this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
995 points (97.7% liked)

solarpunk memes

2918 readers
993 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Johanno@feddit.de 34 points 7 months ago (4 children)

With excess power from renewables. Which is highly inefficient. But better than not producing power when you could.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 85 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's the ideal case, but in practice much of it is directly derived from natural gas instead of electrolysis

In 2022 less than 1% of hydrogen production was low-carbon.[1] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of hydrogen, for example by steam reforming of natural gas.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Which is sad, because it'll give a bad name for hydrogen, then we will stuck with oil and stuff, especially thanks to those "muh 70's muscle car" and "muh family truck" types.

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago

That's what a transition is though, the new things need to be tested and built up but it's pointless making green hydrogen if there's nothing using it so we need both to be developed at the same time.

We're moving towards having good uses for excess power at peek generation which will make wind and solar much better investments, personally I prefer sequestered SAF but hydrogen has a great chance of helping stabilize the grid which will make transition much easier

[–] Aphelion@lemm.ee 43 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Hah! It's amazing how many people are still hanging onto the delusion that hydrogen is made from renewables when almost every ounce of commercial hydrogen fuel is made by cracking petroleum products.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What you're saying is true. I still want to point out that developing hydrogen infrastructure based on non-renewable hydrogen today, helps lay the groundwork for using primarily renewable hydrogen tomorrow, because we're developing storage, transportation, and fuel cell technology.

Also: Methane can be produced from renewables, so developing steam reforming technology today, using non-renewable methane, helps lay the groundwork for renewable-based hydrogen production tomorrow.

Finally: Steam reforming lends itself well to CCS, so hydrogen production from renewable methane + CCS is a potentially viable path to a carbon-negative future.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

But hydrogen infrastructure isn't better long term than regular electric and battery infrastructure. You need quite unique circumstances like being highly dependent on high energy density while being located in a place where you're far from an electric grid. Like an island in a stormy place (without access to wave power, etc) or long haul trucks out in nowhere or electric airplanes. Almost anything else should use better options

[–] exothermic@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not clear on what you’re trying to say here. The energy generated from a fuel cell is electricity. The entire fuel cell assembly is essentially a battery, using hydrogen and oxygen as the electrochemical components.

But, I think you’re trying to argue that one is better than the other. To that all I can say is we all are just getting out of being locked into a singular infrastructure (combustion engines) for the last 90 so years, it’s probably best to invest concurrently in multiple alternative energies instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket. Hydrogen has some strengths where lithium ion does not and vis versa. I’d assume it would be best to diversify so if one fails we have multiple backups. Kinda like investing money, don’t put all your money behind one horse.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

Storage and transfer are the complicated parts, remember that hydrogen leaks VERY easily (even right through most metals) and require very high pressure. It's never going to be the cheapest option unless you're weight constrained

[–] Johanno@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago

This is the dream we follow while driving our gasoline cars.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 7 months ago

There's no particular reason to store up power with hydrogen like that. We have tons of grid scale storage solutions. Heating up sand will work, or spinning up flywheels. Flow batteries are looking promising. We're not stuck on the limitations of lithium batteries for this purpose. There are so many other possibilities, and hydrogen production is not likely to come out on top.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

If they were using excess renewables there'd be much more efficient ways to capture that energy. A simple one would be pumping some water up hill.