How far way is that city land? When a house has a natural gas explosion, it takes out the house. When you have a hydrogen explosion it potentially could take out the block.
The claims of most commercial industries should not be trusted. I prefer academic sources, or at least those that are more energy agnostic.
Battery swapping will explode the logistical and resource requirements of BEVs. It makes the problem even worse.
I'm sure people said the same about gas stations.
Airplanes will probably use some combo of e-fuels or LH₂[^1] setup.
[^1]: Dammit, for a moment there I thought you'd done some funky new markdown code to write "LH₂". But I bet you didn't know about the citation function that lemmy has - which apparently even works out of order (check the comment source).
I disagree with the latter part of that. I'm sure LH₂ will be tried, and it might temporarily prove effective under current conditions (with cheap, untaxed black and brown hydrogen) but as soon as you start trying to fulfill that with green hydrogen it just won't be efficient enough.
Who knows though. Hydrogen right now is mainly a byproduct, so maybe there is some scope for that excess cheap hydrogen to be used in the short to medium term.
Renewable energy is leading to vast curtailment and excess production.
That is exactly what we should be aiming for. It might be slightly less commercially palatable for renewable generation businesses to be running at curtailment, but what we need right now is to build a large excess of renewable generation. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and (during the day, when most power is used) the sun still shines through the clouds.
Extrapolating from the latest UK National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios report[^2], we need to focus on building an excess of renewable generation as quickly as possible to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Once we have the excess, we can pad out our generation portfolio with nuclear. Then, when the nuclear is ready to start generating, there is every likelihood that demand will have grown to the point that our excess renewable generation will have become the current requirement.
The report[^2] does include significant use of hydrogen, but that is focused on heating and high energy applications. Transportation is a ridiculously large sector that does not benefit from the inefficiencies of hydrogen.
[^2]: UK National Grid's 2023 Future Energy Scenarios report: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/283101/download (pdf) The graphs are very pretty, NGESO make exceptionally good documentation.
Large scale storage of hydrogen is done with natural occurring salt caverns. These cost far less than just about anything else ever conceived.
That's a new thing to me, I'll have to read up on that. I'd appreciate any sources you could offer.
My blind guess is that it is similar to elevated water storage in feasibility, though. In particular, investors might not be interested in developing the technology.
Again, if the goal is to phase fossil fuels, you would go hard in favor of green hydrogen, alongside many other ideas. You would not oppose any green energy ideas.
I'm all for green hydrogen production. The issue I take is with the reckless expansion of hydrogen consumption. More specifically, I feel that many people who work with hydrogen are too keen to expand the consumption market, because doing so benefits their industry commercially.
Edit: Damn, just saw you're on kbin, which doesn't have the citation function. If you click the 3 dots and select "copy url to fediverse" you can see what I see, or alternatively click here.
Edit2: I just realised that we're commenting on an article about hydrogen heating, and that coincides with my main source saying that hydrogen heating should be developed. Maybe I should give the article and its heating technology more leeway. Nonetheless, I remain firm that hydrogen in transportation is not really a viable solution, all things considered.
Nah, this is HARD sarcasm:
/S
With a bit of angle, for their pleasure.
Woah. Given how much I'm standing to attention now, I can only imagine how @Stamets@startrek.website would feel seeing this.
We do have another option: electric vehicles. Looking at cars, a hydrogen fuel cell car uses 3.2x as much energy and costs over 5.4x as much per mile driven vs electric. The cost difference is huge, one that no one can ignore. If people can't stand the charge times, then we'll start swapping out batteries - this has already been proven successful in some Asian countries with scooters.
Aircraft is another matter, as current batteries are too heavy, but even then hydrogen is worse than conventional combustible fuels. Pending significant advances in battery technology, we'll probably use biofuels. It would be more efficient to convert hydrogen and CO2 to e-fuels than to use hydrogen directly - airlines prioritise efficiency.
We can easily build renewable technology (I've spent the last 7 years building windfarms) but the issue is speed. We need to get off fossil fuels now, or failing that as quickly as possible.
It's not that we need 3x our current capacity, it's that we need 3x our current capacity just for essential hydrogen, on top of all the rest of the capacity that renewables have yet to meet. Bear in mind, when a country claims to have "100% of their demand met by their renewable generation" there's a lot of statisical fiddling involved, where they ignore that they still generate a significant amount through fossil fuels and that they are net exporters to other countries. We have a long way to go to meet even our current electrical demand with renewables, let alone any extra.
Energy storage with hydrogen is not easy. It's hard, and even if it's perfect it is still woefully inefficient. Batteries are the best long term bet there, however it's still a very new sector in the energy market, so it has a ways to go. Elevated water storage is another good one, but the installation costs are pretty high (though not as high as nuclear).
Overall, our current goal should be to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The best way to do that is to go hard on current renewable technology, over all else. This includes sidelining nuclear, as it takes a long time to build nuclear and we'll use more fossil fuels waiting for it than we would subsidising renewables when they're not available. Nuclear also takes finite funding away from renewables, where it would be more effective.
Similarly, hydrogren detracts from these efforts, as it pushes the bar that renewables have to meet even higher. A large growth in hydrogen consumption, beyond that which genuinely requires hydrogen, will only prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
Ohhhh I was wondering what those strip badges were. Provisional ranks.
Star Trek: ~~Lower Decks~~ Harry Kim!!
Edit: Now with visual.
The things men make women do to have pockets.
Yes, that was shitty of me. It was a sarcastic comment against someone else (hence the :P), who also had their comments removed because they were behaving worse. But on Uplifting News, my comment really wasn't appropriate regardless. I deserved to have those comments removed as well as the brief temporary ban there. That was good moderation.
However that has nothing to do with hexbear or anything we're talking about here.
Focusing specifically on the comment I had removed from hexbear (quoted above), and the message I sent which led to the site ban (you can find that on Chapo from around that time), how was I being an asshole? How was my comment "genocide apologia" and how was I "malding" in the message?
I don't think you can actually back that up with any sound reasoning. Hence, the moderators at hexbear are shit, which makes the place a dumster fire.
Lol you think I hadn't already checked that during this discussion? I don't need to go to hexbear to see it, lemm.ee is still federated so it shows up in my local modlog. What's weird is that my ban on lemmy.ml doesn't for some reason, it looks like a bug where it didn't federate through properly - the comments shown as removed on the lemmy.ml modlog are still there on lemm.ee.
here’s one of your removed comments:
mod Removed Comment Actually Palestinians started the violence. They fought a war, they lost. That doesn’t excuse anything Israel has done, but credit where credit is due. Hamas are not freedom fighters, that isn’t their goal. Their goal is to eradicate anyone that doesn’t share their beliefs. Freedom for the people of Palestine and peace in the region, but the likes of Hamas and Netanyahu can suck a bag of each others’ virgin dicks. by TWeaK@lemm.ee
So what exactly in that is genocide apologia? Just because I'm criticising Palestinian attacks gone past does not mean I support Israel's response in any way. The comment literally finishes with me criticising both sides - ie, implying that all genocide is wrong.
the reason you were site banned was because you were having a meltdown over getting a comm ban for your genocide apologia (lmao)
It wasn't a meltdown, the message I sent was very tame - sarcastically thanking him for getting me banned. Feel free to dig it up, it was posted on Chapo. You'd struggle to call it "malding" - but then, that's what you're all about isn't it? Slapping a bullshit label that really doesn't fit, then arguing against that label. It's a form of scarecrow argument, one that is completely transparent when you actually look at it.
Be specific, which part of that was me being an asshole?
All mains connected solar has an inverter. Hell, most wind is part or fully converted, to smooth out the raw waveform, and thus is inverter driven.
Where I'm from your "interlock switch" would be called "island mode". It can be a thing, but distribution network operators have a legal obligation to maintain supply (or else they face harsh financial penalties) and as such they are reluctant to allow even the possibility of unintentional backfeed to their network, especially when they need to work quickly to keep supplies up. Safely regulating every single household is just too burdensome, not without extensive modification that no one wants to pay for.