• Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but why should I believe you? When any source other than you disagrees?

    And kind you, like I said, maybe in a few decades hydrogen will be a cool tech. But even ignoring the inherent downsides like greenhouse gas, losses during conversion, issues with storage and handling, we are probably decades away from a usable solution for production, too.

    At present, a hydrogen vehicle comes out slightly to moderately worse than a petrol car for the environment while also costing the user significantly more. Can that change? Sure! Will it? Dunno, do you? Mind you, meanwhile BEVs provide a solution that is mildly cheaper to run and moderately to significantly better for the environment. We have a solution, we should use it. If in 40 years or whatever things look different, well, then that will be the case.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How did you react to all green tech in the past? With wind, solar, and even the BEV to some extent, you listen to the supporters and not the detractors. Only after the technology got widely deployed could you listen to real criticisms, mostly from real-world studies or analyses. None of the imagined problems from the detractors ever came true. Hydrogen cars will be the same.

      And every green tech got accused of being a secretly dirty technology. It’s total BS. Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars? It is utter gibberish and was the same story as BEVs being accused of being worse than petrol cars.

      FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        All of those techs either had no superior alternatives in their primary use (that is, being green) already, or in the cases where they did, they weren’t intended to be used, just to be researched.

        That is, hydrogen is worse at what it wants to do than existing tech. Maybe it can surpass it in the future, but that means it clearly belongs into labs and only labs.

        Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars?

        Because… it’s not a story? 🤷

        FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.

        Yeah, and they’re not as green or as cheap as BEVs. That’s kinda the point, the they’re excluding some very special applications like busses and some trucks a strictly inferior solution to a solved problem. That is not to say that BEVs are the end-all-be-all, quite probably they’re not. But it doesn’t seem like hydrogen can outdo them, at least at out present technological level.

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s revisionist history. Wind and solar were widely condemned as being inferior technology in the past. They are in many ways worse than hydropower, their main zero emission competitor of the time.

          Your repeating some old anti-hydrogen story probably from either an oil company or a battery company. An FCEV gets around 70 MPGe. There is very little argument that it is somehow less green than existing petrol cars. It’s an obvious repeat of classic anti-green rhetoric. We heard everything from solar panels or hybrids being demonized as being worse than the conventional solution by random fossil fuel marketing firms. It’s all bunk.

          And no to that last claim either. There’s a good reason to believe that an FCEV is greener than a BEV. For starters, it has much less upfront emissions during production. And at something like 30% green hydrogen, the BEV will never catch up to the FCEV, even if it is running on 100% green electricity.

          • GreyEyedGhost
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Solar electric was worse than hydro, or just about anything else, and more expensive per watt, as well. Decades went by, the cells got more efficient and cheaper production techniques, and suddenly they were a competitive option. None of that changes that they were, initially, a very bad choice, and only made sense if money wasn’t a factor for the person installing it.

            The same goes for hydrogen. Maybe it will be big in the future, but as it stands now it isn’t an option for many people.

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Solar got cheap and then it became widespread. You are witnessing the same thing happen with hydrogen now.

              • GreyEyedGhost
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve seen no evidence hydrogen is getting cheaper to produce, although there have been some non-hydrocarbon production advances. Also, many of the hydrogen filling stations have shut down.

                • Hypx@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are just listening to too much anti-hydrogen propaganda. It’s absurd to say that it isn’t getting cheaper. It is just doing the same thing wind and solar did as they scaled up. The infrastructure is rapidly expanding too, something you’d know if you actually started to look into hydrogen.