It's worth noting that those same group of guys thought it will have zero role to play just a few years ago. Now it's "limited roles." Who knows want the next report will say. And it's dominated by Tories and other conservatives. I even recognize some of them as critics of hydrogen. It is definitely not a real science paper or an impartial report.
Hydrogen is going to play a massive role, regardless of what some elderly people think. Factually speaking, there's very few alternatives to hydrogen in the first place. If not hydrogen, it would have to be something like ammonia or e-fuels. None of which are dramatically superior. As a result, by saying that it doesn't work, you're coming close to admitting defeat on climate change.
I do not "oppose" BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won't be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
Then don't come out and claim that FCEVs are a bad idea. If you know that they can work, then support them fully.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power. That would be insane! That's also what is happening now with FCEVs. It just happens that FCEVs, due to their lower resource needs, will play a much larger role than BEVs. But BEV fanatics cannot accept this at all. So rational people should know better than to swallow their lies.
It's the battery with the lowest amount of raw material needs. Quite literally turning water into an energy storage system.
Most of these studies are written by conservatives, or occasionally by wealthy liberal elites with significant conflicts of interest. No one should believe in them.
Put it this way: Wind and solar are terribly inefficient. Why did they catch on despite those problems? Because cost is very low. The criticisms are usually just old people making up stories to rationalize why their outdated investments are still viable.
Much of that is wishful thinking. All batteries will die, and the repair cost will be insane. Not to mention it all applies to FCEVs and at a much lower cost and lower resource base.
There's nearly nobody left on the political left that still oppose hydrogen. Maybe you'll find an occasional weirdo, but that's about it. You're just out of touch here.
I do my homework. It's all about following the evidence.
Toyota has already come out and say that a fuel cell car costs the same as an ICE car to build, at least in theory. But it has very small resource requirements, so it seems self-evident that it is the case.
You don't have to make a compromise. If there's a way to power a car just like a conventional gasoline car, while also being a zero emissions electric car, then there's no reason to oppose the idea.
Most engineers in the car industry actually believe the hydrogen car is the future. And they still do. What you're hearing on social media is just a lot of marketing BS coming from BEV companies. Most of these accounts are Tesla drivers or investors. None of them are being honest.
Local hydrogen stations will probably use above-ground tanks.
Hydrogen pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires. It's not some inconceivably huge cost.
It should be added that environmentalist have been screaming for massive investment in green energy, and that cost is of secondary importance. We shouldn't suddenly become hard-right conservatives here. As long as costs are reasonable, it is fine.
You store hydrogen in underground salt caverns on the large scale. Similar to how natural gas works. Above-ground tanks for local storage, and move via pipelines for the most part. It is not a perfect replacement for gasoline, but it is close enough.
The reason why you reuse gas stations because that's what's actually happening. Hydrogen stations are just converted gas stations in most cases.
Hypx @ Hypx @kbin.social Posts 24Comments 401Joined 2 yr. ago
It's worth noting that those same group of guys thought it will have zero role to play just a few years ago. Now it's "limited roles." Who knows want the next report will say. And it's dominated by Tories and other conservatives. I even recognize some of them as critics of hydrogen. It is definitely not a real science paper or an impartial report.
Hydrogen is going to play a massive role, regardless of what some elderly people think. Factually speaking, there's very few alternatives to hydrogen in the first place. If not hydrogen, it would have to be something like ammonia or e-fuels. None of which are dramatically superior. As a result, by saying that it doesn't work, you're coming close to admitting defeat on climate change.