WITAF.

At best, he doesn’t understand what a Hybrid Car is.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Could he not? It’s not just that he’s wrong. It’s that we’ll have to defend the factual errors around a deadend solution.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Hydrogen comes from water. Oil comes from pits deep in the earth. To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars, the process of extracting it does. Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off. For oil - first you need gigantic oil pumps, then you drill a massive damned hole in the ground. At this point hydrogen is easier. The absolutely insanely stupid statement of “they explode”, yeah you moron, so did the Gremlin when they got rear ended, you don’t blame the fuel you blame the engineer. Complete idiots speaking their mind think they know, but in reality hydrogen and oxygen could replace oil and natural gas over night and there would be no change so long as the systems were engineered to handle the change in gases. Mostly it would be flow reducers because hydrogen and oxygen burn hotter and faster than oil and natural gas. But any explosions outside of the engine itself, are engineering failures, not of the fuel type which is one of the dumbest uneducated statements I have ever heard about a fuel type - " it blows up so I don’t like it" you rancid hotdog, what do you think gas does? A gallon of gas can send a 1 ton car 30miles, if you ignite it directly it can send every part of your body 30miles in every direction. IT’S WHAT FUEL DOES!!! WHAT MATTERS IS HOW WE ACQUIRE IT! THE TECH IS BUILT AROUND THE FUEL! Weak damn humans.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Gonna clarify a few things…

      Hydrogen comes from water.

      This is like saying flour comes from cake. You’ve got it backwards.

      To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars

      Hydrogen opens up the possibility of using a fuel cell, skipping the noisy and inefficient combustion in favor of directly creating electricity and driving an electric motor.

      Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off.

      Not even close. To get hydrogen from water, you need a shit-ton of electricity and a lot of infrastructure, or you need to free it up with a chemical reaction (Aluminum and hydrochloric acid if I remember correctly). Right now the chemical way is lower cost and more available.

      It’s better to use that electricity to move the car around, rather than split water with it and using the resulting hydrogen to move cars.

    • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I get your point but hydrogen isn’t just sea water, you’ve got an awful lot more energy to put in after the “tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off” stage to separate the hydrogen from oxygen to get the fuel. The difficult bit comes after “get water”.

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        And It generally requires a lot of electricity. So, batteries cut out the middleman.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Broken clocks and whatnot. Hydrogen cars are trash and completely unfeasible, not because they explode but because of the terrible efficiency and fueling problems

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Hydrogen fuel cells actually show quite a bit of promise. Mostly for large trucks. Batteries have a scaling issue. A battery powered 18-wheeler needs a much larger battery for a much shorter range.

      Adding more load means you need more battery, and that larger battery is just more load that you need to haul.

      This is sort of true with everything, but the important note is that a full battery and empty battery weigh the same.

      Anyway. Commercial use is where it makes sense. There are actually a few other technologies that make sense in the commercial transportation space. Like ammonia.

      Keeping these rather dangerous fuels commercial also allows for more strict safety standards.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      And would need a huge new infrastructure for production and distribution. I’m convinced that most of the push for hydrogen is from oil and gas interests wanting to have essentially the same business they do now.

      Clearly one of the advantages of EVs is how cheap and easy the infrastructure is compared to any other alternative (and somehow we’re still finding it difficult)

      • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        To add to that the system’s handling them degrade quite quickly if you think maintenance cost for a normal vehicle is difficult you should see one that has to handle high pressure hydrogen

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        EV infrastructure would be better if it was actually standardized and regulated to be like gas stations.

        Right now, we have legacy charging ports and the new, now standard, Tesla port. So you have to make sure the charger will even fit your car. And, because we live in the future, everything is enshitified. Different charging companies have different apps that you need to download to pay for charging, many chargers are down for maintenance, but even with the app, there’s no guarantee you’ll be warned about the charger being down.

        Chargers should be like gas pumps. Put in a card, put the plug in your car, and then wait for it to charge. Every plug should fit every car. The system that sprang up without government intervention is clearly insufficient, and needs to be standardized from the ground up.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago
          • Most manufacturers pledged to support NACs starting next year, and a couple already have. Also, Tesla is adding the older standard to at least some chargers
          • We might be losing “pay at the pump”, that was required for federal money to build out charging. Now we’re switching to NACs but Tesla hasn’t supported “pay at the pump” and I don’t know if that’s still a requirement. While it is actually more convenient to use the app and Tesla has been consumer friendly so far, I’m uncomfortable with yet another app holding my credit card hostage just so I can adult.
          • we should focus on rest areas on highways, both to build out the trip charger network and as something that can more easily be standardized/influenced
    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      But nobody’s actually taking about subsidising or making them, so there’s no point in ranting about it.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Hydrogen buses were a thing for a while, but it’s probably cheaper to just go with batteries now.

        Feels like something that was surpassed before it ever got popular.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          I could see hydrogen being useful for some applications where you don’t need the public infrastructure. Buses that refuel at a central depot could be one of those if there’s issues with battery electric being too heavy and stuff like that.

          But for ordinary people that can charge their car at home or work without needing to go to a third place it’s hard to beat that convenience.

          Hydrogen also has a history of being pushed by fossil fuel companies, probably because initially most hydrogen would be generated using fossil fuels, so it’s not exactly a fast track to reducing emissions.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yeah, the home and workplace charging has basically won the day for anyone that doesn’t spend most of their life driving.

            Slightly sidetracking, I suspect nuclear power is also being pushed by the fossil fuel club as well, after 40 years of going “But Chernobyl!” Simply because it keeps people on gas and coal for about 20-30 years while it all gets built, is enormously expensive, and probably wouldn’t be enough to meet demand anyway. And they can also veto any large green projects with “But the nuclear is on the way!”

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Yeah, that’s definitely been the strategy of the liberals/nationals in Australia. In a country that historically has never had nuclear, has a bunch of state and federal bans against nuclear and no infrastructure at all to deal with nuclear waste or fuel, they want to build a nuclear plants (oh , and those will be micro plants which don’t actually exist anywhere!) instead of continuing to build more renewables. And they’re pushing hydrogen as well.

              It’s actually disgusting that an industry that knows it has no long term future decided that they should just delay the inevitable for just a few more years/decades at the cost of our only planet. I just can’t fathom being this fucked in the head to make that calculation.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      and the need to build an entire new distribution network, but one that handles cryogenic fuel.

      nah, no thanks.

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Actually they can retro fit oil and gas infrastructure to work with hydrogen. Guess who is pushing the “huRdUGyun iS thE fuTuRe” narrative. Yeah the people who own the oil and gas infra.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Actually they can retro fit oil and gas infrastructure to work with hydrogen.

          citation requested because this defies literal physics. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt if you suggested propane, but gasoline storage is NOT cryogenic, would not hold large enough volumes of it, and aren’t capable of the pressures involved.

          Sure, you can bury a hydrogen tank and support plumbing NEXT to a gasoline storage tank, but you still have to deal with handling cryogenic fuel. Do they really claim that?

          So even if that’s an agenda, it’s fucking bent. Green Hydrogen literally ISN’T.

          Seems like every solution the petroleum industry pushes is really just another excuse to pump more oil to burn in an already choking atmosphere.

          fuuuuuck.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Wow, even when he’s accidentally correct (hydrogen cars really aren’t good), his “reasoning” (if you can call it that) is dumb as Hell.

    The real problem with hydrogen cars (aside from H2 storage being a pain in the ass) is that they’re mostly a greenwashing scam, since the vast majority of H2 produced is not “green” hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by renewables, but instead so-called “blue” hydrogen produced from natural gas or coal. If you’re gonna do that, you might as well just fucking burn the hydrocarbon in an internal combustion engine directly and save yourself all the damn hassle!

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      The part that pisses me off the most about this is that in states that have a very heavy amount of Renewables like let’s say California they are literally curtailing insane amounts of solar because there’s literally nowhere for them to put it.

      Meanwhile they will simultaneously say they can’t do green hydrogen because it takes so much energy and isn’t super efficient, they will also say the same thing about desalination it needs too much energy where are they supposed to get it from. Motherfucker you are literally curtailing solar constantly just fucking dump it into one of those two things who cares if it’s not the most efficient 20% efficiency is better than 0% efficiency

      (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        In… California they are literally curtailing insane amounts of solar because there’s literally nowhere for them to put it.

        Um…

        ?

        • batmaniam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          They meant “no where to put the power”, which is true (although it’s not a new problem by any stretch and there’s a lot going on to address it).

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think the idea is that if you create the demand for hydrogen, then there will be more incentive to produce cheap and environmentally friendly hydrogen.

      • auzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Even at 100% efficiency when producing, the efficiency of the car will still be much lower than battery (even batteries from decades ago were 90%+ efficient).

        Electric distribution basically abstract the energy source away from the car (you can use any battery chemistry). You can also feed power back into the grid

        With hydrogen, realistically, you just need to pray you improve it long term. Because at the moment it’s an efficiency suckfest.

        But it’s awesome for petrol companies and dodgy salespeople who want to provide cheap fuel that continues to F**k us whilst undercutting green alternatives

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          We need to pivot the goal for hydrogen …… there are fossil fuel uses now that batteries can’t serve and hydrogen might be a good substitute.

          Instead of saying that even with feee electricity it’s too expensive to make green hydrogen for cars, let’s use that free electricity to make synthetic aviation fuel Or at least create hydrogen as a precursor

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            It’s not about free electricity though. It’s about efficiency

            It’s not about cost

            The facts are, with hydrogen, you waste at least 40% of the energy excluding transport due to inefficiencies and manufacture and fuel wastage . So you need to build a lot more solar panels. You also need clean water to do it

            With electric, you waste less than 10%

            We don’t have hydrogen planes yet, and it might not really be that feasible (there are a lot of considerations for planes. I’ve actually got a pilot licence).

            With hydrogen, you need almost twice the solar panels to produce the same results

            You also need to consider, battery technologies are still early days. If lithium at the moment supports 1000km of travel, later generation lithium air can support 12000km with the same space.

            That’s why hydrogen has such limited applications too. Because even if you increase the density of lithium 2x, most applications where hydrogen benefits disappears

            But in reality we’d probably shift from lithium anyway I’m guessing

            Hydrogen still hugely better than gas though, and Trump is an idiot lol

      • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        And natural gas was supposed to be an transition energy source to get America off coal so that we could transition to renewable energy. History has not been kind to the “if we can just implement this greenwashed fossil fuel process, it’ll really allow us to unlock green energy potential down the road” promise

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          It’s kinda like software development…every experienced dev is aware that when management says we’ll do it shitty for now and fix it later that later never comes.

      • quicklime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’m pretty sure the basic thermodynamics of it are against truly green hydrogen production ever becoming cheaper than the dirty business of producing it by reforming methane from natural gas, unless basically all fossil fuel subsidies are someday cancelled – or else after the energy cost of energy gets so high (in other words, the energy return on energy invested falls so low) that it’s no longer practical to extract fossil fuel from the ground regardless of price or any other economic factor; – but by that point in the future, that same scarcity will have permanently crashed the world economy thus humanity will already be in forced deindustrialization. I could go on…

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          The thing is, hydrogen is a byproduct of damn near every industry. It’s usually just released into the atmosphere because it’s a pain in the ass to capture and store and isn’t worth much. If it starts being in demand, you can bet your ass they’ll start trying to gather it.

          • quicklime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            Remember, though, that it is currently profitable to reform hydrogen out of methane, at the same time as it’s not profitable to contain and sell ‘byproduct’ hydrogen. There are sure to be reasons why, and they might be fairly durable reasons that don’t change much even as the demand for hydrogen increases. I’m no expert on this so I won’t speculate too much on what those reasons might be – maybe factors related to scale and logistics?

      • TotalFat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        The worst part about the gas you put in your car are all the additives they cram in there. Gas for small planes you check it by sticking your finger in it to make sure it’s full. Your finger doesn’t even smell afterwards unlike car gas where you stink for a week. Also no skin cancer! Next you drain some from the bottom to make sure there’s no water. After a quick visual inspection, you just pour it out onto the ground.

          • TotalFat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            All natural, organic, free-range, gluten-free lead! With a name you can pronounce. Couldn’t harm a fly. Look at me! I turned out fine!!

        • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          Gas for small planes you check it by sticking your finger in it to make sure it’s full.

          I know some people have different practices, but myself and the pilots I’ve known use a dipstick to check fuel level. You do you, but remember that aviation fuel contains lead, which is easily absorbed through the skin. I always use gloves when checking fuel.

          I can’t deny that most pilots don’t use gloves, that there are fewer additives in aviation fuel, nor that we are trained to dump checked fuel on the ground. But I don’t see those as “green flags” for aviation fuel.

          For anyone interested, here’s the Material Safety Data Sheet for aviation fuel. For comparison, here’s the MSDS for automotive gasoline. I wouldn’t want to touch either without skin protection.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    You’ll need a ginormus piece of paper to write down everything that Donald does not understand…

  • What hydrogen cars?

    The sum total of Toyota and whoever else’s efforts still amount to an inconsequential fraction of the vehicles currently in operation, probably not even a notable portion of a percentage point.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      We’re dealing with a man who saw pictures of a spray bottle and the sun and decided it meant injecting bleach and putting a lightbulb inside you. Do not presume he thinks rationally.