• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hydrogen isn’t a solution at all. Literally anything is better than using hydrogen from methane, even shovelling coal into steam engines produces less CO2 equivalent.

    So, “don’t do that, it makes things worse”.

    I don’t think I should have to produce an answer to one of the main problems facing Western society to be able to point out that hydrogen is mostly natural gas under an asbestos bedsheet.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      It could make sense for planes, where batteries are just too heavy. But you’d need to weigh it against things like synthetic electrically produced kerosene or biodiesel.

    • Resistentialism
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      How about hydrogen from water? Yeah, you need high amounts of electricity to get it, but, as one example, if it’s used in ICE engines, isn’t that significantly cleaner than petrol? And a lot less damaging than making lithium batteries? Once burned, wouldn’t it just react with oxygen to then form water vapour? And then, if it’s making water, that’s a self-sufficient cycle?

      I feel like hydrogen can potentially be a very good solution, but the technology needs to catch up massively. I mean, scientists are getting to on nuclear fusion reactors, and their yield seems a lot better than everything else. Even fission reactors.

      Also, I had this thought the other day, and yes, it’s extremely futuristic, with the right people in charge thought, but mining gas planets for the hydrogen. We’ll more than likely never inhabit those ones or use them for much, so we might as well use them for something, at least. At least before Dyson swarms become a thing.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Using excess green energy to produce hydrogen is a great option, but those events are pretty rare, and it doesn’t produce very much, compared to pyrolysis of natural gas. Using regular electricity isn’t very smart, since you’re burning hydrocarbons to create hydrogen from water, when you could just get them from the hydrocarbons, so that’s even less efficient.

    • danekrae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Should keep doing what we’ve been doing?

      WTF is people against asking questions?

        • danekrae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Not something new? That seems a bit odd?

          Try to answer the question people… What is the fucking solution?! You can’t just say “no” to everything, then “I have no suggestions”, but “don’t use new things” and “we shouldn’t use what we do”.

          I’m not advocating for gas, oil or coal. Is the answer nuclear energy, solar, wind? Instead of just downvoting, try to use your words.

          • Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better or should be used. Just look at crypto.

            • danekrae@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              So what do we do? Keep killing the planet with what we’ve got, because new is bad?

              • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                No, bad is bad. There are other solutions, such as electric power, biofuels, etc. everything has downsides, but those are generally less bad with CO2 than the rest.

                • danekrae@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You answered my question now, that I asked a few comments ago, thank you.

                  I don’t know if it was you, but why downvote the question? People trying to kill questions to a very important subject seems moronic to me.

                  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I’m not down voting you, they’re decent questions to ask. It’s just that the people asking them are usually the “well, you can’t solve 100% of the problem, so I should do whatever I want” crowd.