This effectively means no new fossil fuel equipment within a few years

  • Hypx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    It’s far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      From an energy point of view, generating hydrogen and burning it later is an absurdly inefficient cycle. It’s also a very small molecule that is extremely difficult to contain (understand: leak very easily).

      Electricity storage is an issue, but batteries are progressing at a much faster pace than electrolysis. As for transportation, it’s also difficult, but in most parts of the world, we either have the infrastructure already in place, or the place in question lack both electricity and gas. In addition to that, electricity can be generated close to the point of consumption with renewables and batteries.

      There are really no good reason to stand by hydrogen in a crushing majority of use cases.

      • Hypx@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It is no more inefficient than many other ideas. Hydrogen is not much more difficult to store than natural gas. In reality, we have more than enough renewable energy to justify making and storing hydrogen.

        The narrative of “batteries are progressing” is becoming wishful thinking if not outright delusion. They are not progressing in a way that could actually solve their fundamental problems. Hydrogen for energy storage is necessary for a 100% green grid, as well as many other things. We can make hydrogen close to the point of consumption too.

        Hydrogen is a viable option in nearly every situation. And in many sectors, practically the only option.