216
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
216 points (84.8% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35584 readers
778 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How come you know this?
We've seen pushes for hydrogen, hard ones. And yet ultimately they had to concede that the inherent downsides of hydrogen make them only useful in a select few situations, compared to BEVs that are far better fits especially in the small/commute personal car market where their already short charging duration is irrelevant due to the briefness of the trip.
Not everyone is a professional truck or long distance bus driver where hydrogen can play to its strengths. Even with busses, my city has fully electrified busses with gasoline ones only being used as a backup now. The way they do it is by having a slightly larger spare fleet than normal, so busses can charge while others are running, and then swapping them as a bus nears the end of its lap where everyone has to exit anyways. Intra-city busses benefit massively from regenerative braking, after all.
I mean, do humor me, because I thought hydrogen was a fantastic idea, until I actually read up on it and it turns out it's not actually a very good tech, as cool scifi as it sounds at first.
We had pushes for electric cars too and after decades all we had was a few overpriced, underperforming examples that took forever to charge. Electric cars were a non-market-viable novelty for a long time.
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.
Isn't one of the big downsides of hydrogen fuel cells the required platinum, even after the improvement of not bonding them to carbon?
Hydrogen is not a zero-emissions thing, and I hope that you didn't pick that up from "sources", because you speak about others going by social media information while - apparently - believing that hydrogen is a zero-emissions system. (neither is BEV, at least not in a well-to-wheel-comparative scenario, mind you)
What about all the other car companies then, that should have a vested interesent in marketing-wise opposing Tesla, yet even after initial pushes to hydrogen, Toyota and Honda quickly swapped to a near-100% BEV fleet? Wouldn't your logic dictate that if hydrogen was a valid alternative as-is, then companies would lean hard on that as their USP compared to Tesla? Especialy in North America where Tesla is so dominant, but which is also just about the only place where hydrogen vehicles have any existence and hence usable network at all?
Last stats I've seen still had hydrogen at 50%-100% more pollution than gasoline cards while also costing ~2x as much per kilometer for the owner. Of course, in theory all hydrogen can be produced from solar/wind/etc, but:
Sure, maybe in 40-100 years, people might scoff at the idea that hydrogen was ever not a valid way of powering a personal vehicle. But at our present technology, all it has going for it is that it sounds quite cool. Hydrogen powered!! 🤘
Wait do you spent all this time denying that hydrogen is going anywhere then in your last sentence admit that in 40 years it might be a default mode of transport?
What time frame did you think we were discussing?
You need grams of platinum. It is not a big deal. And not all fuel cells need platinum.
All EVs are as green as their energy source.
Toyota and Honda have not swapped to a 100% BEV fleet. It is currently what is in vogue, and everyone invest in it. But like the diesel car, that does not imply it is the future. In reality, BEVs are still a niche product and current demand is entirely created via subsidies. The current wave of BEV excitement will not last beyond the end of those huge subsidies.
Most criticisms of hydrogen cars are just marketing from competing technologies. You shouldn't believe them. In reality, hydrogen cars will be the cheaper type of EV, and the fuel will plunge in cost. It is the same story as what happened to wind and solar.
Okay, but why should I believe you? When any source other than you disagrees?
And kind you, like I said, maybe in a few decades hydrogen will be a cool tech. But even ignoring the inherent downsides like greenhouse gas, losses during conversion, issues with storage and handling, we are probably decades away from a usable solution for production, too.
At present, a hydrogen vehicle comes out slightly to moderately worse than a petrol car for the environment while also costing the user significantly more. Can that change? Sure! Will it? Dunno, do you? Mind you, meanwhile BEVs provide a solution that is mildly cheaper to run and moderately to significantly better for the environment. We have a solution, we should use it. If in 40 years or whatever things look different, well, then that will be the case.
How did you react to all green tech in the past? With wind, solar, and even the BEV to some extent, you listen to the supporters and not the detractors. Only after the technology got widely deployed could you listen to real criticisms, mostly from real-world studies or analyses. None of the imagined problems from the detractors ever came true. Hydrogen cars will be the same.
And every green tech got accused of being a secretly dirty technology. It's total BS. Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars? It is utter gibberish and was the same story as BEVs being accused of being worse than petrol cars.
FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.
All of those techs either had no superior alternatives in their primary use (that is, being green) already, or in the cases where they did, they weren't intended to be used, just to be researched.
That is, hydrogen is worse at what it wants to do than existing tech. Maybe it can surpass it in the future, but that means it clearly belongs into labs and only labs.
Because... it's not a story? 🤷
Yeah, and they're not as green or as cheap as BEVs. That's kinda the point, the they're excluding some very special applications like busses and some trucks a strictly inferior solution to a solved problem. That is not to say that BEVs are the end-all-be-all, quite probably they're not. But it doesn't seem like hydrogen can outdo them, at least at out present technological level.
That's revisionist history. Wind and solar were widely condemned as being inferior technology in the past. They are in many ways worse than hydropower, their main zero emission competitor of the time.
Your repeating some old anti-hydrogen story probably from either an oil company or a battery company. An FCEV gets around 70 MPGe. There is very little argument that it is somehow less green than existing petrol cars. It's an obvious repeat of classic anti-green rhetoric. We heard everything from solar panels or hybrids being demonized as being worse than the conventional solution by random fossil fuel marketing firms. It's all bunk.
And no to that last claim either. There's a good reason to believe that an FCEV is greener than a BEV. For starters, it has much less upfront emissions during production. And at something like 30% green hydrogen, the BEV will never catch up to the FCEV, even if it is running on 100% green electricity.
Solar electric was worse than hydro, or just about anything else, and more expensive per watt, as well. Decades went by, the cells got more efficient and cheaper production techniques, and suddenly they were a competitive option. None of that changes that they were, initially, a very bad choice, and only made sense if money wasn't a factor for the person installing it.
The same goes for hydrogen. Maybe it will be big in the future, but as it stands now it isn't an option for many people.
Solar got cheap and then it became widespread. You are witnessing the same thing happen with hydrogen now.
I've seen no evidence hydrogen is getting cheaper to produce, although there have been some non-hydrocarbon production advances. Also, many of the hydrogen filling stations have shut down.
You are just listening to too much anti-hydrogen propaganda. It's absurd to say that it isn't getting cheaper. It is just doing the same thing wind and solar did as they scaled up. The infrastructure is rapidly expanding too, something you'd know if you actually started to look into hydrogen.