The H Stands For Hype

 The Sun is mainly made of hydrogen. But there is nothing new under the Sun, and that includes hydrogen.

That Old Testament reference — “what has been will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” — is appropriate here because the hype about hydrogen seems nearly as old as the Bible itself.

On June 10, 1975, during the 94th Congress, the House of Representatives held the first of two “investigative hearings on the subject of hydrogen — its production, utilization, and potential effects on our energy economy of the future.” The hearing was chaired by Mike McCormack, a Democrat from Washington state, who claimed hydrogen “has the potential of playing the same kind of role in our energy system as electricity does today.”

In 1996, the Chicago Sun-Times declared “The first steps toward what proponents call the hydrogen economy are being taken.” In 2003, Jeremy Rifkin, an “economic and social theorist,” published The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth. In that book, Rifkin claimed that “Globalization represents the end stage of the fossil-fuel era.” Turning “toward hydrogen is a promissory note for a safer world,” he averred.

President George W. Bush bought the hydrogen hype. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, he said, “With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles” to taking hydrogen-fueled automobiles “from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” A few months after that speech, his administration announced a collaborative effort with the European Union for the “development of a hydrogen economy,” including the  technologies “needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.” The White House claimed in a 2003 press release that the effort would “improve America’s energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil.”

The history of the hype matters because we live in ahistorical times. Or, as author Jeff Minick explained in 2022, we are plagued by “presentism.” Presentism, Minick wrote, “is the reason so many young people can name the Kardashians but can’t tell you the importance of Abraham Lincoln or why we fought in World War II.”

Presentism helps explain why, on April 30, the New York Times published a piece headlined, “Hydrogen Offers Germany a Chance to Take a Lead in Green Energy,” which ignores the long history of hydrogen’s failure to live up to the forecasts. But blaming presentism can’t account for the vapidity of the article, which hinges on this nut graf:

The concept of hydrogen as a renewable energy source has been around for years, but only within the past decade has the idea of its potential to replace fossil fuels to power heavy industry taken off, leading to increased investment and advances in the technology. (Emphasis added.)

The idea of hydrogen may (or may not) be taking off, but hydrogen is not a “source” of energy, it’s an energy carrier. Calling hydrogen an energy “source” is like calling Stormy Daniels an “actress.”

Hydrogen is abundant in the universe. But it’s not a source of energy. Instead, like electricity and gasoline, it must be manufactured. The most common ways are by splitting water through electrolysis, or via steam-methane reforming, which uses high-pressure steam to produce hydrogen from methane.

There are other forehead-slapping statements in the Times article written by Stanley Reed and Melissa Eddy, who traveled to the German city of Duisburg to visit a factory that makes electrolyzers. “If adopted widely,” they wrote, “the devices could help clean up heavy industry such as steel-making, in Germany and elsewhere.” Well, yes, if “adopted widely.” But despite decades of frothy predictions from Rifkin and others, electrolyzers haven’t been adopted widely because making and using hydrogen on a large scale is — as my friend, Steve Brick, puts it — “a thermodynamic obscenity.”

The cover of Rifkin’s 2003 book.

Reed and Eddy ignore the energy intensity of making hydrogen, only offering that by using “electricity to split water” the electrolyzer “produces hydrogen, a carbon-free gas that could help power mills like the one in Duisburg.” That’s true. But how much electricity is needed? And where the heck is German industry, which is already being hammered by expensive gas and power, going to get the juice? At what cost? Those questions are not addressed.

To be clear, lots of other media outlets are hyping hydrogen. And the hype is surging because of fat government subsidies. Reed and Eddy explain that the German government has earmarked some $14.2 billion “for investment in about two dozen projects to develop hydrogen.” Here in the U.S., the 45V tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act provides lucrative subsidies for hydrogen production. Big business is lining up to get those subsidies. In February, energy giant Exxon Mobil warned that it might cancel a proposed hydrogen project at its Baytown, Texas refinery depending on how the Treasury Department interpreted the “clean” hydrogen rules in the IRA.

Regardless of tax credits and subsidies, making and using hydrogen is a high-entropy, high-cost process. As a friend in the oil refining business told me last year, “If you like $6-per-gallon gasoline, you’re gonna love $14-to-$20-per-gallon hydrogen.”

As for Brick’s “thermodynamic obscenity” line, the numbers — which I’ll examine in a moment — are easy to understand. Hydrogen is insanely expensive, in energy terms, to manufacture. It takes about three units of energy, in the form of electricity, to produce two units of hydrogen energy. In other words, the hydrogen economy requires scads of electricity (a high quality form of energy) to make a tiny molecule that’s hard to handle, difficult to store, and expensive to use.

Among the biggest challenges in handling and storing the gas is the problem of “hydrogen embrittlement,” which can occur when metals are exposed to hydrogen. That means we can’t use existing gas pipelines or tanks to move and store the gas. As for using the gas, yes, it can be blended with natural gas and put into turbines or reciprocating engines. However, the best way to use it is in a fuel cell. And from where will those devices come? I’m old enough to collect Social Security. I’ve been reporting about the energy sector for nearly four decades, and yet, in all that time, I’ve seen precisely three fuel cells. 

How much would the hydrogen economy cost? In 2020, Bloomberg NEF estimated that producing enough “green” hydrogen to meet 25% of global energy demand would require “more electricity than the world now generates from all sources and an investment of $11 trillion in production and storage.”

The obscene thermodynamics of hydrogen can be understood by looking at an announcement made last year by Constellation Energy. According to a March 10, 2023 article in Nuclear NewsWire, a new hydrogen production project at the company’s Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in New York, “is part of a $14.5 million cost-shared project between Constellation and the Department of Energy.” Of that sum, $5.8 million was coming from the DOE. The article explained that “Using 1.25 megawatts of zero-carbon energy per hour,” the plant’s electrolyzer will produce “560 kilograms of clean hydrogen per day.”

The math is simple. The plant uses 30 megawatt-hours of electricity to produce 560 kg of hydrogen per day. One MWh of electricity is equal to 3,600 megajoules of energy, and one kg of hydrogen contains about 130 MJ of energy. Therefore, Nine Mile Point uses 108,000 MJ of electricity to produce 72,800 MJ of hydrogen, or 1.5 MJ of electricity for 1 MJ of hydrogen.

Such a lousy EROEI (energy return on energy invested) should immediately disqualify hydrogen from serious energy policy discussions. But that, of course, hasn’t happened. It must also be noted that the EROEI is worse than what I stated above because the hydrogen, once produced, must be stored and fed back into another energy conversion device to make electricity or heat. In that process, more energy will be lost.

I’ll end with a bit more history. In 2004, the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering published a 267-page report called “The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs.” In the concluding section, the report said, “making hydrogen from renewable energy through the intermediate step of making electricity, a premium energy source, requires further breakthroughs in order to be competitive.” It continued:

There are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward. Many of the committee’s observations generalize across the entire hydrogen economy: the hydrogen system must be cost-competitive, it must be safe and appealing to the consumer, and it would preferably offer advantages from the perspectives of energy security and CO₂ emissions. Specifically for the transportation sector, dramatic progress in the development of fuel cells, storage devices, and distribution systems is especially critical. Widespread success is not certain.

Widespread success of the hydrogen economy wasn’t certain in 2004, and it’s not certain now. Or, to put it in ecclesiastical terms, there’s nothing new under the hydrogen sun.

Robert Bryce is an American author and journalist based in Austin, Texas. His articles on energy, politics, and other topics have appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Real Clear Energy, Counterpunch, and National Review

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-h-in-hydrogen-stands-for-hype

THE BIDEN BETRAYAL

 President Biden publicly acknowledged his betrayal of Israel’s anticipated offensive in Rafah in an interview with Erin Burnett on CNN. The CNN story on the interview is here. As a practical matter, Biden supports Hamas. Biden opposes Israel. Biden’s declaration of “ironclad” support for Israel is “inoperative,” to borrow a term from Watergate.

On Tuesday Biden gave a Holocaust remembrance speech decrying those calling for “the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish State.” Biden asserted that his support for the “security of Israel and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad, even when we disagree.” In Biden’s world, the usual principles of rational thought do not obtain. Who says A need not say B. Who says A also says not A.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden said in reference to the 2,000-pound bombs that Biden is withholding from the IDF. Biden also told Burnett that he’s withholding artillery ammunition.

Biden labored to articulate his thinking, or his “thinking.” This is how he put it on CNN: “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,”

Biden has proved himself a fool many times over. It has long since become redundant. This episode merely puts an exclamation point on it. Every friend of the United States must weigh the price of friendship, Biden style. Every enemy of the United States is experiencing the kind of pleasure that is usually limited to private experience.

The IDF has sustained casualties as a result of its extraordinary efforts to avoid and minimize civilian casualties. It has also lost soldiers in its efforts to appease Biden’s demands. This week it lost four soldiers at the Kerem Shalom border crossing for humanitarian aid.

John Spencer is chairman of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He has demonstrated many times over that Israel has created a new standard for urban warfare. Spencer wrote the linked March Newsweek column anticipating Biden’s current “thinking”:

In their criticism, Israel’s opponents are erasing a remarkable, historic new standard Israel has set. In my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The international community, and increasingly the United States, barely acknowledges these measures while repeatedly excoriating the IDF for not doing enough to protect civilians—even as it confronts a ruthless terror organization holding its citizens hostage. Instead, the U.S. and its allies should be studying how they can apply the IDF’s tactics for protecting civilians, despite the fact that these militaries would almost certainly be extremely reluctant to employ these techniques because of how it would disadvantage them in any fight with an urban terrorist army like Hamas.

Spencer expanded on his observations, most recently, in a podcast with Sam Harris this week that is posted here on YouTube.

It is a fool’s errand to apply standards of reality and rationality to Biden. Clownworld is his domain. We’re just living in it (as Senator Graham demonstrated yesterday).

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/the-biden-betrayal.php

Republican Introduces Bill Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote

by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) has introduced a bill in the lower chamber of Congress that would ensure that illegal immigrants do not vote in federal elections.

The Epoch Times first obtained a copy of the bill, dubbed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

The bill is being introduced with the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who vowed to bring up such a bill during an appearance with former President Donald Trump weeks ago.

Although noncitizen voting in federal elections is already unlawful, past Supreme Court decisions limit states’ power to ensure that voters are citizens.

Mr. Roy’s bill seeks to strengthen safeguards around voter registration to ensure compliance with existing law against noncitizens voting.

To this end, it demands that a state “shall not accept and process an application to register to vote in an election for Federal office unless the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship with the application.”

Speaking at a May 8 press conference in support of the legislation, Mr. Johnson tied it to ongoing protests at campuses across the United States.

“In recent days, we’ve seen a growing number of folks on student visas show their willingness to break the law and utterly disrupt our way of life and threaten law-abiding students who are actually American citizens,” Mr. Johnson said. “If they’re willing to take over buildings and physically terrorize their fellow students, why would they not be willing to lie on a voter registration form?”

Stephen Miller, a former senior adviser to President Trump, also commented during the press conference.

“If Hakeem Jeffries and his Democrat members try to kill this bill, they will be declaring to the whole country that they want Joe Biden’s illegals to vote in this election,” Mr. Miller said.

‘Sacred Right and Responsibility’

The bill lists several acceptable documents to verify the citizenship of a would-be voter, including a REAL ID compliant identification, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or any valid state, federal or tribal identification, such as a birth certificate, hospital record, or adoption certificate, showing that the individual was born in, or is a naturalized citizen of, the United States.

The bill also provides for accommodations for mail-in voting registration or those unable to produce documentary proof of citizenship, who can undergo a separate process to have their citizenship verified.

States would also be required to “take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only United States citizens are registered to vote,” including clearing the voter rolls of those who are ineligible to vote due to their status as noncitizens. To that end, the bill also clarifies the conditions under which a state may seek to remove an individual from voter rolls.

Additionally, the bill would require the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate noncitizens who are illegally registered to vote, up to and including the possibility of removal proceedings.

The same bill will be introduced to the Democrat-controlled Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who encouraged that it be taken up and passed in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Thousands of illegal immigrants are being given voter registration forms and driver’s licenses, allowing them to cast illegitimate ballots on election day,” Mr. Lee said. “At a time when trust in voting is more important than ever, we must stop foreign election interference and pass the SAVE Act.

“Voting is both a sacred right and responsibility of American citizenship, and allowing the people of other nations access to our elections is a grave blow to our security and self-governance. I’m proud to stand with Chip Roy to save our democratic process and representative government.”

Mr. Lee also spoke during the press conference.

“There is not a good, legitimate reason to oppose this bill,” he said. “In fact, there are all kinds of things that would be wrong with this institution if it failed immediately to pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature.”

Speaking with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Johnson explained why the conference is pursuing this legislation now.

During his remarks, he noted that as many as 16 million new illegal immigrants could have entered the country under President Joe Biden’s term in office. Estimates of the exact number vary widely.

“Among the problems that flows from this open border catastrophe is directly related to this threat to election integrity,” Mr. Johnson said.

Current Law

Mr. Johnson tied his concerns primarily to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), otherwise dubbed the “Motor Voter” law, which allows people to register to vote at the same time that they pick up a driver’s license from their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles or other state agencies.

However, the law does not allow states to seek documentary proof of citizenship, instead requiring that they take an individual’s word that they are a citizen unless the individual’s eligibility is called into question.

A 2013 Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona expanded on the law, finding that the federal law supersedes existing state laws requiring documentary proof to vote—effectively banning states from imposing such requirements for federal voter registration.

Speaking about this law, Mr. Johnson said, “we think that’s a serious problem”—one that he said Republicans will seek to amend.

As so many illegal immigrants are already in the country, current law raises red flags that could potentially affect the outcome of the election, Mr. Johnson said.

“There’s so many millions of illegals in the country, that if only one out of one hundred voted, they would cast potentially hundreds of thousands of votes,” Mr. Johnson said. “That could turn an election.”

Critics of the bill have retorted that federal law already prohibits illegal immigrants from voting—a fact which they say makes the bill redundant.

However, due to the Supreme Court’s expansion of the NVRA in 2013, existing laws include no solid mechanism for states to ensure that their voters are citizens.

It’s unclear when the bill will be taken up in the lower chamber. But with Mr. Johnson’s blessing, it’s all but certain to come to the floor—forcing Democrats onto the record on the issue as immigration becomes a top concern for voters.

With Republicans’ slim majority, the bill has good odds of passing the lower chamber; it faces longer odds in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decides what comes to the floor.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/republican-introduces-bill-requiring-proof-citizenship-vote