"If the United States wants to engage in hydrogen energy, it asks, will it work this time?”
Recently, we heard that the United States has set off a hydrogen energy boom, as if to lead an energy "revolution". I can't help but wonder if this time will workIs it smoky, or can it really accomplish something great?
The starting point of the topic is Biden's highly anticipated hydrogen proposal. They pledged billions of dollars in tax credits to hydrogen producers in an effort to build a cleaner energy industry. It may sound beautiful, like fireworks at night, but we need to see the details and not let the good looks blind us.
First, U.S. credit for hydrogen production has been declared "the most generous in the world," and it seems that overnight, hydrogen has become the darling of U.S. energy policy. But is it really just about the environment?We can't ignore the fact that this proposal is actually part of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by the Democrats last year. Whether it is the original intention of environmental protection or the political conspiracy, the greasy nature of this cannot be ignored.
Even more questionable is the fact that the proposal uses a tiered system for the allocation of credit to hydrogen producers. More credit is available for clean energy projects, and smaller but still meaningful credit is available for those that use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. In this way, do you really want to engage in clean energy, or is it just to cope with the pressure of environmental protection?In this regard, netizens have expressed their opinions.
Some say it's a joke,** estimating that hydrogen production credits will generate $140 billion in revenue and 700,000 jobs by 2030. However, this may just be a beautiful fantasy, as buses, planes, trains and ships run on liquid fuels, which have the infrastructure to deliver them, and clean hydrogen without a corresponding system. To put it bluntly, this proposal may just be fooling people.
On this issue, netizen "little environmental protection expert" commented: "This is simply a pie to satisfy hunger, knowing that there is no mature delivery system at present, but putting forward such a grand plan, it is just wishful thinking of politicians." ”
In the proposal, the solution to the problem of clean electrolyzer hydrogen consuming a lot of electricity is actually to record electricity consumption through "energy attribute certificates". Isn't this a blatant attempt to throw the problem to the enterprise?Netizen "Voice of Reason" bluntly said: "Isn't this throwing the burden of environmental protection to enterprises?"Shouldn't more specific technical support and specifications be provided?”
Of course, there was some support for the proposal. The Clean Air Task Force, for example, considers it a "victory for the climate, U.S. consumers, and the emerging U.S. hydrogen industry." However, we can't help but ask, whose interests is such a victory?
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has questioned this, arguing that the guidance "will hinder the development of critical industries before they even begin." Matty Durbin, Senior Vice President, said bluntly: "Such guidance is better than listening to the advice of experts from the Department of Energy during the public consultation process, and it is imperative to kick-start investment, job creation and economic growth." ”
Not only that, but the American Petroleum Institute has also said that "all types of hydrogen" are needed, calling for more flexibility in hydrogen expansion. The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Association is also calling on the industry to have time to meet any regulations required for the maximum credit limit to avoid industry stagnation.
An industry representative named Frank Wallak emphasized that the industry needs time to meet any regulations required for the maximum credit limit. "What we can't have is an industry that stands still because we're imposing requirements that the market isn't ready to meet," he said. This makes sense, but if you focus on requirements without taking into account the readiness of the industry, it can lead to the failure of the industry.
On this issue, I would like to strongly express the point that we cannot blindly pursue the so-called "hydrogen energy revolution", let alone allow political calculations to overshadow the true original intention of environmental protection. As an ordinary person who cares about the environment, I am more concerned about the real effect of this plan than some seemingly rosy promises made by politicians to please voters.
Finally, I hope that in promoting hydrogen energy, we can truly stand on the position of environmental protection and long-term national interests, instead of pushing the problem too quickly. Environmental protection is not a one-time need, but also requires long-term planning and a solid foundation. All this requires more cautious and rational thinking.