There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Varyk , (edited )

This deliberately misguiding title is as myopic as the news talking about Bitcoin “crashes”.

Ten years ago, the EV auto market share was under 1% and Bitcoin was worth 320 bucks.

Ten years later, 10% of cars are EVs, 30% of the car market will be pure EVs, more will be hybrids, bitcoin is worth 62,000 dollars.

2024 headlines: Bitcoin crashes again and Toyota won’t waste money on EVs.

Hildegarde , (edited )

They literally call their hydrogen car the future. Toyota has been trying, and is still avoiding making purely electric vehicles.

Of all their models, Toyota only sells one EV in the US. Your aspirational assumptions about Toyota are nothing more than that.

Varyk , (edited )

Not that there’s anything wrong with hydrogen cars, but they only add to my point.

Dumb headlines focusing on extremely short-term “setbacks” ignoring how rapidly things have progressed and are progressing from just a decade ago.

JoBo ,

Hydrogen is ‘pure’ electric.

The issue with hydrogen is that it can be colours other than green. Green hydrogen is used to store the excess from renewables, and is more like a battery than a fuel. Other colours use fossil fuel, sometimes with a desperate plea to believe that they will actually capture the CO2 produced in making it.

Green hydrogen is (potentially) a fantastic solution for transit, especially heavy transit… The jury is still out for cars but Toyota is one of the few taking that route and it’s important. Hydrogen is much lighter than batteries and refuelling is similar to petrol cars (ie quick).

The problem to be solved is leaks. More than about 5% leakage cancels out the benefits because hydrogen makes methane hang around for longer.

Ooops ,
@Ooops@kbin.social avatar

The jury is still out for cars

The basic laws of thermodynamics beg to differ...

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

Green hydrogen is (potentially) a fantastic solution for transit, especially heavy transit.

Batteries also aren’t gonna cut the mustard for most aviation, and my understanding is that a switch to hydrogen might be the way to go there.

SeaJ OP ,

Do you think 2030 is 10 years away? In 10 years, it will be 2034 when most countries will require 100% of new vehicles to not have fossil fuel ICEs.

They are still stupidly pushing for hydrogen electric vehicles. That is just a BEV with an additional step.

Varyk ,

Why are you upset about fcevs? If hydrogen works out, great, it’s a sustainable vehicle with tremendous potential.

If not and Toyota switches to a larger BEV catalogue, great, they’re sustainable vehicles with tremendous potential.

Dudewitbow ,

the problem most car manufacturers have is they focus too much on the car and not enough on the infrastructure. theres a big reason why Tesla became popular and one of its major reasons was its charging network, and why its NACS standard is going to eventually be the standard for car chargers overtime, despite all other conpanies initially supporting the open standard. None of them wanted to bite the bullet and equally invest into the infrastructure to charge. Hydrogen has the same exact problem, but even fewer players so there’s even less players to take a shot at that investment.

Varyk , (edited )

Good point. Although I’m not a fan of Tesla’s vehicles, their charging system is great and was a huge lobbying point for the aptera, the EV I’m most excited about

reddig33 ,

Let’s turn clean water — something already getting difficult to come by — into fuel! What could go wrong?

Varyk ,

Is that where you think hydrogen comes from?

It’s literally the most abundant element in the universe, present in many forms in, at this point, practically infinite amounts.

Most of it is harvested from natural gas these days.

reddig33 ,

It’s where “green” hydrogen comes from — which everyone keeps promoting as the future. People claim “oh we can just split water using electricity from solar wind and nuclear”. Not considering that it takes a lot of energy to do that. Energy that you’d get better bang for your buck by putting into batteries.

Varyk , (edited )

Oh. Well that’s a silly distinction of them to make. Hydrogen is abundant and refining processes are constantly getting cleaner, especially these days, no worries.

HerrBeter ,

[citation needed]

Varyk ,

I am shocked at how few people know how abundant hydrogen is.

Here, this article explains how hydrogen makes up 75% of the universe we understand:

www.nationalgrid.com/stories/…/what-is-hydrogen#:….

catloaf ,

That doesn’t mean it’s accessible to be put into fuel cells.

Varyk ,

Are you asking a question?

Because the hydrogen I’m mentioning is accessible to be put into fuel cells.

HerrBeter ,

While hydrogen is common, free H2 molecules are not

Varyk , (edited )

Correct. That is where fuel processing comes into play.

For all fuels, let’s say gasoline for example, you can’t just grab a bowl of oil from a crude oil well and dump it into your fuel tank.

The fuel needs to be carefully refined and processed.

Same with hydrogen, same with biofuels, that’s how refined fuels work.

HerrBeter ,

There’s no skipping thermodynamics, maybe there will be a technology for an arbitrary molecule to hydrogen gas reformation but it doesn’t exist to my knowledge. Electrolysis of water means breaking the bonds and that takes a lot of electrical energy.

Varyk , (edited )

What you’re saying is correct afaik, although i don’t see its bearing on hydrogen fuel generation or how it’s bad for BEVs as an industry.

Are you trying to ask a question about hydrogen fuel generation or processing, or BEVs?

Or are you just lamenting that one specific fuel processing method you’re aware of for FCEVs isn’t as efficient as you want it to be?

HerrBeter ,

The fossil fuel industry is arguing for hydrogen because to keep costs down it will be made by natural gas reforming. Otherwise cost wise, putting 1 kWh of hydrogen into cars will be maybe 40% efficiency, then using fuel cells. So just multiply whatever your cost per electric kWh by 2,5. Hydrogen usable for stationary things like steel production though. Maybe methanol fuel cells are more viable idk

Albeit this is just off the top of my head so it’s not necessarily 100% correct. It is much more efficient to put electricity into batteries.

Varyk ,

Oh for sure. I only brought up hydrogen because so many people didn’t know that hydrogen is so abundant and easily processed in so many forms while I was advocating for bevs.

I got a lot of hydrogen questions while talking about bevs, I don’t know why.

ShadowRam ,

You can't use natural gas hydrogen for a fuel cell.

They can't remove enough sulphur from it, and even a trace amount will destroy the fuel cell.

Varyk ,

Here’s several methods companies can produce viable hydrogen from natural gas:

energy.gov/…/hydrogen-productioen-natural-gas-ref…

As well as a few other materials:

www.energy.gov/eere/…/hydrogen-fuel-basics

ShadowRam ,

Nope those all contain trace hydrogen sulfide.

Varyk ,

And can be used for hydrogen fuel cells regardless.

What is your specific stance?

As I’ve stated, I don’t really care about hydrogen fuel cells, but you keep repeating vague information as if this is a standard debate that everybody has defined and understands what you’re talking about.

What is your point here?

Do you just not understand that hydrogen is abundant, or do you not understand that it can be extracted from multiple sources for hydrogen fuel cells?

I’m leaning toward the latter because of how confused you sound about multiple sources of hydrogen fuel.

ShadowRam ,

My point is simple.

Hydrogen derived from natural gas can not be used in fuel cells. Only hydrolysis hydrogen is viable.
It is one of 'many' reasons why hydrogen fuel will never be a thing.

  • Along with Hydrogen seeping through everything
  • Along with Hydrogen embrittlement

The energy efficiency loss to convert Solar/Wind/Nuc -> Hydrogen -> Mechanical or Solar/Wind/Nuc -> Hydrogen -> Electrical -> Mechanical

Will never be cost effective compared to Solar/Wind/Nuc -> Electrical(batt) -> Mechanical

Hydrogen has been known to man for a 1000 years, and yet
Gobal International WARS have been fought in the past century along with massive geopolitical maneuvering and trillions upon trillions of $$$ spent on the energy sector.

Do you really thing we'd be spending the $$$ we do for deep sea drilling if hydrogen was even close to being a viable resource?

No new technology has been developed that makes hydrogen useful. No. Fuel Cells are not it.
There just isn't enough energy gained by connecting Hydrogen -> Oxygen no matter what process you come up with.

Unless we find a way to fuse hydrogen together, hydrogen is a dead end and always has been.

Varyk ,

SMR, a process by which hydrogen is derived from natural gas, accounts for 95 percent of today’s refined hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells.

time.com/6098910/blue-hydrogen-emissions/

NGR partial oxidation -

energy.gov/…/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-refo…

There are new hydrogen processing tech being worked on right now.

There are other ways of processing hydrogen.

Do you mean green hydrogen?

Because you keep saying “Hydrogen derived from natural gas can not be used in fuel cells” but must of hydrogen today is refined from natural gas.

I’m not big on hydrogen fuel cells, but your claim strays pretty far from the mark.

SeaJ OP ,

The numbers do not work for FCEVs unless fossil fuels are used which is what 100% of the hydrogen in the current supply line depends on. I know people like to think that we can just use the excess energy from wind farms or solar but that is nowhere near a viable solution.

Research into hydrogen vehicles is fine but it is a vast waste of resources for consumer vehicles. They have promise in other types of vehicles but it is silly to slow down investment in consumer BEVs to push for consumer FCEVs.

Varyk ,

It was silly to slow down investment in EVs a hundred fifty years ago when they were developed, I’m perfectly willing to support people trying different potentially sustainable experimentats now that EVs have been established as the future

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

More evidence that carbon credits are indeed bullshit.

You can’t fucking buy your way to environmental benefit.

ChicoSuave ,

Carbon credits use up the money that would otherwise go into making more pollution. It doesn’t stop pollution but it does slow it down and right now we need all the help we can get.

pupbiru ,

it kinda doesn’t though… in fact it might be worse. say you take a common carbon credit scam: “protecting” forest that was never going to be cut down anyway

you pay $3 in carbon credit to cover a flight… that money from you as the consumer went to someone wealthy enough to set up that company to run that scam. they’re likely a multi millionaire

as a consumer who chose carbon credits, you’re probably making pretty reasonable choices elsewhere in life: trying to recycle, buy sustainably where you can, etc

the multi millionaire now has that money however. it’s been repeatedly shown that these kinds of people have an absolutely enormous carbon footprint (obligatory fuck that term and its associated “it’s your fault” marketing from big business) compared to us regular folk

worse than that even, if you’re immoral and don’t care about the environment enough to run a carbon credit scam, you’re sure as shit not going to be doing anything sustainable… this is the worst kind of person we’re dealing with: the coal rollers of the world

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •