As EU energy ministers EU wait with bated breath to see if Russia restarts the pumps that pusg gas through the NordStream1 pipeline on after their 10 days downtime for scheduled maintenance on 22nd of this month, the European Commission, while publicly reiterating its committment to wind and solar as the future of electricity generation, has approved a 5.4 billion euro package for the research and development of hydrogen power.
Hydrogen is often wrongly hailed as the solution to “climate change” and carbon emissions (which are not a legitimate threat to the planet in any way, as shown by the NOAA's own temperature data and the mere 1 DEGREE Celsius rise in world temps in the past century).
Hydrogen is a notoriously difficult and expensive fuel to produce in terms of efficiency.
For hydrogen to be completely green, it must be produced by
electrolyzing water, which splits into the H2 and O that its molecules of. Hydrogen fuel
cells consistently prove to be substandard and lose 30% their energy in
the process of splitting H2 from Oxygen, on top of the 26% energy loss
from transporting the electrolyzing water. Not looking good so far is it?
Why is EU leadership continuing to pursue fairy tale technologies when they have access to CO2 free energy production in the form of nuclear power? While nuclear power is often demonized by environmentalists, it is an actual “zero emissions” source that is already developed and waiting to take over from coal and gas (fossil fuels.). If they actually cared about an immediate reduction in carbon output, governments would stop wasting their time and taxpapers money on terribly inefficient windmill farms and dream technologies like hydrogen and focus on “clean” energy sources that are already proven.
Hydro electric power is great so long as the green lobby don't mind a few valleys being flooded, tidal barrages could be great if the green lobby were willing to sacrifice the habitat of an endangered species of two toed toad or something. And nuclear is great so long as we understand the difference in danger level between a nuclear power station fuel rod and weapons grade plutonium.
The main downside to nuclear power in reality is the cost, which is around $15 billion per plant. But the EU has already spent $232 billion from 2014 to 2020 on climate change initiatives that have apparently been useless because they are still spreading hysteria about global warming to this day and are still having to burn coal and gas because their beloved windmills and solar panels have failed miserably to live up to expectations. They could have built dozens of nuclear plants across Europe in that time and been done with it.
they won't do that, because climate change movements are not about
science, they are about ideology, and part of their ideology is about
bringing down industry and undermining capitalism. Nuclear power
doesn't fit the image and works a little too well from industry's point of view, so, they