▲ 45 ▼ The dream of the first hydrogen rail network has died a quick death (qz.com) submitted 3 years ago by pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net to c/green@lemmy.ml 8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] CoWizard@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) compared to...? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) Just batteries or running electrical cables next to the rails The only benefit hydrogen has is its reduced weight, but when that isn't important it's easier to use other energy storage and delivery methods. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I can't imagine it's got a weight advantage over just running cables like they already do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not for trains, no. But for planes or space rockets it's relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Personally I think the solution for planes is the one noone wants to hear :( We just need to fly a LOT fewer planes. Electric for short flights possibly but even then with the charging time the uptime on those is pretty bad compared to burning carbon and probably always will be. So... more electric trains? Pretty please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) Just batteries or running electrical cables next to the rails The only benefit hydrogen has is its reduced weight, but when that isn't important it's easier to use other energy storage and delivery methods. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I can't imagine it's got a weight advantage over just running cables like they already do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not for trains, no. But for planes or space rockets it's relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Personally I think the solution for planes is the one noone wants to hear :( We just need to fly a LOT fewer planes. Electric for short flights possibly but even then with the charging time the uptime on those is pretty bad compared to burning carbon and probably always will be. So... more electric trains? Pretty please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I can't imagine it's got a weight advantage over just running cables like they already do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not for trains, no. But for planes or space rockets it's relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Personally I think the solution for planes is the one noone wants to hear :( We just need to fly a LOT fewer planes. Electric for short flights possibly but even then with the charging time the uptime on those is pretty bad compared to burning carbon and probably always will be. So... more electric trains? Pretty please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Not for trains, no. But for planes or space rockets it's relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Personally I think the solution for planes is the one noone wants to hear :( We just need to fly a LOT fewer planes. Electric for short flights possibly but even then with the charging time the uptime on those is pretty bad compared to burning carbon and probably always will be. So... more electric trains? Pretty please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Personally I think the solution for planes is the one noone wants to hear :( We just need to fly a LOT fewer planes. Electric for short flights possibly but even then with the charging time the uptime on those is pretty bad compared to burning carbon and probably always will be. So... more electric trains? Pretty please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jonsnothere@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago I agree we need to fly less, but we won't be able to eliminate it, so I think it's one of the tools we'll need in our toolbox permalink fedilink source parent