Technology

65762 readers

6250 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

435

Shell Is Immediately Closing All Of Its California Hydrogen Stations | The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can't make its operations work here. (insideevs.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

307 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Shell Is Immediately Closing All Of Its California Hydrogen Stations | The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can't make its operations work here.::The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can't make its operations work here. All seven of its California stations will close immediately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sanctus 13 points 1 year ago (33 children)

EVs, Hydrogen Cells, Vegetable Oil, all these alternatives are here to save one thing; The Car Industry. Sounds like the problem might be mode of transport rather than fuel.

[–] toofpic 38 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Oh, come on, I live in Copenhagen and cycle daily, but even there, cars are not going anywhere. Smelly-smokey cars, yes, but not cars in general.

[+] Sanctus -7 points 1 year ago (14 children)

What is the argument here? Cars are here to stay forever and ever? Most daily commuters could get used to a train. It is possible for most people to live without a car, your city was just designed in a way that requires you to.

[–] heyitsmikey128 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the point, we can't exactly just resign a city from the ground up to work with public transit especially when it's not being pushed for by the majority

[–] Sanctus -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes but what is the alternative? Can civilians all have their own car when 10 million live in a city? What about 30 million? 100? It stops making sense the more people you have. And on top of that suppliers and transportation services use the same road, too. It is already like flying through the death star out here with half the road being eaten by transportation companies.

[–] kalleboo 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The higher the density of the city, the better public transit works. You can live in Tokyo or London and get by without a car, but everyone in the world can't (or won't) live in Tokyo-dense cities. It doesn't make any financial sense building a subway in a city of only 100,000.

[–] heyitsmikey128 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well with the way the birthrates are going, I think population is going to stabilize.

[–] Sanctus -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you're not looking.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate

It is still going up just much more slowly. To say we shouldn't worry about efficiency cause there will never be that many people disregards the benefits of unloading all of these personal costs to individuals. Vehicles are expensive on top of everything.

[–] heyitsmikey128 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know that link proves my point? It shows a steady decline in population so we're actually going to have LESS people.