this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
180 points (88.8% liked)

Technology

59698 readers
5170 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I wish I got to do fun little projects like this at my job. Anyway, this proof of concept shows that hydrogen would be a great alternative to propane and natural gas for cooking. Hat tip to @[email protected].

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Fun project! But replacing gas with hydrogen seems really tricky. Hydrogen is much harder to transport without leaks because it's such a tiny molecule. Electric seems better than trying to still burn hydrogen.

[–] grue 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The best way to store and transport hydrogen is to combine it with carbon so that it becomes a convenient liquid fuel. As a bonus, then you don't even need fuel cells to make electricity from it, but can instead simply burn it in something called an "internal combustion engine"

[–] mholiv 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is just synthetic fossil fuel with extra steps. Lol.

[–] grue 19 points 4 months ago

Exactly.

Hydrogen is mostly a greenwashing scam; it isn't any better than what we already have.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Nah, combustion engine is just one step up from the steam engine, such a wasteful technology, should long be in a museum.

First thing i think about in using a hydrogen-carbon fuel, is fuel cell (no better word for "Brennstoffzelle"?) to create electricity. Next up a steam turbine.

[–] superminerJG 3 points 4 months ago

we do call them fuel cells

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tons of experts believe the only way hydrogen based transportation makes sense is by using it to fuel heavy transport right at the source instead of trying to transport it via pipeline.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Yup. Produce it with wind or solar at the warehouse, then load it onto trucks or forklifts or whatever. It's a nice little closed ecosystem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

As Toyota has demonstrated (and speaking from my own experience), it's not that tricky. As for cooking with the stuff, sometimes you just need portability and/or a flame. Electric is a poor choice in those cases.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (13 children)

Portability is hard for hydrogen since you hadn't liquify it without huge pressures and cryogenic temps, so you need big tanks. But cooking stoves does seem like a pretty good use case.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Just need to waste a ton of energy extracting it then liquifying it then hoping that transport doesn't face any issues (and I mean, considering our track record with petrol which doesn't corrode everything it touches I sure as hell wouldn't worry about it [/s if it wasn't clear]) and then fill up your personal car that could have simply been powered by electricity from the beginning...

Also, ever heard of energy density? Because hydrogen won't win prizes on that front!

[–] TheGrandNagus 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Wait wait wait, you're telling me that taking electricity, sending it along wires, generating hydrogen with it via hydrolysis, packaging it, compressing it to an extreme degree, physically transporting it, putting it in pumps, pumping it into your car, then doing reverse hydrolysis to charge a battery that then powers an electric motor...

Is less efficient than sending electricity along some wires to your car battery, to then drive an electric motor?

I'm shocked!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Electric is far more efficient too, thus cheaper. Electricity you can transit over distance over wire and generate however you like. We've done it a long time, far and wide.

Turning electricity into hydrogen, distributing it, and then turning it back into electricity to move a vehicle, is so wasteful/expensive.

Just use a big battery.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For some applications like spacecraft where weight is critical, it does make sense to use hydrogen fuel cells as a battery. But usually it doesn't make sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They’ll do anything not to build EVs /s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

TBH I respect Toyota for being realistic more than grifters like Musk. The fact is that car will never be a sustainable replacement for cars. They're here to save the auto cartels, not the planet.

But on the other hand public transit and LEVs are much more realistic. I would very much like to see a Toyota e-bike.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Sooo just cooking gas with more steps.

Oil industry loves pushing hydrogen but it's nearly all made from fossil fuels, so what benefit is there?

[–] inefficient_electron 11 points 4 months ago

Key words being “current supply”. There are major moves being made to change this. Supply and demand need to grow at the same time if this is to work though.

[–] GamingChairModel 9 points 4 months ago

Blue hydrogen is made by stripping the hydrogen from fossil fuel hydrocarbons (chains of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name), and sequestering the carbon. It produces a fuel that contains enough chemical energy to be burned as fuel, but without the carbon atoms that would turn into greenhouse gases.

Most hydrogen currently produced though, is gray hydrogen (made from natural gas, but without sequestering the carbon, so that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

The biggest use-case I see for hydrogen is more of an energy storage and transfer mechanism. With the world switching to renewables that generate power inconsistently, some countries are looking at putting the extra power into hydrogen generation via electrolysis, which can then be used at night/low-wind days to keep the power grid stable.

If we ever get to the point that we've got a surplus of renewably generated hydrogen, then it could make sense to start using to power cars, heating, cooking, whatever.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Fossil fuels, including coal, are also used to produce electricity. They simply need to be prohibited or at least strictly rationed. Fortunately, hydrogen can be produced without emitting greenhouse gasses because it is still necessary for processes like steel and fertilizer production. It's also a practical replacement for fossil fuels in transportation and, as Toyota demonstrated, food preparation. As I replied to someone else, sometimes we need portability and/or a flame when it comes to cooking. Electricity just doesn't cut it in those cases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If the process to make hydrogen is clean, burning h is way way way cleaner. That's the math, not the source. The source can become an economics problem rather than necessarily an environmental one (imagine like 45 footnotes for where we do stuff that makes this not true, I'm just trying to capture the goal)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Generate hydrogen at night from nuke plants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Surely an oven that inherently steams everything it cooks is quite a different tool to a regular oven? It probably works well with breads and similar products, though, so I guess that'd work as a pizza oven

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Burning methane also produces steam. Methane produces 891 kJ/mol, hydrogen 286 kJ/mol, methane has four hydrogen atoms that'd be 1144 kJ per what should the unit be in any case: Methane produces less heat per unit of produced water than hydrogen (the hydrogen first needs to get ripped off the carbon). Those ovens burn dryer than your current gas oven.

Never used steam when making pizza, they're not in there long enough for steam to make a difference. For bread it's indispensable to get a proper crust, though.

EDIT: Did I get moles right? It's been a while and I am no chemist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corvidae 1 points 4 months ago

Steam may be okay for the wheat crust, generally when baking bread steam is applied in the initial rise period, but is generally turned off at the end for a dry final bake. The cheese is another matter. Ideally the cheese has to do more than melt, it should develop a partly caramelized appearance on the top (slightly brownish in places). Whether that would happen with this kind of oven is unknown.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Back in the early days of gas infrastructure, before wide-spread electrification, you know gas street lights and everything, the gas was produced by gasifying coal, resulting in gas that was often over 50% hydrogen, with only ~20% methane. Rest nitrogen and CO.

Natural gas has a methane content upwards of 75%, which meant that everyone had to switch out their burner nozzles but the rest of the infrastructure stayed intact.

All this is to say: Nothing about is really new or rocket science. Europe is certainly creating a backbone pipeline network for hydrogen, parts of it new pipes, other parts re-purposed natural gas pipes, many were built to a standard that allows them to carry hydrogen though some valves etc. might need upgrading. Some of those were originally built for hydrogen in the first place, and checking Wikipedia there's actually a 240km segment in the Ruhr area, built in 1938, still in operation, which always carried hydrogen. Plain steel but comparatively low-pressure so it works.

Oh and have another number: According to Fraunhofer, Germany's pipeline network can store three months of total energy usage (electricity, transportation, everything). Not in storage tanks, but just by operating the pipelines themselves at higher or lower pressure.

And we need that stuff one way or the other: Even if tomorrow ten thousand fusion plants go online that doesn't mean that the chemical industry doesn't need feedstock, or that reducing steel with electricity would make sense. Both of those things need hydrogen.

Fusion is still in the future so the plan is to import most of that hydrogen, mostly from Canada and Namibia, in tankers carrying ammonia which is way more efficient that trying to compress hydrogen also ammonia is needed for some processes anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hydrogen is so much smaller than natty light that on a Continental scale the losses could be significant, but that's neat history. It's fun how long stuff has been around like gasification.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

From all that I've seen electricity lines (also HVDC) have higher transmission losses by a magnitude. With hydrogen and modern material science you'll probably have the choice between higher losses and embrittlement, but that's just another economical equation: Do you want to eat the higher losses, or replace the pipeline in a couple of decades or a century.

At least environment-wise hydrogen leaks aren't an issue: Some atoms diffusing through the wall don't constitute a fire hazard and the end result is water. Methane, OTOH, is a nasty greenhouse gas.

Speaking of nature: Ammonia is nasty, but nature produces it itself (just not at those concentrations) and can deal with it. The site directly surrounding a leak would be dead, a bit further downstream (literally) there's going to be over-fertilisation. Not nice but definitely better than an oil leak and fixing it quite literally involves waiting until grass has grown over it as rain dilutes it and microorganisms migrate back in to eat it. Similar things apply to ethanol which I'd say would be a better choice for general use such as hybrid cars, camping stoves and whatnot because it's not going to burn your lungs away. Can't rely on people being conscious enough to get up and flee the ammonia stench when they're in a car accident.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That's cool and all...but hydrogen isn't an energy source, not the way we use it...it's more like a battery. And we have battery powered ovens now.

The hard part of current tech is making recharging the battery economical given that there will be a significant loss.

The even harder part of hydrogen, though, is storing and transport. Hydrogen atoms are real small. Anything you put it in will leak, and that impacts the recharge efficiency, as well.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Toyota hopes you'll buy a hydrogen-powered car after grilling with a hydrogen barbecue

It will be the same as with lithium EVs. Hydrogen may be safer than IC, but once any explodes media will paint them as bombs driving on our roads

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chessmasterrex 4 points 4 months ago

The combustion product isn't likely to be a carcinogen. Safer to use indoors.

[–] blazeknave 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What is this lighting called and why does it make my brain immediately think this image is AI?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I would call this "harsh" and indirect lighting with a shallow depth of field. It seems like a relatively low-light room, and there's tons of shadows making the images noisey. On cameras, the more you open the aperture to let more light in, the narrower your focus becomes. That's why there's so much blur or "bokeh" in the images.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Toyota builds Phillip Jeffries and found he doesn’t want to talk about Judy. He doesn’t want to talk about Judy at all

load more comments
view more: next ›