4 ms·

Hydrogen, in practice, is almost always made from natural gas, because that's the cheapest way to make it. Whenever you hear somebody say "hydrogen vehicle", th

Hydrogen, in practice, is almost always made from natural gas, because that's the cheapest way to make it. Whenever you hear somebody say "hydrogen vehicle", think "highly-refined natural gas vehicle".

b112 2y ago
I'm sorry, but this is a very foul argument. H2 can be made from green sources, hands down. Thus your argument is "We should never adopt H2 cars, because currently there isn't enough green H2". That's just plain silly. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 If there's anything on this list that isn't green, then it means you're substituting gas powered cars, for electric powered cars which are derived from non-green electricity. And worse, fossil fuel -> electricity -> transmission cost -> batteries+loss, is far less efficient than just "fossil fuel". And yes, it does work that way. For example, if I have 8 homes powered by green renewable energy, and I decide to start charging a car, where do you think the extra power comes from? Typically, more fossil fuel usage. You may say "Well, we can use solar panels at home!" or some other such thing, of which only a tiny fraction of people can. But the argument then becomes "We can add more renewable...", which is the precise same thing as saying "We can add more renewable to make H2" as well. Frankly, almost all battery cars on the roads are being charged by fossil fuel plants what would be shut down, if those cars were gas powered. But that's not the goal, is it? Instead, the goal is to shift our infra over to non-polluting end-points, like electric (battery OR h2 powered) cars, and then as we shift more, and more to green electric generation? Well, we're there! Which is why all this blather against H2 is just that. It's not about now. It's about the decades to come.

b112 2y ago

I'm sorry, but this is a very foul argument. H2 can be made from green sources, hands down. Thus your argument is "We should never adopt H2 cars, because currently there isn't enough green H2". That's just plain silly. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 If there's anything on this list that isn't green, then it means you're substituting gas powered cars, for electric powered cars which are derived from non-green electricity. And worse, fossil fuel -> electricity -> transmission cost -> batteries+loss, is far less efficient than just "fossil fuel". And yes, it does work that way. For example, if I have 8 homes powered by green renewable energy, and I decide to start charging a car, where do you think the extra power comes from? Typically, more fossil fuel usage. You may say "Well, we can use solar panels at home!" or some other such thing, of which only a tiny fraction of people can. But the argument then becomes "We can add more renewable...", which is the precise same thing as saying "We can add more renewable to make H2" as well. Frankly, almost all battery cars on the roads are being charged by fossil fuel plants what would be shut down, if those cars were gas powered. But that's not the goal, is it? Instead, the goal is to shift our infra over to non-polluting end-points, like electric (battery OR h2 powered) cars, and then as we shift more, and more to green electric generation? Well, we're there! Which is why all this blather against H2 is just that. It's not about now. It's about the decades to come.