I am either under equipped with intelligence .. or your question is too confusing to be easily understood.
If your intention is to get any kind of useful feedback on your message here .. I suggest you try to rephrase it or explain further what you're asking.
Looks like you yourself are dangerously wrong here.
You know which way we will not solve the problem?
By failing to recognize technologies that are going to help solve the problem.
It's the same with CCS.
The "green" mantra of "this is all just a strategy to help the fossil industry survive and we must boycott it" is shooting in one's foot.
As long as the world's energy infrastructure can not be built solely on renewables - which will still be the case in at least 2-3 decades - it makes sense to develop/use technologies that make the footprint of fossil energy smaller.
The key feature of hydrogen as energy storage wouldn't necessarily be round trip efficiency but cost effectiveness (compared to batteries) of long-term storage over months.
Think about transporting peaks of renewables electricity generation that are not economically usable at the time when they're produced to times when renewables produce too little to meet demand. (Mostly in regions where generation depends significantly on seasons.)
> > Commonsense should tell you e- generated by H2 can't compete with CH4, because Ch4 is the feedstock & H2 is the product!
> Didn't parse this statement, sorry. Can you rephrase?
They might have meant something like: if you process A through B to C while you could also process A to C directly, then the latter direct process will usually be more economically viable.
While this heuristic sounds broadly reasonable, it neglects so many details of any real production processes and value chains that it seems hardly applicable to real world situations.
> ... bringing "energy resilience", a key policy buzzphrase.
The word "buzzphrase" implies that you think energy resilience is not as relevant as the proponents want to make it seem. Correct?
I've been thinking for years that resilience of the overall energy system is a factor that many green energy transition people appear to systematically overlook.
As I see it, chemicals based energy systems have a huge advantage over electricity based energy systems through their property of bringing large amounts of storage (and thus capacity to bridge outages) with them basically inherently.
The electrical grid is a delicate life support system and I'm convinced that it will - even in the far future - depend heavily upon chemical energy storage and transportation to give it resilience.
As far as I've heard the electrical grids in the US and Europe have come close to breaking points a lot more often over the last few years, compared to before. And even though huge sums of money are being invested in their build-out and maintenance, the supply situation with critical components such as transformers is apparently dire.
Alltogether makes me think that chemical energy storage (and thus, hydrogen, power-to-gas, ammonia, and such) will have a dead-sure place in energy systems.
> ... new technique by creating tiny liquid metal droplets containing copper and gallium ... as the catalyst to break apart the raw ingredients of nitrogen and hydrogen.
> "Liquid metals allow us to move the chemical elements around in a more dynamic way that gets everything to the interface and enables more efficient reactions, ideal for catalysis," Daeneke said. "Copper and gallium separately had both been discounted as famously bad catalysts for ammonia production, yet together they do the job extremely well."
Each post could be encrypted (before publishing) using a unique key (derived from the private key of the poster) and then signed with the private key (of the poster) before publishing.
Then the poster could later choose to selectively publish (or make them available to individuals) some of these unique keys, to make posts readable.
There's apparently scientific studies that show how animals as well as humans tend to continue eating until they've satisfied a mostly fixed daily need for protein, mostly regardless of _what kind_ of food they're eating.
Now if people choose a diet low in protein/calories ratio, they'll have a tendency to ingest more calories than people who eat protein rich diets. Try eating eating 300 g of cheese/meat/tofu in one meal, it'll be difficult. Eating 300 g of chips/fries is something many people can absolutely do, if the chips aren't too salty.
One significant difference between our modern western lives and the lives of people tens to hundreds of years ago is IMO that people back then quite automatically used up all the carb calories of their comparably protein diluted diet because life required much more physical activity and came with less home heating than today.
Today, most people will just not expend much of the caloric energy of carb rich diets and thus develop metabolic diseases and such.
A carb rich diet is usually fine as long as you expend the energy via physical activity.
> .. don't know where you get the idea that eating 300g of meat is difficult.
You're right, 300 g of meat isn't much of a challenge. The more appropriate comparison would be between 300 g of chips and an equal amount of calories in some protein rich food like meat. That should be much more challenging.
> .. people today are eating too much.
Yeah, the important question is: why are they eating too much?
I assume that a lot of it is unintentional. Overeating mostly happens because people aren't aware of a few simple mechanisms or are misunderstanding them, not because the world is hard. Mechanisms which they could quite easily use to overeat less or avoid it altogether, instead of falling prey to them.
Just telling people that they're eating to much doesn't help in any way. People need to know why and how they can quite easily change it.
If your intention is to get any kind of useful feedback on your message here .. I suggest you try to rephrase it or explain further what you're asking.