this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
65 points (97.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7192 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There isn't enough info in the article but it appears theyre producing hydrogen by burning coal.
Hydrogen could be a decent source of energy if it's produced from renewable sources as hydrogen is much more energy dense than lithium batteries. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.
Hydrogen is really bad as an alternative to batteries for transport. The energy efficiencies go out the window — too much energy is lost both making the hydrogen for use and for using that hydrogen. My recollection is it's about a 50% loss each at each step, meaning about 3/4 of the energy input is wasted. This is comparable to an ICE vehicle. Again by my recollection, BEVs are in the ~90% net efficiency range. The vast majority of the energy input is used for moving the vehicle, rather than being wasted.
In a world where we are decades from fully de-carbonizing the electric grid, wasting such enormous amounts of energy on hydrogen is pure foolishness. Especially when, in order to be practical, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will require even more infrastructure than BEVs require.
Hydrogen as it stands is a really bad option. For specific uses like airplanes or small/medium warships it might make sense: entities that are too small to justify nuclear power but where battery density is unlikely to be sufficient for a long time. But in general it's overhyped and just not a great choice.
I don't think anything will compete with fossil fuels for aviation.