this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
2 points (55.6% liked)
Hydrogen
74 readers
1 users here now
A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about... this is absolutely not environmentally friendly?
Then you are repeating an argument from the oil industry. To them, all green vehicles are secretly dirty, and therefore you must always buy an oil powered car.
The oil industry has been rooting for hydrogen cars as their favourite alternative to combustion engines as most hydrogen is produced from fossil energy carriers. It's the oil industry's backdoor to remain the mobility supplier as methane based hydrogen dominates the market and will remain cheaper than green hydrogen unless the whole world agrees on proper taxes, which it won't. Hydrogen cars are emission free but hydrogen isn't. And while the same can be said for electric cats, the shift to renewable energy sources is already happening there and the higher efficiency already makes BEVs more environmentally friendly than ICEs, unlike hydrogen cars.
The same is also happening with hydrogen. We are shifting towards green hydrogen. People who claim otherwise are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against BEVs.
What green hydrogen? Where?
You're clearly stuck in the past. Green hydrogen production is rapidly expanding. It is the new solar or wind boom.
No one is going to meaningful control hydrogen prices in the long-run. It can be made via renewable energy like wind and solar. So it will have the same level of cost. Which is to say it will cost very little as wind and solar cost very little.
And this is why we have so many people campaigning against it.
You can literally make it yourself. This replaces having to need giant banks of batteries, as well reduces the need for grid capacity increases. Furthermore, you need energy storage in general. That implies that even BEVs will need hydrogen for energy storage for long durations. As a result, there's not likely to be any meaningful increase in cost. And since wind and solar are so cheap, efficiency is not particularly irrelevant. The margin cost of production is basically zero anyways, so none of that matters. It will be far cheaper than fossil fuels in the long-run.
More gibberish. All of the steps needed for an hydrogen infrastructure can be powered by hydrogen. Even steel made for the purpose can be made via hydrogen reduction. So can any trucks or equipment needed. Meanwhile, all of the steps for building batteries or wires requirement fossil fuels at some point. After all, who is going to mine all of that stuff? Same with refining it to pure metals. You are unaware of how dependent BEVs are to fossil fuels. Something that won't be solved unless we adopt hydrogen on a vast scale.
And BTW, steel is a lot cheaper than copper. So pipelines are much cheaper than wires. In reality, you are just brainwashed by BEV propaganda mostly coming from Tesla. You'd save money by going with hydrogen. BEVs are the more expensive option.
Again, wrong. More gibberish. Green hydrogen can power any aspect of transportation. You do not need to have to involve carbon. Pipelines exist too. You can replace copper wires with pipelines, and it would be cheaper to move energy this way.
Again, the problem is that you need giant banks of batteries to power your all-BEV fantasy. That is much more expensive and in fact implies an unbreakable dependence on fossil fuels to build those things. Something avoided with hydrogen.
In fact, you have fully inverted reality. Hydrogen, not batteries, are mandatory in a renewable energy powered society. You will have to accept this simply fact.
Finally, you have to let go of BEV propaganda. It is all lies copied over from the oil & gas industry. It is all lies with zero basis in fact.
Green hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water using wind and solar energy. There is no carbon involved. As green energy scales up, the cost of this will drop to extremely low levels. Margin cost is basically zero, as you only need water.
As a result, it is a far simpler and scalable solution than going with batteries. You avoid all of the mining and infrastructure of batteries. And because it is so much more scalable, you end up having to use hydrogen for energy storage anyways. Even BEVs will have to depend on hydrogen power for long-duration energy storage needs.
The problem is, again, you are fully brainwashed. You are repeating nothing but BEV propaganda from companies like Tesla. And the ironic thing is that this all originated from oil & gas companies. It is climate change denial rhetoric only you don't know it.
Because, again, you need to store that energy in banks of giant batteries. Something that is very expensive. And again, if you realize that FCEVs are basically doing to same thing, just using water instead of giant batteries, it is going to much cheaper while not actually reducing efficiency that much.
In the long-run, there won't be hardly ANY difference in efficiency, because again, both are electrochemical systems that work the same way. This is the basic fact that you are failing to grasp.
Finally, hydrogen is pretty unavoidable for a green society anyways. You need it for long-duration energy storage anyways, and so will industry and heavy transportation. Meaning that even an all-BEV society will still need vast amounts of green hydrogen if it really wants to break dependency on fossil fuels.
If anything, you are handwaving the problems of BEVs. Hydrogen is the solution to that ironically.
Again, you are the one brainwashed by corporate propaganda, mainly from Tesla. An FCEV is an EV. That is undeniable fact. As a result, it is equally as valid of a solution as BEVs are. The rest of your posts are you being totally confused by this fact.