is even going to make it through negotiations and get awarded the money," said Jason Munster, who was involved in analyzing the projects for the Department of Energy and is now a hydrogen consultant at CleanEpic. The hubs selected will serve the Middle Atlantic, Appalachian, Midwest, Minnesota and Plains states, the Gulf Coast, Pacific Northwest and California. The two largest projects include $1.2 billion each for Texas and California -- the former an oil giant and the other a green energy leader.
Alrighty then. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: Hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing water, and the fuel can be considered clean – or low-emission - if it is produced using renewable energy, nuclear energy or natural gas with carbon capture technology attached.
So Nuclear and Natural Gas... the two things were were told are "bad" are the energy sources for the thing that is "good". Understood.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL you MAGA gits vomit up your hate every chance you get. We're all laughing our butts off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Alrighty then. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can any business that relies so heavily on government subsidies be so influential among elected politicians? Here's my guess, a large portion of the government subsidies ends up as donations to the re-election campaigns of these politicians. This is a money laundering scheme, washing government funds through these "green" businesses to end up funding re-election advertisements and rallies. As implied in the parent comment this is not questioned because doing so brings accusations of being a "denier"
Re: (Score:2)
LOL "the left".
Re:Alrighty then. (Score:4)
So Nuclear and Natural Gas... the two things were were told are "bad" are the energy sources for the thing that is "good". Understood.
BBB contained some good stuff and some stupid stuff, and the hydrogen subsidies are one of the stupidest.
But that's the way you get legislation passed. There has to be something for everyone, and that includes tossing some subsidies to legacy fossil fuel companies so they don't lobby against the bill.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The subsidies are not for hydrogen.
They are for infrastructure. Which happens to be relevant for the future hydrogen industry.
What a fucked up country and world few that a government aka a society can not build up infrastructure which everyone later will need, depend on and benefit on: without waiting for the private sector. Which is usually to late and to expensive, trying to kill competition and rip off customers.
You make fun about Germany having high electricity prices - for households - and forget that
Re: (Score:2)
You make fun about Germany having high electricity prices - for households - and forget that a typical German household only uses a quarter or less than Americans?
Cheap, reliable, and plentiful electricity is one of the great things about living in a first world society. Nobody really wants to pay four times as much, for anything. Besides, we are constantly told renewables are the cheapest form of energy there is. So what is your excuse again?
Re: (Score:1)
Excuse for what?
If I only use 1/4th of your energy, it does not matter if I pay 2x per unit, I still only pay half as much as you do.
Energy in Germany is highly taxed, hence it is more expensive than in your country.
As the effort your utilities have to do for your grid are more or less the same, the percentage of my total price which is for the grid is much higher than yours. And that grid "nbase price" is not going away when I reduce my energy consumption.
Cheap, reliable, and plentiful electricity is one o
Re: (Score:2)
If I only use 1/4th of your energy, it does not matter if I pay 2x per unit, I still only pay half as much as you do.
If energy cost ten times as much but you only used one twentieth it would be like...living in Haiti!
Energy in Germany is highly taxed, hence it is more expensive than in your country.
Why would you highly tax a basic public utility? Do you highly tax water as well (no need to answer, I can just imagine). I thought you were supposed to have a surfeit of cheap and abundant renewable energy, wasn't that the plan?
Energy is cheap in your country because your society is poor. Hence the subsidies for your electricity. And hence your unreliable and actual not plentiful at all power. Most people don't consider the USA a first world country, anyway.
I live in Canada. My energy is socialized, but not at all subsidized. Rest assured we have nothing to learn from whatever you are doing.
Re:Alrighty then. (Score:4, Interesting)
So Nuclear and Natural Gas... the two things were were told are "bad" are the energy sources for the thing that is "good". Understood.
I like how you left out the bit about carbon capture and are now trying to reframe history as someone backpeddling on natural gas.
Mind you natural gas wasn't framed as bad. Quite the opposite, it has long been pitched as a transitional fuel with a far lower carbon intensity than what we were burning at the time.
Also nuclear is bad or good depending on whom you ask. You are quoting one author from Reuters, not any official government declaration on good vs evil nature of power sources.
Do you typically obey everything you are "told" by anyone who writes something on the internet?
Re:Alrighty then. (Score:5, Informative)
> I like how you left out the bit about carbon capture
Carbon capture doesn't exist, is the problem.
Ref: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao... [gao.gov]
To date, there has been only ONE at-scale carbon capture attempt, which was still a dismal failure. The Petro Nova plant spent over a billion dollars to capture less than 10% of the emissions from a coal powerplant - the carbon capturing equipment itself being powered by an entirely separate, dedicated natural gas powerplant - and the captured carbon was only used to assist in extracting oil by injecting it into wells. Being hilariously expensive and obviously not worth the trouble, the project closed down in 2020.
The reality is "Carbon capture" is just greenwashing and an excuse to delay transitioning away from fossil fuels.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon capture doesn't exist, is the problem.
This entire article is talking about a future development. None of it exists. But this is completely irrelevant to my point in that you're being dishonest if you think that somehow this is reframing past discussions about natural gas.
To date, there has been only ONE at-scale carbon capture attempt, which was still a dismal failure.
I'm sure buggy whip manufacturers laughed at the first car too. The issue is carbon capture works in theory. And by that I mean the chemistry of it is understood and has been demonstrated to work in pilots. Nothing works until it's built. Oil refineries used to be a dismal fail
Re: (Score:1)
The reality is "Carbon capture" is just greenwashing
Greenwashing is pretending to have a solution without putting any effort or expense into the problem. Carbon capture, is a legitimate technical solution that companies are sinking a huge amount of expense into trying to get to work, which if it does will have a major positive benefit.
It's the opposite of greenwashing, it's a direct investment in a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen production is being pushed hard by the nuclear industry because it might be the one thing that makes nuclear economically viable. Probably not though, we will likely see most of it produced by renewables with a big over-build and demand shifting.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your counter proposal?
Why would you assume that he had one?
You cannot note the flaws of a current hypothesis unless you can articulate a superior process? Should a flawed solution be continued, indefinitely, at any cost, until a better one is proposed? How many billions/trillions/whatever is reasonable to funnel into something that is failing, until you come up with a better idea?
When you finally discover it, will you have any money left to funnel into the better idea?
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your counter proposal?
Why would you assume that he had one?
You cannot note the flaws of a current hypothesis unless you can articulate a superior process?
In general, no that would not be required but there is a particular debating style of pouring scorn on alternatives because someone supports the status quo only.
Re: (Score:2)
You know there were three things, not two, right? Surely you could have edited the "quote" so that it could lie better for your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
So Nuclear and Natural Gas... the two things were were told are "bad" are the energy sources for the thing that is "good". Understood.
Straw man.
FAIL
Solar storm (Score:2)
we will need an pack of homer simpsons to run the (Score:2, Insightful)
we will need an pack of homer Simpsons to run the plants
Why have only one Solyndra... (Score:2, Funny)
...when you can have seven!
Re:Why have only one Solyndra... (Score:5, Insightful)
Banks have MUCH larger failure rates than that old Obama program.
Solyndra was not a real scandal; those loan programs gamble on things that won't get much funding any other way but could do something with huge national benefits. They were doomed but success was possible unlike horse paste... (FYI, the initial report also indicated the level of success was at a fatal dose.)
Re:Why have only one Solyndra... (Score:5, Informative)
Solyndra was not a real scandal; those loan programs gamble on things that won't get much funding any other way but could do something with huge national benefits.
The whole program made a profit for the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Solyndra was not a real scandal
True, it was only $400M, which is, like, 30 minutes of federal spending, and a "scandal" means someone did something crooked, not just dumb.
But many people tried to warn the Obama administration that it was a poorly run company using technology that wasn't gonna work.
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate stupidity is just as bad as dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
THE PROGRAM MADE A PROFIT.
Specific losses were offset by gains. Even if they had lost money the non-monetary gains were worth the risk.
There are always cranks who "warn" about everything government does and many are just people who are full of shit who sometimes just get lucky while their fans never make note of their bad track record. What a waste bailing out Musk was, those EVs were never going to work to point people want to buy them!
Yeah, Obama sure did take all the guns and death panels and communist
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
why have we not passed a law forbidding any non citizen, or H1B, from working on certain technologies.
Probably because those spies are often US citizens.
Re:Why have only one Solyndra... (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit man, it's been twelve years since they went bankrupt. C'mon get some fucking new material. The amount of fraud pulled with PPP is like untold amount of Solyndras, where's the outrage? Oh that's right, that was your team that did that one, so it's cool the public got ripped on that. We get it, this one failure is all you have. I mean, what's next, we need to ask for the long form again?
Fucking 'eh, broke ass record is what your username should be. I mean shit, the airline industry got bailed out. C'mon you can't find something in that to bitch about? THE FUCKING CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY GOT BAILED OUT!! And you're stuck on Solyndra? My dude. . . 2011 called, they said they wanted you to move on.
Nothing but love for ya, but dang c'mon now grandpa. We got to get with the times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides!!!
Of course, one side would only support it for the grift.
"Everyone in congress holds some level of responsibility"
Unlikely, but certainly not equal levels of responsibility. Did every member of congress personally exploit PPP? Some did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Struggles have a way to staying with you long after the event is gone.
I agree. We had a big wind storm blow through here years ago and it knocked over a lot of power lines and communications infrastructure. This caused lengthy power outages as well as making it difficult to get fuel. There's more people with TV antennas on their roof now (both terrestrial TV as well as satellite), more people with generators (I heard them in the neighborhood in the last, far less lengthy, power outage), and likely more people keeping jerrycans of fuel on hand.
When considering hydrogen as a
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck kind of revisionist bullshit is this hot turd of a comment? LOL. Congress indicates oversight my dude. The EXECUTIVE branch (remember that part of the government?) is the one who implements oversight (or lack thereof). It's kind of in the name, ya know, "EXECUTIVE". Also, I know it feels like it was forever ago and a lot of shit was going on and what not. But Trump literally was the person who unilaterally killed the oversight. Remember? [politico.com]
Everyone in congress holds some level of responsibility
Y'all got to come up with some new shit, the both
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is energy storage, not production (Score:3)
Hydrogen production = natural gas (48%), oil (30%), coal (18%), and electrolysis of water (4%)
Cost of hydrogen production = $1–1.80/kg grey/blue hydrogen (96%), $2.50–6.80 green hydrogen (4%)
Fossil fuels hydrogen carbon footprint (remember 96% of hydrogen production) = 20% > gas or coal, 60% > diesel
So... what problem is this supposed to solve? Why do we want to emit more CO2 & methane?
Re: (Score:2)
So... what problem is this supposed to solve?
That green energy produced in one way can't be stored in a way that needs to be used without it. I mean in theory you could take 20 Teslas, charge them up, and then set it on fire inside an industrial furnace, but I don't think that's a better option than burning hydrogen.
Why do we want to emit more CO2 & methane?
Non-sequitur. Hydrogen production is just hydrogen production. The primary energy mix behind it can vary. The hydrogen you build today won't necessarily emit CO2 and methane tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK but back in the real world, what do you think will actually happen? Please re-read the above information if necessary.
Why? You're asking about a future while your above information is about the present. In the real world we can see what will happen in terms of direct investment in industry, and there's one thing certain: any number you quote from today is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen production is just hydrogen production
This is false. What this is is forcing a loop through Hydrogen for a tax write-off. The problem is that this loop loses 3/4th its efficiency (50% for each transition). So nobody is going to do it because its both uneconomical and it doesn't go anything for CO2 emissions unless you get the H2 from nuclear (even solar and wind can't do that). It is our societies lack of scientific literacy that allows such boondoggles to happen. We know what the solutions are, but those aren't popular solution so we get
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is that this loop loses 3/4th its efficiency (50% for each transition)."
This is lie, and is also irrelevant.
First, electrolysis is 70-80% efficient, not 50%. Conversion back may be 50%, but what are you comparing it to? The problem is storage of electrical energy, so the hydrogen round trip needs to be compared to alternative round trip costs. Battery round trips will be more efficient, probably double hydrogen but, still, so what?
Downstream efficiency matters when you are limited by what you c
Re: (Score:2)
> First, electrolysis is 70-80% efficient, not 50%
You also need to account for handling and distribution losses, as well as energy inputs for upstream processes (e.g. water treatment). The fact is the hydrogen storage cycle's round trip efficiency is about two thirds that of battery storage, so you'll need about 50% more input energy. It's a losing proposition that only makes sense if you really need the hydrogen as hydrogen for something other than energy transfer.
> There's a reason the Japanese purs
Re: (Score:2)
You succinctly answered your own question then followed up with "so what".
"... There's a reason the Japanese pursued hydrogen fuel cell rather than BEV, they believed it was more via {sic} to build out their national infrastructure with hydrogen than with BEV recharging stations. The Japanese are not stupid like
The entire Japanese economy rests on the internal combustion eng
Re: (Score:2)
In hindsight, we may come to understand that Tesla did us no favors in redirecting attention toward BEV as the alternative to ICE. The primary complaint of BEV is solved directly by hydrogen.
This. I'd go one further and suggest going all in on synthetic gasoline would have been a better solution. Just change the fuel to be net zero emissions, not the entire transportation system at a cost of trillions. Yes, it is a very expensive and niche market right now, but adoption at scale would (and eventually will if you listen to some people) bring the price down to be competitive with oil based fuels.
No question using electricity to power BEVs directly is more efficient, however vast savings com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are wind electrons somehow not capable of electrolysis?
The most efficient means to produce hydrogen from water use high temperature heat, sometimes in addition to electricity but depending on the process it may be a thermal driven chemical process. We can get heat from electricity but with the intermittent nature of wind and solar getting consistent heat is a problem. We could use thermal mass to store the heat to cover over some of the intermittency but this can be applied to any energy source. By applying thermal energy storage to hydrogen production we co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that this loop loses 3/4th its efficiency (50% for each transition).
That is wrong.
Got pointed out several times to you.
No idea why you keep repeating that "misconception".
So nobody is going to do it because its both uneconomical
It is uneconomical at the moment. So we start now to make it economical. Just like with every industry humans ever built up.
and it doesn't go anything for CO2 emissions unless you get the H2 from nuclear
Surprise surprise: that is the plan. Dee below.
(even solar and
Re: (Score:2)
So nobody is going to do it because its both uneconomical and it doesn't go anything for CO2 emissions unless you get the H2 from nuclear
Interesting assertion, one that is based on ignorance. People *are* doing it. Many projects are underway to change firing of industrial furnaces, it's the reason the likes of John Zink has such a huge frigging backlog on furnace burner production. The industry *is* doing it to the point where all electrolyser manufacturers are completely backlogged with production as are producers of products to consumer hydrogen (furnace manufacturers, refuelling manufacturers, etc.) And no nuclear isn't the only solution
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sequitur. Hydrogen production is just hydrogen production. The primary energy mix behind it can vary.
I agree that the primary energy behind the production of hydrogen can vary but I know that without reliable and low CO2 energy behind this hydrogen production it will fail to be affordable or reliable. The hydrogen produced can be no more reliable than the energy that is used to produce it. If there's to be reliable "green" hydrogen then it needs to come from hydro, geothermal, or nuclear fission. Given that we've about run out of rivers worth a dam there's not much growth potential for hydro power. Geo
Re: (Score:2)
So... what problem is this supposed to solve?
If we switch to hydrogen, it keeps the oil companies and oil services companies (pipelines, transportations, etc) in the loop for the future of energy.
Oil companies have been lobbying for hydrogen for years with great success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Old oil and gas pipelines are not really suitable to transport hydrogen. ... there is no hydrogen production there.
First of all: they come from oil/gas wells
Secondly, the transport works by having pumps/compressors every few km/miles, that are powered by the transported fuel. E.g. gas pipelines burn the gas they transport to compress the gas in the pipe. That would perhaps be an easy switch from gas to hydrogen, but complicated for oil.
Then oil and gas pipelines are usually simply steel, which is not suited
Re: (Score:2)
But why would anyone do that when he can simple attach his hydrogen plant to the grid at the place where hydrogen is consumed?
It doesn't have to make sense, it has to make them money.
As for your question, hydrogen is produced at natural gas processing facilities. You can't do that at every car hydrogen pumping station that they envision. Perhaps with electrolysis but for now that's just a tiny fraction.
Also I didn't say it would be the same pipes. These companies are happy to sell new pipes (and they do).
That it doesn't make sense is true. But it's public information that oil companies are lobying for large scale hydrogen gas infr
Re: (Score:1)
Does not matter if they are lobbying for it.
Hydrogen will be an importer cornerstone in the future.
Obviously it is kind of odd that companies that have money call for government money.
Re: (Score:2)
Some industrial processes are reliant on spatial heat from burners also hydrogen can be used to create reducing blast furnaces to replace coke based ones.
It's an essential part to make industry net zero, regardless of transport fuel and seasonal storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, nothing can ever change, and the "problem this is supposed to solve" couldn't POSSIBLY include that.
"Why do we want to emit more CO2 & methane?"
That seems like a question you are uniquely qualified to answer. Because it damages the people you want damaged?
Re: (Score:1)
Modern hydrogen production is done by splitting water with a catalysator and heat, usually solar.
No CO2 involved.
The rest is electrolysis with renewables, or a plant that does load shaping and prefers to waste surplus heat/electricity to make hydrogen instead of powering down the plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern hydrogen production is done by splitting water with a catalysator and heat, usually solar. No CO2 involved. The rest is electrolysis with renewables, or a plant that does load shaping and prefers to waste surplus heat/electricity to make hydrogen instead of powering down the plant.
Correction: 4% of hydrogen production is done by splitting water with a catalysator [sic] and heat, usually solar.
The other 96% is produced from & with fossil fuels & all the CO2 that involves. Apparently, more than $7 billion worth.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems you are right, I found this one: https://iea.blob.core.windows.... [windows.net]
Much information missing (Score:2)
Great that they trying to do the right thing, but I can't help but think the money would be better spent elsewhere if the objective is CO2 reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
The least problems still have to be solved on a schedule to be ready by 2050 if you want to have a shot at net zero by then.
Everything has to be done in parallel now, not low hanging fruit priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The thing we have to do is make hydrocarbon fuels from nuclear power. "
Delightful. That's what "we have to do". Only do carbon extraction if we can add that same carbon back!
Now, if only that were viable perhaps we could fund doing it. Maybe you should take the lead.
There is, in fact, ongoing research on these types of synthetic fuels. It's sad, though, that the entire world isn't as smart as you, or that they fail to know something about renewable vs. nuclear that you do. Perhaps if only the industry
Re: (Score:2)
Only do carbon extraction if we can add that same carbon back!
What's wrong with that? It closes the carbon cycle meaning it adds no more CO2 to the atmosphere, it's no more contributing to the problem than solar and batteries. It's perhaps better than solar and batteries since it doesn't require near as much labor and materials. Also, with the carbon stored as fuel the fuel becomes a carbon sink. The more carbon based fuel we produce and put in fuel tanks the more carbon is taken from the environment and "sequestered" in those same fuel tanks, that's CO2 which is
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of nuclear, synthetic hydrocarbons have extra costs too. At net zero you will have to recapture the CO2, partially in situ and/or directly from air, combined with (bio-)synthesis of the hydrocarbon this ain't cheap.
Directly using hydrogen will likely be preferable for some or all the use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there no alternative to hydrocarbons? Why not batteries?
Do the math on energy density and you will discover why batteries are not an alternative to hydrocarbons. I saw an interview with Elon Musk where he tried to talk through how a battery powered airplane would work, and what he described would have been something the size of a Boeing 747 that carried maybe a dozen passengers. The energy density of batteries have been improving over the years but we are hitting real physical limits. We are seeing BEV manufacturers, like Telsa, backing away from lithium-ion
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there no alternative to hydrocarbons? Why not batteries?
Do the math on energy density and you will discover why batteries are not an alternative to hydrocarbons.
Do EVs exist with ranges of around 300 miles? What is the power plant to wheel efficiency of synthetic hydrocarbon creation and use?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I do agree is that the stability and density of hydrocarbons is preferable to hydrogen, and in some cases the energy density is critical. However the better generation to wheel efficiency of batteries and cost means that for many applications,batteries are already superior.
Where batteries are superior do that, where batteries are impractical it is nonsense to argue about the "well to wheel" efficiency of the process. There is no practical battery electric airplane so it is nonsense to sign the praises of batteries having higher efficiencies or whatever. I'll see people claim that battery powered aircraft could run this route or something but that's a niche application which has no real impact on transport by air more generally, that's one route run by one or maybe a handful
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to store, it corrodes the pipes and isn't much more efficient than FF.
That is all 1950 ideas.
We are approaching 2050.
You are completely and utterly wrong.
The thing we have to do is make hydrocarbon fuels from nuclear power.
Why, if you think we can not transport it in pipes, because it brittles them, why do you even want to make it?
You have a problem with coherent thinking.
If you want a shot at net zero by 2050, then you are going the wrong direction with these policies. So you want every vehicle
Pork project alert (Score:2)
So I guess the dotard OG was conned into signing this. There is no particular need for hydrogen except to greenwash fossil fuels. Hydrogen isn't a primary fuel source, is difficult to store, inherently hazardous, and difficult to transport due to the problem of containment leakage and low storage density. The Japanese are betting on it, but it's completely redundant and pointless with an electrical grid.
Advancing the 30% of total global energy from renewables and sunsetting fossil fuels including natural g
2/ (Score:2)