91–100 of 387 posts
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.
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.
More to the point, currently only 1% (edit: some articles I've seen put it less than 0.1%[1]) of hydrogen is "green". The rest is mostly made out of natural gas, a process that releases just as much CO2 as if you'd burned it. H2 isn't a way to save the Earth, it's a way to save the Natural Gas industry. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/22/0-03-of-hydrogen-is-gre...
H2 can be produced in large quantities from green power. Part of the problem is, some people see everything as non-green.
Dams? Oh, carbon and cement! Nuclear? Oh risk. Windmills? Oh birds. Solar? Short cell lift and manufacturing waste.
So let's start with the snae assumption that a dam is green. Now you want to get power to cars.
Guess what. You can make h2 on site, at night (low power demand), then send it anywhere using existing gaslines.
And yes, you can. No, h2 isn't hard to store, hard to move.
Frankly, it is the oil industry flooding green forums with false crap about h2, because they know h2 is the only complete threat to them
Batteries, with their wonderful waste, slow charge time, massive weight, and vast dangers in a accident, won't be enough to break oil's back.
We need h2 for that, and that's why all this bullwark is spewed at h2. A tech demonstrated as workijg quite well in buses, cars, and spaceships for 50+ years.
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…
Hydrogen for cars is dead. However long haul flights, fertilizer, green steel, etc. very difficult to find a carbon free alternative that isn’t hydrogen.
> Liebreich gives an example of Shell being happy to spend $12bn on a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) platform, the Prelude, which has seen a host of problems, “but they won't spend $12bn just producing blue, green, pink, or any other sort of clean hydrogen for those [existing] uses where we currently are driving 3-4% of global emissions”.
Renewable power calls for massive over provisioning to minimize time where backup energy has to be used. Over provisioned energy could power hydrogen production, in which case the "inefficiency" doesn't really matter, as long as there is no other better purpose for which the energy can be spent. There's obviously a sweet spot which may invalidate this argument. But to me it sounds like a win-win, even if only focusin…
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…
Am not well versed on these considerations but it appears one advantage of hydrogen is energy density compared to batteries. This may be less an issue for passenger vehicles but could be more relevant for air travel - as an example. No comments or opinions otherwise re: funding etc. Found the below article useful as a primer: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/fuel-cell-and...
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…
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…
Were they being engineer-minded or where they being lobbied? I would like to think they were betting on Beta -- the superior technology -- in the Beta v VHS battle of our time.
What am I missing here? Toyota's engineers have a great track record and the company isn't easily swayed by fads or Wall Street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you referring to hydrogen as a mobility fuel specifically? I generally agree. However, it is a critical large-scale industrial input, a replacement industrial input for several additional large industries, and an excellent large-scale stationary energy store.
Is it an excellent large-scale stationary energy store though? I mean, it seems like it should be but * Hydrogen really likes to leak. * Hydrogen breaks down the container holding it over time. * Hydrogen is very low density. This means you need either a very large container or very high pressure. Combined with 1 and 2 this is going to be expensive. I'm really asking the question. I would love to know the full cost d…
Yes, but the rate of leakage is tiny enough that for any reasonable sized tank it's going to be years till it's all leaked away.
The real risk is the leakage causing explosions if you ever put a tank in a confined space.
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…
My understanding is liquid hydrogen could be a contender for a green jet fuel alternative. Batteries are too heavy.