3 ms·

I have no quarrel with the engineering. "Hydrogen" the industry moniker is a big oil trojan horse and an attempted "big lie". If it were enacted at any substant

I have no quarrel with the engineering. "Hydrogen" the industry moniker is a big oil trojan horse and an attempted "big lie". If it were enacted at any substantive policy level outside of niche applications, you would then add "inevitable massive funding boondoggle". Outside of research and prototypes, absolutely no funding should go to hydrogen infrastructure or production/use. It's wasted money and funding that should be applied to grid, alternative energy, and EV infrastructure projects. If research produces economical use cases for hydrogen, great. But this article is the best example of what "The Hydrogen Movement" is: greenwashing fossil fuels and carbon accounting fraud. I've been arguing for two years now that the "grey/blue/green" hydrogen labels are pure marketing bullshit. While they may in the beginning refer to legitimate categorizations of hydrogen "sourcing", in reality they will be used to greenwash fossil fuel hydrogen production through fraud, lies, obfuscation, or switcheroo. "Gold" Hydrogen. The industry is drinking their own kool aid.

nr2x 4y ago
Sure, but planes aren’t going to run on batteries for long haul flights. The nice trick with fuel is the plane gets lighter the farther it goes. Batteries aren’t like that. They stay heavy. We need something for this issue and marketing and lies aside, my admittedly limited understanding of the science is that there are actually ways to make hydrogen without negative externalities. But yes, this article feels like a totally load of bollocks.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Long haul aviation: yeah I agree. Synthfuels or hydrogen. I believe the economics of bev aviation will replace short and maybe medium though.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    I wish people stop fantasizing about battery powered planes completely. All EV planes are ultra-lights without pressurized fuselages and no ability to fly in the tropopause. So they can never be particularly comfortable or safe aircrafts. All commercial airliners will run on some kind of chemical for the foreseeable future. If not hydrogen, it will be synfuels/e-fuels or something similar.

nr2x 4y ago

Sure, but planes aren’t going to run on batteries for long haul flights. The nice trick with fuel is the plane gets lighter the farther it goes. Batteries aren’t like that. They stay heavy. We need something for this issue and marketing and lies aside, my admittedly limited understanding of the science is that there are actually ways to make hydrogen without negative externalities. But yes, this article feels like a totally load of bollocks.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Long haul aviation: yeah I agree. Synthfuels or hydrogen. I believe the economics of bev aviation will replace short and maybe medium though.
- _hypx 4y ago
  I wish people stop fantasizing about battery powered planes completely. All EV planes are ultra-lights without pressurized fuselages and no ability to fly in the tropopause. So they can never be particularly comfortable or safe aircrafts. All commercial airliners will run on some kind of chemical for the foreseeable future. If not hydrogen, it will be synfuels/e-fuels or something similar.