42
Membrane-Free Green Hydrogen To Chase The Fossil Fuel Blues Away (cleantechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Critics of hydrogen are just repeating BS from either the fossil fuel industry or the battery industry. It is just a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric back when they were just getting started.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I am a big proponent of solar and wind. Both need to be taken more seriously. Both are far better long term energy options than hydrogen no matter how you look at it. So no, this is not more BS from the fossil fuel industry, regardless your take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then you're missing the point: Wind and solar were heavily dismissed or ridiculed when they were getting started. People mocked them just like what you're doing now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No point has been missed. I'm not mocking anybody. Look at the tech required. It's easy to see why this fuel source has not come to fruition, yet we have fields upon fields of wind and solar tech. None of which I ever riduculed, personally.

    This isn't a personal attack. Again. Ridicule has nothing to do with discussing facts. On that note, have a great day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Again, that is the same thing people said about wind and solar. The naysayers also claimed that they were impossible for similar reasons.

    It doesn't matter that you personally didn't attack wind and solar. You are attacking green energy now, and doing the same thing as those that did attack wind and solar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hydrogen is not currently a green energy. Green means the energy is produced in a manner which causes no harm to the environment. About 4% of all current hydrogen is "green". Global supplies are manufactured with natrual gas (47%), coal (27%), oil (22%), and electrolysis (4%). According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, at least.. Huh.

    I guess I'm not really attacking a green energy, am I? I mean, I wasn't before, but still. Discussing the difficulties of hydrogen at industrial scale isn't attacking it, no matter how bad it hurts your feelings. It's simply fact we cannot ignore.

    I've never heard a single naysayer claim solar or wind were impossible. Like, ever. This is pure unsupported, anecdotal nonsense.

    Unless you have factual support for your rebuttal that is relevant to the topic, you have lost my attention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago*

    Neither was electricity until after we started to build wind and solar. People accused electrification plans of just enabling more coal. This style of argument is intentionally ignoring current and near-future developments. You're implying that nothing is changing or can ever change.

    Again, you are perfectly recreating the same anti-wind and anti-solar arguments of the past. This is the same story, just with different names and dates. You really are attacking green energy. It's just via the "both sides are equally bad" style of attack.

    Yes, people outright claimed that large scale deployment of wind or solar were impossible forever. There were even books written entirely about explaining how it was impossible forever. Entire energy research groups made annual predictions of imminent collapse of wind and solar power deployments, because it was assumed that it was just impossible forever. It's pretty obvious you had no memory or are too young to know about all of that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago

    @RedEyeFlightControl @Hypx
    Wind needs to stop killing bats, stop establishing turbines near rivers, and stop destroying native habitat like endangered prairie for wind facilities before it’s green. All these are easily achievable and cheap, but the executives apparently don’t give a fuck.

    Add geothermal to your list, both for heating and electricity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Good grief, no. OP pointed out some valid concerns, which you haven't bothered to address.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    No he didn't. It's just a bunch of random talking points and myths. He could've copy and pasted that answer from any of thousands of social media posts and it would've been nearly identical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Even with the best production methods, we still can’t store it well long term. It causes embrittlement and corrosion to metals, and since the atoms are about as small as atoms get, it’s very hard to contain in a pressure vessel without leaks or metal impregnation. Making it and using it aren’t the big issue. Storage is.

    Here they are again. Which bits are myths? Please be specific, thanks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We can it store it long term. It is one of the major strengths of hydrogen. Your claim is near 180 of reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can you post links to reputable sources? I can't help but notice your entire account is devoted to shilling hydrogen so I'm not going to just take your word for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People have looked at hydrogen for long term storage. There is real science to back this up. Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X21011580

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    OP was concerned with the issues around storing hydrogen, the article you linked to doesn't mention these challenges at all.

    Are they real?

    yes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

    https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/hydrogen-leakage-potential-risk-hydrogen-economy/

    Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.

    You need to read back. OP raised concerns and you hand-waved them away without evidence. The onus is therefore on you to provide sources, not me. So far you've provided one link that doesn't address these concerns. I've provided two that do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's the OP. You didn't provide any sources yourself.

    The issue of leakage is just a potential risk, as your own link mentions. In practice, it's a non-issue. We don't worry about gasoline begin too dangerous or EVs being too quiet. It is just fearmongering. Like I pointed out in my study, they are looking at hydrogen for long term energy storage, because it is good at it. Your claim that we can't store for long periods is simply wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •