• 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.