Zero emission by 2035 in Canada

[J5V]

Where is this the case, though? With the exception of some experimental chargers, every charger I've encountered has been hardwired to mains power.

They're out there. Like I said, we're way behind in developing and supplying the required grid-fed infrastructure for wide-spread use of EVs.

[blue_or_die]

They're out there. Like I said, we're way behind in developing and supplying the required grid-fed infrastructure for wide-spread use of EVs.

I don't think they're out there, though. EVs are still fledgling and not demanding the massive sums of power yet. As they scale, so will electricity production per the usual supply and demand cycle. If there are diesel powered chargers out there, it's because for whatever reason they weren't connected to the grid, not because we don't have enough power.

[blue_or_die]

Re hydrogen

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydroelectric/What-Happened-to-the-Green-Hydrogen-Boom.html


Advances in battery tech are happening rapidly... solid state batteries are coming in a few years.

Mercedes : "The solid-state battery in the EQS-based vehicle allows for up to 25 % more driving range compared to the same battery weight and size of a corresponding standard EQS battery. Further weight and energy efficiency is achieved through passive battery cooling. The development vehicle is expected to have a range of over 1,000 km (620 miles)"


Battery swap. Battery storage. Electrification of trucks, heavy equipment. Planes. Green Steel factories. Green cement. Peaking power plants.

It's all coming. We should get in on it.

I love your enthusiasm, and not to attack you, but I have two problems with your post:

1. Hydrogen will for sure be part of the solution. Batteries make sense for smaller capacity applications like city commuter vehicles but as soon as you need longer distances, faster refueling times, and more power and resiliency overall, you need a true fuel. I know personally the Michael Barnard quoted in your article and he is a complete and absolute hack. The efficiency argument is meaningless if the alternative can't do what you're needing it to do.

2. Solid state batteries have been coming for 10 years and every time one is commercialized, it has only a fraction of the promised benefits. I said about 8 years ago that I'll believe it when I see it and I'm still saying that and still waiting.

There are strengths and physical limitations with all leading technologies and the key will be inserting them where they best work and make the most sense. Just my opinion.

[TBURGESS]

To meet the targets: (https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-faq)

1. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies. ($4.8 Billion/Year) 10% a year until we hit zero in 10 years. 
2. Phase out public financing subsides ($11 Billion/Year)  10% a year until we hit zero in 10 years. 
3. Remove Tariffs on all EV (100% on Chinese imports) and Solar (154.4%).

Fossil fuel will go up, making gas vehicles more expensive to run. EV's will go down, hopefully to less than their gas counterparts. Solar will go down, so more people will be able to afford it. EV's and Solar will become the best financial choice & the governments will have billions of $ to spend on other emission reducing things.

[markf]

I love your enthusiasm, and not to attack you, but I have two problems with your post:

1. Hydrogen will for sure be part of the solution. Batteries make sense for smaller capacity applications like city commuter vehicles but as soon as you need longer distances, faster refueling times, and more power and resiliency overall, you need a true fuel. I know personally the Michael Barnard quoted in your article and he is a complete and absolute hack. The efficiency argument is meaningless if the alternative can't do what you're needing it to do.

2. Solid state batteries have been coming for 10 years and every time one is commercialized, it has only a fraction of the promised benefits. I said about 8 years ago that I'll believe it when I see it and I'm still saying that and still waiting.

There are strengths and physical limitations with all leading technologies and the key will be inserting them where they best work and make the most sense. Just my opinion.

How will Hydrogen be made that doesnt make emissions? That can compete cost wise with solar, wind.

And where will it be used?

Not arguing, but I am pretty sure it will not be used in passenger cars.


Anyway as an absolute non expert, I don t care what powers things as long as it is not oil, gas, coal.

[markf]

Hydrogen ladder.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-ladder-version-50-michael-liebreich/

[blue_or_die]

How will Hydrogen be made that doesnt make emissions? That can compete cost wise with solar, wind.

And where will it be used?

Not arguing, but I am pretty sure it will not be used in passenger cars.


Anyway as an absolute non expert, I don t care what powers things as long as it is not oil, gas, coal.

There are two main ways hydrogen can be produced: electrolysis of water whereby a voltage applied to electrodes splits H2O into its parent oxygen and hydrogen molecules, which can be collected. Water is of course simple and abundant, but it matters where the electricity comes from. Just as the case with battery power, having the original power from renewable sources is just as key.

The other way it can be produced is be reformation of hydrocarbons. This has pros and cons - cons in the sense that you are still utilizing fossil fuel inputs (mostly natural gas today) but, you have the opportunity to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions related to this process, which is cheaper and less energy-intensive. Both these technologies exist and are fully commercialized, but the cleanest production is in need of massive scale-up, just as is the case with renewable power to support electrification.

The end use cases are the same as battery-electric transportation, but it's far better suited to medium and heavy applications like trucking, buses, rail, ships, etc, where you need more onboard energy to support their intense duty cycles, have no tolerance for long recharge times, or can afford to lose payload due to battery size.

I know when people say, "the transportation sector" they think of their personal car, and it's absolutely true that a battery solution will do most people just fine, but as soon as you up that distance, the case for batteries goes away.

IMO the perfect solution for passenger vehicles is a plug-in hybrid whereby there's a battery sized to meet average daily driving needs, and a small hydrogen tank and fuel cell integrated as well. That way you charge at home overnight for most of your driving needs using cheap electricity, and when you go long distances, only when battery power is depleted does the fuel cell kick in. Instead of megawatt chargers installed at gas stations, the hydrogen sector simply stocks existing gas stations with a hydrogen option for a quick 5 min fill before you're off on the road again. Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

[markf]

There are two main ways hydrogen can be produced: electrolysis of water whereby a voltage applied to electrodes splits H2O into its parent oxygen and hydrogen molecules, which can be collected. Water is of course simple and abundant, but it matters where the electricity comes from. Just as the case with battery power, having the original power from renewable sources is just as key.

The other way it can be produced is be reformation of hydrocarbons. This has pros and cons - cons in the sense that you are still utilizing fossil fuel inputs (mostly natural gas today) but, you have the opportunity to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions related to this process, which is cheaper and less energy-intensive. Both these technologies exist and are fully commercialized, but the cleanest production is in need of massive scale-up, just as is the case with renewable power to support electrification.

The end use cases are the same as battery-electric transportation, but it's far better suited to medium and heavy applications like trucking, buses, rail, ships, etc, where you need more onboard energy to support their intense duty cycles, have no tolerance for long recharge times, or can afford to lose payload due to battery size.

I know when people say, "the transportation sector" they think of their personal car, and it's absolutely true that a battery solution will do most people just fine, but as soon as you up that distance, the case for batteries goes away.

IMO the perfect solution for passenger vehicles is a plug-in hybrid whereby there's a battery sized to meet average daily driving needs, and a small hydrogen tank and fuel cell integrated as well. That way you charge at home overnight for most of your driving needs using cheap electricity, and when you go long distances, only when battery power is depleted does the fuel cell kick in. Instead of megawatt chargers installed at gas stations, the hydrogen sector simply stocks existing gas stations with a hydrogen option for a quick 5 min fill before you're off on the road again. Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

Thanks... did you see the "hydrogen ladder" I posted?  It seems to agree with what you're saying about uses.

Also saw this : a Hydrogen Insights report in September noted that total investments in hydrogen-related projects around the world increased from US$90 billion in 2020 to US$680 billion in 2024.

But in recent weeks, a number of large green and blue hydrogen projects have been shelved, as the anticipated demand for the zero-emission fuel has failed to materialize. Last month, both Shell and Equinor announced they were cancelling blue hydrogen projects planned for Norway, citing a lack of demand. Closer to home, Fortescue Ltd. also recently announced it was cancelling plans for a major green hydrogen proposal in Prince George."

And Ballard scaling back.

Re carbon capture... The efforts that I have read about have failed.... The one in Saskatchewan for instance to capture emissions from burning coal.

I thought carbon capture was a dead end. Maybe you can correct me.

Anyway, I'm learning something, which is always good.

[blue_or_die]

Thanks... did you see the "hydrogen ladder" I posted?  It seems to agree with what you're saying about uses.

Also saw this : a Hydrogen Insights report in September noted that total investments in hydrogen-related projects around the world increased from US$90 billion in 2020 to US$680 billion in 2024.

But in recent weeks, a number of large green and blue hydrogen projects have been shelved, as the anticipated demand for the zero-emission fuel has failed to materialize. Last month, both Shell and Equinor announced they were cancelling blue hydrogen projects planned for Norway, citing a lack of demand. Closer to home, Fortescue Ltd. also recently announced it was cancelling plans for a major green hydrogen proposal in Prince George."

And Ballard scaling back.

Re carbon capture... The efforts that I have read about have failed.... The one in Saskatchewan for instance to capture emissions from burning coal.

I thought carbon capture was a dead end. Maybe you can correct me.

Anyway, I'm learning something, which is always good.

Yeah, there's an ebb and flow to the demand for this stuff and as much as I wish for a natural transition, policy and subsidies are unfortunately needed for a while until this stands on its own 2 feet. For sure right now Trump isn't helping and the tone of the admin is trickling down to the private sector as well which can only accept so much uncertainty with how massive these investments are.

Regarding capture, I too am a major skeptic but there are a few elements here worthy of discussion: 1) conventional tech right now is underwhelming but there are some more encouraging technologies that are on the cusp of being commercialized; 2) Im ok accepting an imperfect solution for the time being to lead the establishment of a base level of supply + supporting infrastructure so that this can then be decarbonized over time (a sort of stepping stone), and 3) most exciting is the scale up of pyrolysis, whereby natural gas is the input but is reformed in the absence of oxygen so the products are H2 and solid carbon, similar to the ash in your fire pit after the fire burns out. This solid carbon can be buried easily or even more enticing, upgraded to construction materials or even high fidelity graphite to use in battery anodes (we've come full circle now lol). Either way, no carbon emitted to atmosphere with this process.

The solution to all this is not straightforward and there is no silver bullet. We need a whole toolbox full of champion technologies and ideas.

[markf]

Yeah, there's an ebb and flow to the demand for this stuff and as much as I wish for a natural transition, policy and subsidies are unfortunately needed for a while until this stands on its own 2 feet. For sure right now Trump isn't helping and the tone of the admin is trickling down to the private sector as well which can only accept so much uncertainty with how massive these investments are.

Regarding capture, I too am a major skeptic but there are a few elements here worthy of discussion: 1) conventional tech right now is underwhelming but there are some more encouraging technologies that are on the cusp of being commercialized; 2) Im ok accepting an imperfect solution for the time being to lead the establishment of a base level of supply + supporting infrastructure so that this can then be decarbonized over time (a sort of stepping stone), and 3) most exciting is the scale up of pyrolysis, whereby natural gas is the input but is reformed in the absence of oxygen so the products are H2 and solid carbon, similar to the ash in your fire pit after the fire burns out. This solid carbon can be buried easily or even more enticing, upgraded to construction materials or even high fidelity graphite to use in battery anodes (we've come full circle now lol). Either way, no carbon emitted to atmosphere with this process.

The solution to all this is not straightforward and there is no silver bullet. We need a whole toolbox full of champion technologies and ideas.

I had no clue that there was such a huge investment in hydrogen. I guess most online material is related to automobiles, which then is battery information.

Certainly Trump is doing a lot of damage. The Ballard article said that company had money coming from Biden investment in hydrogen, which would be for a factory in Texas. Gone now no doubt.

Anyway, I am going to keep learning about hydrogen.

[blue_or_die]

I had no clue that there was such a huge investment in hydrogen. I guess most online material is related to automobiles, which then is battery information.

Certainly Trump is doing a lot of damage. The Ballard article said that company had money coming from Biden investment in hydrogen, which would be for a factory in Texas. Gone now no doubt.

Anyway, I am going to keep learning about hydrogen.

Awesome Mark. DM me whenever you like dude.

[markf]

Awesome Mark. DM me whenever you like dude.

thanks very much.