11–20 of 387 posts
They oil companies own a lot of infrastructure for moving fuel around. They cannot use this infrastructure to move electricity but they can use the existing infrastructure to move hydrogen around.
The electric car industry is spinning alternatives. Hydrogen is a much better alternative all around. You'll be able to convert existing cars much easier.
Anyone who has followed hydrogen as a fuel for a while sees pretty easily that its a solution in search of a problem. It really doesn't make sense to use renewables to make hydrogen fuel to then burn: batteries are better for storage of energy in most cases (I will grant that there are edge cases where a liquid/gas fuel is a better technical solution than batteries, but I think that options like ethanol are probably…
I don't understand how any one looks at the electric car charging situation and thinks it makes sense to scale that out to 100% of vehicles.
A 2 hour wait to get a charger spot isn't a workable transport system.
Anyone who has followed hydrogen as a fuel for a while sees pretty easily that its a solution in search of a problem. It really doesn't make sense to use renewables to make hydrogen fuel to then burn: batteries are better for storage of energy in most cases (I will grant that there are edge cases where a liquid/gas fuel is a better technical solution than batteries, but I think that options like ethanol are probably…
BEVs are here-and-now technology though, and I don't oppose them, it's just I plan to wait until hydrogen technology matures and reaches deployment, or BEV finally solves those two problems.
Anyone who has followed hydrogen as a fuel for a while sees pretty easily that its a solution in search of a problem. It really doesn't make sense to use renewables to make hydrogen fuel to then burn: batteries are better for storage of energy in most cases (I will grant that there are edge cases where a liquid/gas fuel is a better technical solution than batteries, but I think that options like ethanol are probably…
Toyota Mirai sales have been flatlined at low ~1-2k since they started, for 7 years: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/toyota-mirai-sales-figures-usa...
While Tesla immediately had ever-growing sales: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/tesla-us-sales-figures/
They've been doing it for twenty years, hydrogen allows maintaining a distribution network and *most of all* to keep using fossil fuels to generate it
I didn't realize this wasn't common knowledge. They oil companies own a lot of infrastructure for moving fuel around. They cannot use this infrastructure to move electricity but they can use the existing infrastructure to move hydrogen around.
The fight here is over whether natural gas-made hydrogen (SMR) is an interesting fuel at all. I think the numbers say no, while solar-made hydrogen is in fact extremely interesting.
Anyone who has followed hydrogen as a fuel for a while sees pretty easily that its a solution in search of a problem. It really doesn't make sense to use renewables to make hydrogen fuel to then burn: batteries are better for storage of energy in most cases (I will grant that there are edge cases where a liquid/gas fuel is a better technical solution than batteries, but I think that options like ethanol are probably…
Seeing people like that rally to hydrogen over EVs is the loudest argument against the tech.
Hydrogen technology doesn't exist to save the Earth, it exists to save the natural gas industry.
The business model for hydrogen that's generated is
1. Hydrogen is extracted from natural gas.
2. A miracle happens, capturing the carbon dioxide from this process.
3. Hydrogen goes in cars.
The amount of truly "green" hydrogen out there is functionally zero.
So it's a tech that isn't green, has no refueling infrastructure, and practically no adoption in the car industry. At this point it only exists so that anti-environmentalists can claim there's an alternative they prefer, since it's politically unacceptable to be pro-apocalypse.