336
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
336 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
2925 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 another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most of the hydrogen on market is made with methane.
EVs use whatever source is being given, and most of these sources are converting to renewables.
Not comparable imo.
It's also worth noting that EVs can be charged at home. Fast charging isn't necessary for most and it's silly to pretend like hydrogen doesn't need its own distribution network. It's a lot more complicated to set up a hydrogen refilling station than a fast charging one and you can't fully fill your hydrogen over night by plugging it into your wall outlet.
As I explained in this reply, you can't count on the grid's energy mix improving or not getting worse as the vehicle fleet transitions to BEV. What you identify as a problem with FCEVs is really just bad energy policy that BEVs don't solve either.
I actually kind of agree with you that the ideal BEV requires barely any new infrastructure. It should have a small battery that can support a daily commute and errands with slow charging at home overnight or during the day at work. Yet somehow these "fast" charging stations, which aren't as fast or convenient as regular gas stations (and still run at least partially on fossil fuels anyway), have to get built everywhere. If we can't get rid of these stations then let them be hydrogen stations.
That is a possibility but they have already corrupted hydrogen. Between the two, I will go with the one that can go either way. There's also the fact that EVs are being produced now while hydrogen car production is still a way off, so it's a stall tactic as well
They can also be set up anywhere and are much more convenient, I've seen quite a few in residential streets, companies can set them up in their parking lots, etc. You can't treat a compressed gas the same way, even if it's just the canisters. It willl require much more investment in our infrastructure and conversion isn't straight forward.
I think it's cool tech but in our situation and looking at our current needs, pushing for hydrogen right now is a pipe dream fueld by the oil industry.
This is mostly for the car industry though, the same doesn't necessarily hold for the industrial sector.
How is the battery industry not corrupted? How does hydrogen production not go "either way"? I'm aware that lots of subsidies have already gone to BEVs, but it's giving in to the sunk cost fallacy if that's the reason to abandon hydrogen.
That's crazy to me. BEVs are so slow to refuel that we're going to need many more "fast" charging stations and they'll need to be put everywhere. A 20 minute charge time, or whatever it is, is not convenient. That's especially so if you need to park longer than that, effectively putting that charging station out of service for someone else. Maybe someone will figure out battery swapping, but then every swap station will need extra space to safely warehouse the batteries while they charge. A hydrogen station doesn't need to store hydrogen on site, but even if it does at least it's not a potential environmental contamination hazard. Pushing BEVs beyond the use case of slow overnight or workday charging is a mistake.