/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14386407

107KiB, 570x530, renewable_energy_investments_by_country.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Hydrogen Energy... Meme?

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 20:04:08 2022 No.14386407 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14386418 >>14386558 >>14386862 >>14386952 >>14388409

Is "hydrogen energy" a complete meme?

I've been blasted on YouTube with recommended videos showing me how hydrogen cars/buses and even PLANES are "game changers" and will "dominate" the future.

Yet, literally no country on earth is investing any sizeable amount on hydrogen fueled transport.

Is hydrogen energy a complete and utter pop-sci meme?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 20:08:18 No.14386418 Report

Quoted By:

>>14386407
Hydrogen energy may have its uses but its much less efficient than direct electricity.

So for cars, its not going to happen.
For trucks, it may not happen.
For ships/planes, maybe but not likely.
For energy storage of excess power, probably not.

Hydrogen has been pushed for decades and has made no progress. Meanwhile batteries went from meme to mass usage in less than a decade.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 20:37:17 No.14386518 Report

Quoted By:

We have to manufacture hydrogen so it's essentially a more explosive battery that requires a huge supporting infrastructure. The only use it could have is for planes and rockets because those modes of transportation require the most energy to move a specific mass and both require a ton of infrastructure already.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Tupolev_Tu.155_(7286104458)-hydr (...).jpg, 274KiB, 1280x853

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 20:50:00 No.14386558 Report

Quoted By: >>14387035

>>14386407
>>hydrogen energy
it's an energy storage medium, not an energy source
>>PLANES
the fucking SPACE SHUTTLE ran on hydrogen to space. There's a pretty damn good case for them:
https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2004_02_26_Cryoplane.pdf
Near term, conventional planes could be retrofitted to run on liquid hydrogen, range is reduced, but no carbon emissions. Honestly, unless you can figure out cheap hydrocarbon production, the only practical way to do air travel appears to be hydrogen. Batteries just don't have the energy density.
>> no country on earth is investing any sizeable amount on hydrogen fueled transport.
because no one wants to do anything about climate change, we're fucked. Give up hope anon. Oh yeah and there are sort of bottlenecks on hydrogen electrolyzer production(although that's getting better). Hydrogen powered aircraft have fucking flown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 20:54:38 No.14386576 Report

Quoted By:

It's less efficient than full electric vehicles and more of a pain to set up infrustructure for, but there's some benefits when it comes to energy density and refueling times, which are important for commercial uses ie trucks. Really it just comes down to whether you're willing to pay more for fuel in order to save time, and that's entirely a bean counting problem, not a science problem. but hydrogen for commute vehicles is probably a pretty stupid idea.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO the_sheep_lies.jpg, 130KiB, 720x514

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 22:18:18 No.14386862 Report

Quoted By:

>>14386407

ANY statistic that the Chinese government releases is bullshit.
They would have you believe that their average IQ is such that half the population is genius level.
China might have invest a third to half what they claimed to have invested at MAX.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 22:59:17 No.14386952 Report

Quoted By:

>>14386407
we don't need new fuels, fossil fuels are good enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Apr 2022 23:56:32 No.14387035 Report

Quoted By: >>14387047

>>14386558
If you have a clean energy source that is cost effective enough to mass produce hydrogen fuel, you can also use said energy source to remove carbon from the atmosphere (or random agricultural waste) and combine it with hydrogen to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels that would be drop in replacements for existing fuels. There are already some test plants doing this sort of thing.

Hydrogen is honestly a pretty poor fuel; its energy density per unit of volume is pretty poor, and requires either heavy duty cryogenics or sturdy pressurized tanks to contain. The range on a hydrogen fueled plane would probably end up being much worse than liquid hydrocarbon ones.

Hell, even for space applications hydrogen sucks most of the time - just head over to /sfg and ask why.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 00:09:49 No.14387047 Report

Quoted By: >>14387120 >>14387153

>>14387035
>remove carbon from the atmosphere (or random agricultural waste) and combine it with hydrogen to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels that would be drop in replacements for existing fuels.
That's literally the most retarded thing you could do with your energy.

>There are already some test plants doing this sort of thing.
Set up by grifters to impress retards. The efficiency is so low that you could plant a tree, which takes carbon from the air and combines it with hydrogen to make hydrocarbon fuels, and come out way ahead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 00:48:22 No.14387120 Report

Quoted By: >>14387171

>>14387047
Do you have any articles on exact energy losses for making synthetic hydrocarbons? Because from what I have digged up it isn't much worse than electrolysis of hydrogen + energy spent in compressing or cooling said hydrogen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 01:03:30 No.14387153 Report

Quoted By: >>14387157

>>14387047
>That's literally the most retarded thing you could do with your energy
it's the same energy to make hydrogen from water.
>>14387047
that's not literally true, but it's the same with hydrogen. if you can maintain very high temperatures in massive chemical reactors, its no issue (i.e. nuclear reactors).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 01:05:55 No.14387157 Report

Quoted By: >>14388331

>>14387153
>it's the same energy to make hydrogen from water.
It's not, you collosal retard

>but it's the same with hydrogen. if you can maintain very high temperatures in massive chemical reactors, its no issue (i.e. nuclear reactors).
Is this your attempt at seeming intelligent?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 01:12:50 No.14387171 Report

Quoted By: >>14388425

>>14387120
You didn't look very hard. Here's a Stanford article about the performance of some carbon capture plants that used the exhaust of coal plants as their feedstock, which has thousands of times the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/

It's not good technology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 13:56:20 No.14388331 Report

Quoted By: >>14388488

>>14387157
yes?

show me how it isn't, please!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 14:36:06 No.14388409 Report

Quoted By:

>>14386407
Mainly a meme bc non technical politicians keep underestimating the cost of hydrogen.
Firstly, nowadays, hydrogen is made using natural gas and is hence more expensive than natural gas. "Green" (water electrolysis) hydrogen is 5 to 7 times more expensive than regular hydrogen.
Secondly, people say that we could use the gas pipelines as is for hydrogen. Nope. We'd have to retrofit the pipelines with an inside liner and change all the compressor stations. Several dozen billion euros for a country like Germany.

Do until somebody serious does a system wide serious analysis of the infrastructure needed for hydrogen, I consider it a meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 14:42:40 No.14388425 Report

Quoted By: >>14388488

>>14387171
>Jacobson
The guy who's counting the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as part of nuclear power CO2 emissions ? Lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 15:01:31 No.14388488 Report

Quoted By: >>14388530

>>14388331
Look at the power requirements, retard.

>>14388425
That's not really an argument. Did you have some specific problem with the article?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 15:15:04 No.14388530 Report

Quoted By: >>14388682

>>14388488
No not really. But I don't know much about CCS admittedly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Apr 2022 16:00:27 No.14388682 Report

Quoted By:

>>14388530
Direct carbon capture plants remove carbon from the emissions of fossil fuel power plants. Those plants do everything they can to avoid having to use them because it cuts into their profits. Direct carbon capture is claimed to remove 90% of the carbon dioxide from the emissions that pass through them, but the two case studies mentioned in the article showed an average of 55% removal over 6 months. If you include the emissions from mining and transporting the fossil fuels the figure drops to around 10%.

Direct air capture plants pull CO2 out of the air, which is much less concentrated than emissions. It takes about 9 GJ (2,500 kWh) to remove a metric ton of carbon from the air, and it's still in the form of carbon dioxide. Then you have to spend more energy if you want to turn the carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuel. These plants have to be powered by renewable energy or they emit more carbon than they capture, so it's more effective to offset carbon emissions through replacement of carbon emitting power plants than it is to use more energy to try to recycle the emissions. If your goal is carbon sequestration then wood for construction or biochar are much better options because they use renewable energy to sequester carbon with very little emissions and are useful end products with long lifespans.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches