3 ms·

The only reason that Hydrogen powered cars are even still discussed over battery electric is that 95% of industrial hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. In

The only reason that Hydrogen powered cars are even still discussed over battery electric is that 95% of industrial hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. In other words the people pushing it are probably protecting their oil and gas interests. They aren't going to put money into research to cut themselves out of the loop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

Hypx 7y ago
But nobody is suggesting that industrial hydrogen will be natural gas based forever. Furthermore, we must have green hydrogen for steel and ammonia production. So this is a “must solve” problem no matter what. This is basically the same kind of argument that BEVs are “secretly powered by coal.” These are backwards looking statements that are going to be wrong in the near future.
clouddrover 7y ago
> In other words the people pushing it are probably protecting their oil and gas interests. Shell builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk BP builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc Petro-Canada builds EV charging stations: https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electric-highway https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electri... They're in the energy business. They don't really care what form it takes.
- blibble 7y ago
  in a world where everyone has a charger at home and at work there's little to no need for Shell and BP hence their push for hydrogen, where everything remains essentially the same (and they keep their vertically integrated business)
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    Look, Shell is the third largest company in the world. They have many, many business interests. The idea that more EVs means Shell goes broke is pure fantasy.
    - blibble 7y ago
      what sort of argument is that? large companies disappear all the time, or are swallowed by by others that outcompete them "9 of every 10 Fortune 500 companies in 1955 are gone": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017-only-12-remain-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-prosperity/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017...
      - clouddrover 7y ago
        > what sort of argument is that? It isn't "an argument". It's simply a practical reality which contradicts your false preconceptions.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        That 9/10 figure is misleading, if you browse the list here: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1955/1.html https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/f... Many more than 1/10 of those names are still dominant companies/brands, but some have gone through mergers or restructures, meaning the 1955 entity no longer exists but the business lives on and remains very strong. BP and Shell are on that 1955 list, and are obviously still very strong companies. According to the Lindy effect [1], the longer a company has existed, the longer it is likely to continue to exist. Both BP and Shell have long been diversified companies (even in the 1950s, Shell had vast business activities outside of petroleum), and have long been investing heavily in various forms of alternative energy. They're not likely to disappear in any foreseeable timeframe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
- kube-system 7y ago
  It is advantageous to get a foot hold in competitive markets, for sure.... but these actions are also heavily motivated by ulterior motives: tax credits, PR/marketing, lobbying, undermining competitive threats, etc.
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    So just like every big business in every industry.

Hypx 7y ago

But nobody is suggesting that industrial hydrogen will be natural gas based forever. Furthermore, we must have green hydrogen for steel and ammonia production. So this is a “must solve” problem no matter what. This is basically the same kind of argument that BEVs are “secretly powered by coal.” These are backwards looking statements that are going to be wrong in the near future.

clouddrover 7y ago

> In other words the people pushing it are probably protecting their oil and gas interests. Shell builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk BP builds EV charging stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSRn6hYOwc Petro-Canada builds EV charging stations: https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electric-highway https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/personal/fuel/canadas-electri... They're in the energy business. They don't really care what form it takes.

blibble 7y ago
in a world where everyone has a charger at home and at work there's little to no need for Shell and BP hence their push for hydrogen, where everything remains essentially the same (and they keep their vertically integrated business)
- clouddrover 7y ago
  Look, Shell is the third largest company in the world. They have many, many business interests. The idea that more EVs means Shell goes broke is pure fantasy.
  - blibble 7y ago
    what sort of argument is that? large companies disappear all the time, or are swallowed by by others that outcompete them "9 of every 10 Fortune 500 companies in 1955 are gone": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017-only-12-remain-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-prosperity/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017...
    - clouddrover 7y ago
      > what sort of argument is that? It isn't "an argument". It's simply a practical reality which contradicts your false preconceptions.
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      That 9/10 figure is misleading, if you browse the list here: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1955/1.html https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/f... Many more than 1/10 of those names are still dominant companies/brands, but some have gone through mergers or restructures, meaning the 1955 entity no longer exists but the business lives on and remains very strong. BP and Shell are on that 1955 list, and are obviously still very strong companies. According to the Lindy effect [1], the longer a company has existed, the longer it is likely to continue to exist. Both BP and Shell have long been diversified companies (even in the 1950s, Shell had vast business activities outside of petroleum), and have long been investing heavily in various forms of alternative energy. They're not likely to disappear in any foreseeable timeframe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
kube-system 7y ago
It is advantageous to get a foot hold in competitive markets, for sure.... but these actions are also heavily motivated by ulterior motives: tax credits, PR/marketing, lobbying, undermining competitive threats, etc.
- clouddrover 7y ago
  So just like every big business in every industry.