London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Did you watch today's parliament tv discussing hydrogen? I'm only half an hour into it so far and Professor Cebon is giving hydrogen a real kicking. He's an 'efficiency is the only consideration' evangelist, so he's putting a lot of effort into pointing out that green hydrogen really has no place in heating, electricity and transportation. As is often the case with that point of view he's missing vital points of consideration. Professor Shah appears more balanced in his views but isn't getting much of a hearing.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/eb6151f0-5ed0-4add-a0e6-a4ee825bddbc
Wow. That pain from Cambridge gives green hydrogen a right kicking. Pricing it out of the market saying it is not sustainable on the dregs of electricity surplus alone.
As an energy 'salesman' myself of 3.5 decades he is obviously overlooking the wind we can't use or store throughout the night and for example all the French nuclear that is vaginally free through tbe interconnector if required ?
Maybe I'm wrong....but green hydrogen could easily be more economical using this off peak energy.
He also slates it for transportation. I think he is plain wrong. He is a professor but an expert tends to know more and more about less and less!
Virtually although vaginally is funnier
Thanks for posting tm.....I'm only half way through, think Prof Cebons numbers were iffy.
Love that your phone autocorrected to vaginally. Lol
Maybe Cebons has a load of Oil shares.
Wasted wind or solar is worthless , the green hydrogen it could be producing is priceless in the benefits of getting us to " net zero carbon " is my simplistic view.
It's a win win , unless you are heavily invested in oil and have no vision.
Lfclfc5, your post really made me chuckle this morning, in fact I am still laughing, just what I needed after a difficult few days, not just because the share price keeps falling!
Trader87 - it does make you wonder what he spends the rest of his time taking about on his phone!
I'm surprised to hear hydrogen isn't being endorsed. The Future Energy Scenarios published by National Grid suggests Hydrogen will account for 21-59% of consumer energy needs by 2050. That is the range across the 4 different scenarios and this document is used to inform the industry and government, it is essentially what drove me to invest I hydrogen based companies.
I'm surprised to hear hydrogen isn't being endorsed. The Future Energy Scenarios published by National Grid suggests Hydrogen will account for 21-59% of consumer energy needs by 2050. That is the range across the 4 different scenarios and this document is used to inform the industry and government, it is essentially what drove me to invest I hydrogen based companies.
Where Prof Cebon's analysis goes wrong is it supposes that all our energy in the future has to be home grown e.g. offshore wind, and is therefore a precious resource that must not be wasted. Along with the principle that electrification should be prioritised where practical (which I agree with) leads to the conclusion that there's no role for hydrogen in the larger energy cases such as heating and transport. If instead you consider that green hydrogen can also be imported from North Africa, Middle East and Australia then heavy use cases like transport can still be considered, and actually is preferable over battery vehicles. That simple argument is just the start, there are other reasons why it makes sense, but Cebon obviously isn't taking any of it into consideration.
Ah well you know what the say about most "experts" they are generally a has been twit under pressure"
Mmmmm well I would not use such a long term searching on pornhub for something that has other names lol. Skin a cat more ways than 1....or shave a pussy. The good thing about innuendos is that any misconception is ultimately in your own mind and therefore not rudeness on the posters behalf . Im just trying to cheer myself up in a collapsing sp !
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/profiles/dc29
not an economist, so some of his comments are out of his field
The whole sector is getting slammed
https://bit.ly/2OjQzOX
Ah well you know what the say about most "experts" they are generally a has been twit under pressure"
Free falling... £3.50?
Cebon is hard to listen too. The comment about heating your room with a small fan then the one about it being dangerous to fill up at the pump was enough listening to him. No level argument just some expert waffling ****.
Last one out turn off the lights....free falling? Well done Rishi....more stimulus in a nuns panties!
Although I didn't like listening to Cebon, the Bloomberg witness endorsed his opinion & no other parliamentary witness directly contradicted him about the significant running costs for blue or green hydrogen into houses or into cars. The Bloomberg rep advised transportation costs from solar super powers (Africa - Australia...etc) where green hydrogen would be comparatively cheaper would have to be piped due to the excessive refrigeration costs by marine transportation, hence leaving the politically unsure North Africa area as the only realistic pipe option. The only markets that Cebon left alone to hydrogen was marine & aviation travel & fertiliser manufacture. I'm holding on waiting for some expert contradiction of Cebon shortly.
The same 1.74m share volume as yesterday and an 8% fall in SP. Some concerted effort by the powers that be to manipulate the price down. If only we could find out exactly who?
As for this Cebon character, if he is truly a Professor without corporate lobbyist backing he would also recognise the almost infinite nature of the sun and wind also. At least another 4.5 bn years of sunshine to power the weather systems of the Earth. Not to mention that plants get by on 22% efficiency and they still manage to feed every lifeform on the planet.
He does not grasp the economies of scale, that the shear capacity of renewables far outweighs the initial investment costs. Nuclear plants need building and decommissioning every 50 years or so and that costs tens of billions to do. Hinkley is currently projected to cost £22bn to build and will take decades to achieve how much will it cost to decommission? Then how much to manage the toxic waste for thousands of years?
Whereas wind takes up to a year to install and can produce energy in a much shorter time period. No toxic legacy as most of the parts can be recycled, each turbine motor lasts up to 30 years. Also, what really irritates me about the 70% loss in energy Cebon neglects to mention is the fact that we currently have no inter-seasonal energy storage whatsoever! In that case I think we can improve our standards of living with 30% efficiency. Plants make do with lower than that and manage to feed more or les every lifeform on the planet! Everyone in that room recognises blue and grey hydrogen will not solve the problem at least.
It's true that CCS will play a part in the initial phase of development in the H2 economy. But I find that Prof Cebon also hasn't reckoned with the implications of installing large Heat pumps into the millions of Victorian 2 up 2 down terraces in the UK. Where will you put them in the roof? Heat pumps alone aren't enough to counter the woeful levels of insulation in these homes. They would need multiple billions of government funds to become useful. Chicken and egg. Nonetheless, this direct electricity for the home argument seems redundant.
You will still want to store H2 as the economy transitions. You can't use massive batteries to store petrol stations worth of energy because of toxicity/ rare earth element sourcing and weight. You've all felt the weight of a car battery now imagine 10,000 times that under a forecourt and only useful for 2000 cycles. Heavy transport will use H2 again because of weight.
So H2 is needed is to create a better overall balanced grid.
CCS does not solve the problem but buys us a little more time to convert. Coal, Gas and fossil-fuelled power stations will die out and nuclear is too expensive.
I totally agree with you Boaty. I think CCS should be the gateway to going fully green. I think it is unfortunate that there is much force against the idea following the opinion that once you start CCS then the greater transition will never come and we'll be forever leaking CO2. That inflexibility to accept the gateway I fear simply leads to neither implementation and accidentally continuing as we are today with raw fossil (at least for too long at any rate).
I don’t know what he has said but if even if we spent billions converting appliances to run on hydrogen the gas supply network has only 25 percent of its current capacity bc of the lower cv . Frankly hydrogen has a place in storage blending and transportation. Electricity cannot supply our heat and massive insulation is a must . In reality we will need fossil fuels beyond 2050 imv.
Surely the likes of Shell etc. (depending on where they pay their tax) should see the 130% write off as the prime opportunity to get Hydrogen refuelling forecourts across the uk. This would drive a massive uptake in demand for Hydrogen vehicles. The only barrier stopping me getting one is the lack of refuelling range. Until then I'm running my petrol pollution spewing one into the ground as its the least carbon intensive thing to do apparently (*how ethical are bananas? book.)
On trading view I have noticed every day at 1635 (which is weird as market shuts at 1630) massive whale investment. About 300k-700k shares boughtbin bulk right at the end of the day and soldnoff in batched early on next day. I dont know why or how it would manipulated the market but it doesn't seem legit.
Feels like that idiot is doing itbon purpose on parliament TV. He isn't giving a fair representation. There is no fuel as clean as hydrogen. Me personally im quite highly invested and I believe in itm. Just these massive daily dips hurt. So I'm gonna take emotions out of it. Believe in itm. And diamond hands this sucker till 2027. Parliament to need tonget GC on to give an actual presentation