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

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    maybe but it’s a ridiculous thing to do, so let’s hope not.

    Might as well just electrify. It’s a massively inefficient way of making H, storage and transport of H is beyond tricky , H is a GHG so whatever fugitive emissions you have, which there’s plenty of with a molecule that small, are ubiquitous.

    That said, doing stupid things has never stopped humanity before, so who knows. Every H project in Australia has been shitballed, some are saying make Ammonia now instead but that’s ripe with problems as well but it is significantly easier to store and transport.

    • Hypx@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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
        0
        ·
        6 months 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.