> under-developed countries enjoy the consequences of climate change

Where does the top emitter China come into to equation?

What was your point again?

> It's always a rude awakening when you look at gross energy consumption though. Renewable share drops a lot when we include transportation, heating etc.

Sure, but you really need to get the electricity generation to a certain level of Low CO2 production before the electrification of other industries. It's a multiplier. Just like electricity generation, the economics of switching these other industries has recently (or currently is) at the tipping point, where it makes financial (or Security) sense to switch.

People will be surprised how fast these other industries transform. Jut like they are today with electricity generation

> the center of France is always completely empty.

Here's a good video on that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgwv6Ic3fA

> if there was clear value to be had

Narrator: There wasn't

> I mean that we cannot replace hydrocarbons

Of course not. they are a non-renewable energy source.

We can stop using them though by phasing in the next generation during our energy transition. Some applications will be easy, others more difficult. Not only can we, but we have to for our own survival. (not to mention in the long run it will be cheaper)

> But Hausfather said there are substitutions available in all these materials’ cases.

This is one of the most important aspects the chicken littles always seem to forget

1. He's incorrect

2. Conventional hydrogen also isn't cheap

> The more solar panel use, the more fossil fuel use,

Sure, currently most manufacturing and extraction runs on FF. But that Is also changing.

>deploying those less harmful solutions will be as harmful in the long run.

This is blatantly false.

More solar panel use means LESS Fossil fuel use vs not using the solar panels. Each electron produced by solar displaces electrons made from fossil fuels. How are you not understanding this? It's a transition process. It doesn't happen from one day to the next. The transition will take decades.

>I think it's better to get an economic and financial revolution rolling,

Sure, lets see your plan for that. I'm interested how you expect to do that.

Sure, but those are much deeper fundamental problems with how our Economies are organized, not technologial problems.

Barring a complete economic and financial revolution, Some options are less harmful than others. So lets Deploy those.

> What's the energy cost of extracting materials, processing them, producing, shipping, installing and maintaining all that solar panel infraestructure which will need to be renewed and therefore spend again the same energy every 30 or so years?

Than than the energy cost of current Fossil Fuel solutions

> one informed podcaster said that hydrogen will cost $0 in a couple of years.

1. This is not accurate.

2. Delivery costs are also high, meaning even if it was 'free' to produce it would still be expensive to use.

Water warms slower than land.

Thanks for coming to my 3rd grade TED talk

Turns out that warming is much more impactful where humans live, as opposed to middle of nowhere in the ocean

Just look at the 70% of the earth that's covered in water.

Cost of operation makes them competitive on Price.

EDIT: https://www.envasetechnologies.com/comparing-total-cost-of-ownership-electric-vs-diesel-trucks/

https://traton.com/en/newsroom/current-topics/why-electric-trucks-can-be-profitable-more-quickly-than-many-people-expect.html

You can post links to you own data if you disagree, or just downvote if you don't like what these say...

Economics will phase out FFs long before countries agree to do it.

> really an infringement on privacy?

That depends on HOW you go about collecting that information! (an how accurate you want it to be)

> rich

If you count "rich" as being able to afford to buy a car.

I knew the UK was having economic problems post brexit, but is everyone only earning 20k per year now?

> the good news is that we move beyond our mistakes.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh today. I needed that

> We have seem similar advancement in time frame.

No, no we have not.

Sure green hydrogen is better than what we currently use in terms of emissions. The problem is that it's not the best option available to replace what we currently use.

https://www.cleanegroup.org/hydrogen-hype-in-the-air/

or see the other comment above:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yobd6l/dutch_pilot_project_for_hydrogen_heated_homes/ivfg3ij/

> China was a larger more relevant example

Yes, they still have blackouts and industry shutdowns due to lack of electricity, green or otherwise.

This dream of shipping hydrogen isn't going to help, because you need 3x the energy to be generated and massive transportation needed to get it where the demand is. (in a situation where there is already not enough TOTAL energy)
You may not think it, but the reality is that it's easier to just build more grid transmission than roll out the rube goldberg hydrogen infrastructure needed.

>There is not an availability issue of green energy in most of the world

Again, this is 100% wrong. There is a massive lack of green energy generation happening. Now there is no lack of green energy POTENTIAL in most of the world, but we are significantly lacking in actual production.

>the transmission is an astronomical barrier.

Transportation of hydrogen is an astronomical barrier too. But you conveniently ignore that.

EDIT: Downvote all you want. It doesn't change the reality.

> To cite my home country, Scotland,

Where 5 million people live and little to no heavy industry is.

You might have well suggested that the entire world follow the example of Iceland or Costa Rica.

>we do not have an availability issue with green energy

We have an OVERALL energy availability issue. Or have you been asleep this decade? To say we do not have an availability issue with green energy is just pure ignorance about energy in general