ajsadauskas

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

@janAkali @maxprime You certainly can follow Lemmy groups from Mastodon. And you can reply to Lemmy threads from Masto.

In fact, take a look at my account — I'm doing it right now...

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@oo1 @azimir @P1r4nha @Dmian

Urban planning and public transport should absolutely go hand-in-hand.

But on to your other point.

The key factor for transport use isn't just population or density. It's also the proportion of the population that uses public transport. And places that have more frequent public transport will have a higher proportion of the population using it than places with low quality public transport.

It's a point the late Paul Mees made in his book "A very public solution": https://www.mup.com.au/books/a-very-public-solution-paperback-softback (it's highly recommended reading if you have the chance.)

Imagine a city with just 100,000 people. But the local bus service is exceptional, and half the population uses it. That's a base of 50,000 people.

Imagine a city of 500,000 people. The public transport network there is average, so just 10% of the population uses it. That's 50,000 people.

Now imagine a metropolitan area of 5,000,000 people. The public transport network there is poor and infrequent. Only 1% of the population uses it. That's 50,000 people.

Three cities, same absolute number of public transport users, different modal share.

If you run frequent services, every 10 minutes or better, and services connect so that it's a two- or three-seat journey to everywhere in your city, you will have a much higher ridership than if it's an hourly bus service. That's with the same population and density.

Frequent bus services (once every 10 minutes or more) can also act as a feeder into a higher rail, light rail, tram, or metro services. In suburban, rural, and seni-rural areas, that extends the reach of your rail network.

Yes, higher density around railway stations is the best option. But where there is a lot of low-density suburban sprawl, frequent feeder buses are a good option.

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@biddy @Bizarroland Here's an electric trolley bus in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The electric trolley bus network covers much of the old city, the new city, and into the suburbs.

This amazing technology was first rolled out under Soviet occupation, in 1956.

If your city's public transport is worse than what the Soviets had, I think it's time to start advocating for better public transport.

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@vividspecter Here's the key details from the article: "The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) today released financial modelling that shows Australia’s LNG projects did not generate value for shareholders.

"The report, “Australia’s LNG growth wave – did it wash for shareholders?” analysed returns from Woodside’s Pluto project, Chevron’s Gorgon and Wheatstone projects, the three east coast LNG plants supplied by coal seam gas, Inpex’s Ichthys project and Shell’s Prelude.

"It found these projects collectively eroded $US19 billion of shareholder value by requiring extra investment for running 35 per cent over budget and behind schedule, according to data from Rystad."

https://reneweconomy.com.au/case-for-gas-as-transition-fuel-falling-apart-on-both-economic-and-environmental-costs/

#ClimateChange #Climate #Green #Business #AusPol #Aus #Politics #Environment #Gas

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@Adori @ray Even in many rural areas, this is not the best option.

First, in many towns, there often aren't any Uber drivers nearby, or the nearest driver is in another town and you're left to wait upwards of an hour for your ride to arrive.

Second, pairs of major cities and large metropolitan areas that are relatively close together should be connected by a railway line. Along with express services, these railways should have reasonably frequent all-stations services that serve the smaller towns along the way.

Third, there should be regular bus or coach services connecting multiple towns, and where available, feeding into these all-stations train services.

So if there's a train station in town A, there should be a feeder bus to nearby towns B, C, and D. This benefits rail passengers, who have more towns they can visit by public transport, and connects those towns to the rail network.

These inter-town bus services can make multiple stops in each town (for example at the local school, the local shops, and the local hospital),, providing both cross-town and inter-town services.

Fourth, with public transport, one service or route won't cover every pair of destinations—but a network can.

So say you have an east-west bus route connecting towns A, B, C, and D. You might have a second route that connects with that bus service at town C, and then runs north-south to connect it with towns E, F, G, and H.

The number of people travelling from town H to town D might be vanishingly small—zero on most days, no more than one or two on others. Certainly not enough to run a dedicated service from town D to town H.

Yet that trip can be provided for by the network, which draws its ridership from passengers who want to travel from any stop on either the north-south or east-west service, to any other stop on either service.

Fourth, with larger towns over 1000 people, an on-demand bus service that travels around town to designated stops is probably a better option. Again, this should feed into any railway stations of inter-town bus routes.

And finally, once your city reaches a population of around 10,000 or so, it should just have a regular bus service, and it should integrate with the broader bus and train network.

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki I'm seeing some big claims from you that "nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry."

I'm seeing strawman arguments and deflections from you.

But nothing to back up your claims.

1. You claimed: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam."

Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?

A link to an article?

Anything?

2. You claimed: "There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."

I've provided you with multiple examples of where the Australian gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.

You don't have to take my word for it. I've provided links.

Do you have anything you can link to back up your assertion?

A link to a news article?

Some research?

An academic paper?

Anything at all?

3. You claim: "You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam."

That's clearly not what I, or anyone else in this thread, is arguing.

Once again, here's my position on hydrogen:

"Green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.

"But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.

"Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial."

It seems to me you're constructing strawman arguments and deflections, because you don't have a strong counter-argument.

Which brings us back to the point you're deflecting from...

4. You claim "nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry."

If you have some evidence of that, I'd love to see it.

A link to a news article?

Some research?

An academic paper?

Anything at all?

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki

"There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen."

The oil and gas industry routinely cites the potential of hydrogen and biomethane as substitutes for oil and methane gas, including in submissions to government inquires.

Take a look at any of the submissions to Victoria's inquiry from an oil or gas industry group.

Almost every single one, including the submission from Exxon-Mobil, cites hydrogen and biomethane as their preferred long-term options: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap

And going back to the original post, the grey hydrogen to be used in Victoria's bus trial is not exactly an emissions-free fuel source.

"It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels."

Because the oil and gas industry knows the prospect of hydrogen is effective at delaying the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones.

"And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy."

Hydrogen that's produced with methane gas or coal — what Exxon-Mobil is producing — is not green energy.

"What you're doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. [Snip]"

Again, green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.

But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.

Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.

Elsewhere in this thread, you claimed any criticism of hydrogen came from the battery industry or the fossil fuel industry. You have presented nothing to back up that assertion.

To the contrary, the Australian oil and gas industry regularly cites hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid the transition from gas to electric renewable alternatives.

As yet another example, here's Energy Networks Australia's Gas Vision 2050 policy statement. Hydrogen is right there on the front page:

"Since Energy Networks Australia and our industry partners launched Gas Vision 2050 two years ago, the industry has invested in research and development, policy analysis and pilot projects to demonstrate these new technologies, with a focus on the role of hydrogen."

https://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/gas-vision-2050/

I've cited multiple examples of where the oil and gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.

Do you have any concrete examples to back up your assertion that: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam"?

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace There's a perception that we could just reuse existing methane gas (i.e. "natural gas") infrastructure for hydrogen. But often that just isn't the case:

"The pipelines that transport hydrogen are made of the same basic material as most of those built for natural gas: steel. But hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, the main component in natural gas. In fact, hydrogen is the smallest molecule on Earth. Its size means it can squeeze into tiny spaces in certain steel alloys in a way that natural gas cannot. That can cause “embrittlement,” making the metal more likely to crack or corrode. Hydrogen molecules are also much more likely to leak from valves, seals, and other connection points on pipelines (which risks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits). And hydrogen is transported in a more pressurized state than natural gas, which puts more stress on the pipeline carrying it.

"Rather than transporting 100 percent hydrogen, many companies are now testing whether they can blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipelines. In a study released last summer, the California Public Utility Commission found that up to 5 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas appears safe, but higher percentages could lead to embrittlement or a greater chance of pipeline leaks. Internationally, France places the highest cap on hydrogen blending, at 6 percent, according to the International Energy Agency (Germany allows blending at 8 percent under certain conditions)."

Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-power-plants-we-have-now-transport-and-burn-hydrogen-or-do-we-need

If the aim is to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a 90% or 95% methane to 10% or 5% hydrogen gas blend just isn't that useful for reaching that goal.

(And that's assuming the hydrogen is green hydrogen as well.)

And if a lot of your infrastructure has to be retrofitted anyway, electrification plus renewables plus storage makes a lot more sense in many cases.

There are still use cases where green hydrogen will be useful — international long-haul flights, rockets, some industrial processes, etc. But it's not the best solution in most cases.

#ClimateChange #hydrogen #gas #NetZero #electrification #transport

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki

AllNewTypeFace wrote: "I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical."

To which you replied: "The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries."

But the fossil fuel industry's support for hydrogen and biomethane isn't just some myth cooked up by battery producers.

And you don't need to take my word on that. Here's ExxonMobil on hydrogen:

"Hydrogen produces zero greenhouse gas emissions at its point of use. It's also versatile - suitable for power generation, trucking, and heat-intensive industries like steel and chemicals. We are scaling up production of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce CO2 emissions in our own facilities, and helping others do the same... Natural gas is comprised largely of methane (CH4) and can be turned into hydrogen through a reforming process."

Source: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/hydrogen

Here's what Australian Gas Networks has to say:

"Australian Gas Networks and the Australian gas sector has a clear vision for a low carbon future using renewable gases such as hydrogen and biomethane. We know we need to deliver on this vision to help Australia meet national and statebased emissions reductions targets, whilst also maintaining the reliability of supply at lowest cost to our customers.

"Hydrogen Park South Australia and Hydrogen Park Gladstone will demonstrate how we can use the existing gas network to deliver blended gas to customers - the Australian Hydrogen Centre (AHC) is the next step in our journey, delivering feasibility studies on blending 10% renewable hydrogen into towns and cities, and plans for a 100% renewable gas future."

Source: https://www.australiangasnetworks.com.au/australian-hydrogen-centre

Here's Gas Energy Australia, a lobby group that represents LNG gas producers:

"We strongly support the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Further expanding the way displacement is credited under the ERF to include the full array of emerging renewable gases to replace fossil fuels, would enable the Australian gas industry to make a profound contribution to reducing emissions."

Source: https://www.gasenergyaus.au/about/aims.html

I can give you more examples, including from submissions to government inquires, but this post is getting too long as it is.

No-one is disputing that green hydrogen has an important role to play in decarbonisation.

But.

When oil & gas firms, and their lobbyists, start touting hydrogen, then people will and should ask questions. And no, that's not just battery manufacturers.

ajsadauskas, 6 months ago

@abartlet @Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @WaterWaiver @zurohki In the context of Melbourne, around 2 million Victorian households currently use methane ("natural") gas appliances: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/renters-low-income-households-left-behind-in-race-to-turn-off-gas-20230724-p5dquv.html

Last year, the Victorian state government mandated that new homes and buildings are fully electrified: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/gas-connection-to-be-banned-from-new-homes-in-victoria-20230728-p5dryd.html

Here's the state government's media release: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-victorian-homes-go-all-electric-2024

Up until the mid '90s, that gas supply was provided through a state government agency called the Gas & Fuel Corporation. As with many things in Victoria, it was privatised in the mid 1990s by former premier Jeff Kennett.

Here's all the consultation papers: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap

Not surprisingly, the gas industry came out heavily against a mandate to ban the installation of new gas appliances.

This from the Australian Gas Association submission: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download/document/17468

"Electrification of the current energy system will be next to impossible if the source is to be
renewable wind, solar and hydro. Natural gas/hydrogen will play a huge role in helping Australia pivot into systems that reduce emissions."

From the gas energy association: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download/document/17516

"In the medium-term, gas providers will begin offering blended gas products. Gas blending
helps to reduce the emissions associated with gas use by blending biomethane, renewable
DME and hydrogen into gas tanks and pipeline systems as part of a long-term effort to reduce
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of producing and consuming gas."

So the oil and gas industry is pushing biomethane and hydrogen as the solution to replace methane ("natural") gas.

Most household appliances (ovens, stovetops, hot water systems, heaters, etc) aren't compatible with hydrogen. Pipes will need to be retrofitted too.

Or they can be replaced with electric appliances, which can be powered from the grid by renewables and battery storage.

Either way, it's a big retrofit.

FWIW, green hydrogen (as opposed to grey hydrogen from methane, or brown hydrogen from coal) does have its uses in some applications. But it's not needed for home appliances.

And, going back to the original article, grey hydrogen for buses is not the best way forward for decarbonising transport.