Hydrogen, WSJ Spin

Hydrogen, WSJ Spin

The Wall Street Journal just published an article on Hydrogen where half the page was taken up with a propaganda-like illustration worthy of Pravda.

It begins with the statement:

“In a world shifting away from fossil fuels, major energy companies are making a grab for the rising hydrogen market.”

Is this true? Or is it an indication that the WSJ believes in catastrophic climate change?

Can it be true, when China, India and other countries are building numerous coal-fired power plants? For example, Dubai just began operating its new coal fired power plant. Japan is also building coal fired power plants.

Is there a rising hydrogen market, when virtually none exists, except in speculation?

It’s true that Europe is committed to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and is trying to eliminate fossil fuels, but the United States is divided on the issue.

The WSJ article is based on quotations from European based companies. The actions cited by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC and Repsol SA, are actions by companies that are all based in Europe and must adhere to the policies established by European governments.

Europe has issued a Hydrogen Strategy, and the WSJ article follows the EU Hydrogen Strategy. See, Europe’s Hydrogen Fantasy An Admission of Failure 

The WSJ article,Said:

“The [EU] bloc has put hydrogen at the heart of its strategy to slash greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and become climate neutral by 2050.”

Hydrogen has suddenly become important because Europe has become aware it can’t become carbon free without hydrogen.

The propaganda-like illustration merely describes the processes for making hydrogen.

It uses nearly a full half page graphic, see below, to describe what could be described in a few paragraphs. That’s why it’s propaganda, i.e., glorifying hydrogen.

Screen shot from WSJ website

It’s what the article and the graphic doesn’t say that exposes it as propaganda.

The article does say there are some problems with hydrogen, but that is a huge understatement.

An Appendix in the Book, The Looming Energy Crisis, Are Blackouts Inevitable? describes why hydrogen is a fools errand.

Here are two important issues not mentioned in the WSJ article.

  1. It will require huge amounts of renewable electricity to produce green hydrogen from electrolysis. This is in addition to the renewables needed for generating green electricity to replace fossil fuels, plus the green electricity to power battery powered vehicles. In summary: Renewables must generate enough electricity to meet three demands:
  • Replace fossil fuels on the electric grid
  • Provide enough power for several hundred million Battery Electric Vehicles
  • Provide enough green electricity to produce multiple tons of hydrogen
  1. Existing pipelines can’t carry pure hydrogen. Anything greater than a mix of 20% hydrogen in natural gas pipelines is dangerous. Hydrogen can cause embrittlement in copper pipelines creating cracks and leaks. Hydrogen molecules are tiny and can slip through the walls of plastic pipes. In addition, many gas stoves weren’t built to use hydrogen making it dangerous to do so. 

There are other problems, such as the difficulty of transporting liquid hydrogen where there are no pipelines.

The WSJ editors are disgracing themselves with articles such as this. Why didn’t they do a few fact checks before publishing this article?

. . .

You can read the introduction and look at the Table of Contents of 

The Looming Energy Crisis here:

Looming Energy Crisis, Are Blackouts Inevitable?

OR

 Buy Now

 

7 Replies to “Hydrogen, WSJ Spin”

  1. Excellent comments. Too often, the problems with a hydrogen economy are dismissed as “some problems” instead of actually looking at the issues and seeing what it would take to use hydrogen for so many applications. Of course, the real problem is that nobody wants to look because looking at hydrogen issues would be hard to reconcile with the all-renewables narrative.

    • Right. The problems with hydrogen are very real, yet no one wants to talk about them because, as you say, they go against the renewables mantra.
      Thanks for your comments.

  2. The answer to your question of how the WSJ editors let that propaganda piece be published is that the reporter staff of the Journal has become infected by the left-wing media disease. There have been incidents of rebellion against the newspaper’s policy of publishing objective news. I have seen the drift in recent years.

    • Thanks. I agree, it’s the reporters and their editors. I see it most in the energy area, where reporters merely parrot what they hear from left wing sources.

  3. Donn, you’re right on as always. Why does the Wall Street Journal publish propaganda? because the Wall Street Journal is turning left, I’m sorry to say.

    • Thanks. Unfortunately the WSJ has been moving left for a few years now.
      It’s mostly the news reporters and their editors, but they are damaging the papers reputation as being unbiased.

  4. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #430 |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.