I am done with this silliness …….soooo not worth my time.
Have a great day
I'm sorry that you consider discussion of this topic silliness.
You posted some links about Iceland's goal of being fossil-fuel free by 2050 and wondered why we couldn't do it also.
I pointed out that Iceland is rather unique in that they have abundant hydropower and geothermal energy which provide virtually all of their electricity as well as their home and workplace heating. Their 1/3 of total energy that is fossil fuel is almost all for the transportation industry (fishing vessels, car and trucks, and airplanes). Iceland is actually effectively an exporter of huge amounts of renewable energy in that they have multiple aluminum plants that consume huge amounts of electric energy to refine aluminum, which then gets exported. Conversion of their abundant renewable energy sources into hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels is an excellent way for Iceland to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
The near 100% renewable energy source for electricity in Iceland is quite different than the situation in South Florida, where about 2/3 of the electricity is generated from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas primarily), with another 15% or so from nuclear. Using the electric grid to produce hydrogen for use in cars would actually consume more fossil fuel and produce more CO2 than would using the natural gas + steam to convert methane into hydrogen. Clearly though, converting LNG to hydrogen is not an ideal long term goal.
Somehow, you seem to take this as a personal attack or silliness. My intent was neither of those. For some reason, this subject seems to be difficult to discuss rationally.
Conservation, alternative energy and continued supply of fossil fuels are all worthy, and somewhat complementary goals.
Charlie Allen