• Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately capitalism will keep killing things that are good for the environment while we spend 7 trillion subsidizing fossil fuels.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hydrogen really isn’t good for the environment. You have to spend electricity to make it, then storing it is a massive issue just to turn it back into electricity. There’s some advantage to it with very large and heavy vehicles, but not for cars. Batteries make a lot more sense for cars, and you can charge them almost anywhere (theoretically). I can see shipping and maybe trucking moving towards hydrogen at some point, especially since shipping in particular is an extremely convenient location to produce hydrogen.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish more people understood this. We aren’t going to find a one size fits all replacement for oil. It’s going to be using all the different renewable sources in different applications where they excel.

          • serratur@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s because people dont understand that hydrogen is a energy carrier and if we want to produce it in e green way it is more comparable to batteries than petroleum.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed. We’re going to see hydrogen being used in industrial scaled uses in the future more than transportation.

          However, I just watched the video a few days ago about the Canadian mining company that is switching all of their mining equipment to battery electric. I thought that was pretty interesting - The mine operator flatly said that hydrogen wasn’t financially viable.

          So I’m thinking hydrogen being used for steel manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and other major large scale materials processing.

        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Haha someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

          So you think 9 trillion couldn’t be spent better than fossil fuel subsidies?

          • Agent641@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Li-ion batteries explode.

            LiFePO4 batteries can’t explode without the aid of some C-4. Im so tired of my boi LiFePO4 being lumped in with their explodey cousins.

            • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I like lifepo4 batteries. You can safely forget about them and then they don’t burn your house down. They last long enough that when you finally do remember and need them for something years later, they’re probably still good.

          • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Both make lovely sources of power for cars and lawnmowers though 😍 just don’t inhale the exhaust of the former, or the combustion of the latter 😳

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The reason why the Hindenburg exploded like that was because they coated the fucking thing in what is essentially thermite. They doped those things with aluminum powder mixed with nitrate.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This image, right or wrong, is why hydrogen cars were never going to win. The public gestalt on how they thought of them mimics this photo.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ironically hydrogen works well as a storage solution for the variability of wind and solar. When you have a large excess of them, you can run electrolyzers to generate green hydrogen. And then when the grid needs some more supply, we can use that hydrogen to make up the gap.

  • coyootje@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is my main problem with hydrogen cars. I think it’s a very cool concept that might eventually overtake pure electric cars but there’s almost no places to get hydrogen yet.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It isn’t going to overtake electric cars, too inefficient.

      But it might be the future for airplanes, which need a lot more energy density.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it might be the future for airplanes, which need a lot more energy density.

        Specifically density by weight. By volume, which is more important to cars, hydrogen also loses.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes also cargo ships and possibly American sized semi trucks. Although semis are right on border of battety vs hydrogen.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with long distance airliners though is that the turbofan powered engine has such a huge power output that is only possible using a turbine.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It also requires dedicated infrastructure. EVs can have charging stations at basically anywhere with a power hookup (or a genset. A grocery store here puts small VAWTs to charge off of in their parking lots. And every new-ish building has added charging stations to some of their spaces.

      Hydrogen cars would need refueling stations with dedicated pressurized gas hookups, tanks, and fill machines. And the tanks and the tankers to keep the tanks full.

      Finally the ultimate problem is it’s rather low energy density.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        And all that infrastructure is a problem that doesn’t need solving with EVs. An entire industry we don’t need to build/rebuild

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By mass, sure, but not by volume; and that usually doesn’t take into account the mass of the tanks, and hydrogen is rather difficult to keep from leaking.

          In cars we’re more concerned about volume than mass, in which it performs very low- aluminum as a fuel actually leads that (but is … impractical…)

          For cars, amonia would be the better choice and can be synthesized at home fairly easily. It’s still fairly low energy, though. About the same as hydrogen

    • rentar42@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you think it’ll overtake electric cars? The energy efficiency of hydrogen cars is significantly worse, as they introduce some extra steps in pipeline of energy-generation -> movement.

      The only major advantage they have is “ICE-like” fuelling, which has a bunch of major caveats attached to it (as in: it’s nowhere near as simple a system as ICE refuelling. Everything from generation, to transport to getting-it-in-the-car is way more complex and thus expensive and error-prone).

        • night_of_knee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I hadn’t thought of it before but it’s obvious, hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, it had to be stored under pressure in order to get any significant mass into the volume of a tank. So it’s under pressure in the refueling station and in the car’s tank. How does it get from one to the other without boiling away?

          • joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            oh there are a few ways. One group is researching turning H2 into a paste. the paste mixes with water and breaks down into water and Ca+ ions. You now have a energy density around liquid hydrogen and it only add some calcium to the exhaust. There is also storing hydrogen in metal disks.

          • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hydrogen is a gas, under very high pressure but you will never find it in a liquid form unless you cool it down to -250 C or so. It’s not used in liquid form for such applications.

            There is though the need to chill the hydrogen to about -20/-40C before delivery to the vehicles due to some anomalous properties of hydrogen respect to ever other gas known to humans.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something else no one has said yet (I think) is that most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, so this is in no way a climate solution. It’s been sold as one and it’s bullshit.

      • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While producing hydrogen from natural gas is cheaper, this company claims to produce it with electrolysis

        But IMHO at the moment is a waste of energy

      • UniquesNotUseful@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes but not for long.

        As (generally climate denying) people love to point out, wind and solar is erratic power generation. For this reason you need triple capacity Vs requirements.

        This means that for a huge amount of time you’ll have excess energy, once we start to be predominantly renewables, battery storage is expensive. One of the solutions is to create hydrogen, also pumped hydrogen, etc.

          • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is irrelevant to the topic.

            The reason why hydrogen is produced by steam reforming is because natural gas is cheap and is needed to produce ammonia. In Norway where there is plenty of cheap electricity from hydroelectric, there is hydrogen production via electrolysis.

            The advantage of hydrogen as fuel is that can be used to decarbonise things like ships, and possibly things like branch rail lines, and planes. Passenger vehicle is probably the least attractive application, but somewhat lower capital investment than a green hydrogen plant on a industrial scale.

            However this can only make sense if electricity is cheap i.e. if they are running with waste electricity from renewables.

        • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay but you have to use electricity to do that and currently you’re generating carbon by producing the electricity.

          It’s not a solution.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I dunno, everything I’ve always seen on it made it seem like a hyper-specific solution that’s more suited to a few edge cases that could have their specific infrastructure.

      For the average consumer, the recharging of EVs is actually Not A Big Deal™️. It seemed like one at first. Now all it does is ensure I take hourly short breaks which I should have been doing anyways, basically. The only big upside of Hydrogen is the ability to refill very quickly, but you pay with a whole bunch of downsides like inefficient generation, inefficient transportation, secondary infrastructure, energy inefficiency, etc.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hydrogen also only manages fast refills with a break between vehicles. If you try and fill a lot of cars in a row like gas pumps do, you have to wait much longer while it compresses and cools the hydrogen.

        So the number of hydrogen pumps you need to support fuel cell EVs winds up being similar to the number of fast chargers BEVs need, and hydrogen pumps are very expensive.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those “edge cases” are major industrial processes that drive the modern industrial economy. Like steel making and ammonia production.

    • endhits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re still electric cars at their base. They just use a hydrogen reactor in lieu of a battery to power the motors.

      I don’t see a future where hydrogen supplants electric cars, unless there’s some revolution in storage technology for it. In that case, progress in battery tech is more likely.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is there even a possibility of better storage tech for hydrogen? It’s not like batteries where you can use different elements in the battery out of different things. It has to store hydrogen. The processes surrounding that can be made more efficient, but the storage is just a physical limitation, not chemical.

    • GenEcon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Another problem to the already mentioned ones (expensive, expensive dedicated infrastructure needed) is the range. Hydrogen is not very energy dense. For example the Toyota Mirai has a range of 500 km (310 miles) and its a pretty big, fuel-efficient car and the fuel storage is as big as the vehicle allows it.

      So while you can refuel faster than electric, you need to do it more frequently and its less convenient.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just spitballing here, please pretend I’m some rando on the Internet and not some kind of expert.

          On its own, there’s not much wrong with it. It takes a little longer to fill than a normal gas dispenser, but not bad. But you’ll still need to put hydrogen fuel stations everywhere similar to gas stations now.

          Hydrogen’s biggest competitor is pure electric. I love my EV in part because I can charge at home. There’s just something really nice about waking up to a full battery every day, and realizing you haven’t been to a gas station in months (I have an ICE as well, but it’s not my daily driver). Having to go to a fueling station every week or so again would feel like a big step backward, especially if we need to create a from-scratch infrastructure for it. We already have power lines pretty much everywhere, and can generate power relatively easily, so much of the hard part is done.

          Going back to range: in theory this problem could be alleviated if the range were enough that one had to refuel less often, but going through all that trouble to be in a similar situation to what you’ve had, when a better alternative exists? Nah.

  • Brickhead92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The same will happen to EVs after them libs still all the electricity with their solar panels. /s

  • drudoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Weird that this hasn’t been on the local news. I see Drivr cars all the time.

  • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Relevant bits:

    “According to the Danish Car Importers association, there were 147 fuel-cell cars on Danish roads at the end of last year, with only one sold so far this year — all of which now have no means to refuel.”

    “He added: “There is no doubt that hydrogen cars are not an option in the short term and that electric cars will win the vast majority of the passenger car market.”

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hydrogen is guaranteed to win this one. Batteries are just another unsustainable greenwashing idea. People are falling prey to BEV propaganda.