this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
435 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3048 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Shell Is Immediately Closing All Of Its California Hydrogen Stations | The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can't make its operations work here.::The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can't make its operations work here. All seven of its California stations will close immediately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I don't understand why people think we have to pick a single solution for all vehicles on the road. We can have BEV and hydrogen at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's about infrastructure. You can half-arse two things, or whole-arse one thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree this is a significant factor. I saw some documentaries talking about the decisions we made with the power grid pros/cons wise when you consider ac/dc. No the band 😋

We use so much technology that requires direct current that we have at spend a bunch of resources converting it back from ac. The whole efficiency of transportation from large central generation vs smaller local less efficient stations.

The documentary said some industrial areas in Germany? were considering providing local grid based direct current.

I'm curious what the cost benefit analysis says about going back to local DC and not needing so many transformers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A lot of things these days might benefit from a 12vDC rail everywhere, but that's terrible for power transmission. Low volts, high current, fat cables. Not going to work.

High voltage DC isn't much use to anyone. You'll still need switching power supplies everywhere to step it down. Also, connecting it to a human can be really bad.

Yes high voltage AC is a bit of a pain, but not sure anything else is better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I enjoy watching debate about SMRs. Arguments for and against. Back to central generation vs local.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We can as long as the infrastructure is built. But hydrogen power cells in cars is a boondoggle.

If they can make it work then that would be fine but clearly they can't. So we should stop trying to make it a thing and just focus on electrification since we actually know that will work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Consumers adopt newer technologies more readily when they aren’t holding back waiting to see which of two competing standards will win.

There are efficiencies to doing things one way versus two ways.

Plus, if one way is clearly superior, having two only adds unnecessary complexity. If hydrogen was competitive I’d say great - let’s do it all. But on its own merits it just doesn’t hold up versus the alternatives. No ones banning it but why should anyone pursue it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Seems like the winning standard I'd ICE then as it's worked well for over a hundred years and all the infrastructure is in place. Why should anyone pursue any other option?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Battery electric cars win over ICE because the infrastructure is right in my house. We’ve spent centuries electrifying the world. It’s also greener and cleaner than ICE. And lower maintenance.

Hydrogen just has a slight density edge. That’s it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're arguing that it's the best solution for everyone simply because it's the best solution for you. Hydrogen has a major advantage in that you can just refill the tank in an instant which is a major factor in people's decision not to buy a BEV and a major drawback for people who regularly drive long distances.

I just find it incredibly ridiculous that people (typically laypeople) think they have all the answers and can make calls on what's the right or wrong decision, how the future will play out, and what the one-size-fits-all solution will be. It's closed-minded and only prevents progress as it limits what's possible. Companies investing in hydrogen with their own money has literally zero impact on you, so why are you arguing against it when it has clear advantages in certain instances? What do you gain?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Your right that my perspective is totally about “me” as long as you consider “me” to be people who have electricity

Instant battery change is also possible but it hasn’t been valued enough to be a factor. Just like instant fueling hasn’t made hydrogen competitive.

I assure you my closed minded layperson bullshit is not the thing that’s holding back hydrogen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah electricity along with a driveway/garage at your owned single family home.

I can't help but roll my eyes at the assertion that "instant battery charging" is not only feasible but simply being held back because nobody really wants it in a world where almost every person on the planet has at least one battery powered device that they charge daily. I'd love to hear the breakdown on how you can instantly supply 40-100kWh of energy through a wire small enough for a human to hold in their hands and input it into a Li-ion pack without it exploding.

Your close-minded layperson bullshit is certainly responsible for spreading the exact same FUD about hydrogen as the close-minded right-wing yokels who spread bullshit about BEVs leaving you stranded on the road before trapping you inside the vehicle and burning you alive from a battery fire. All that for what, so you don't have to suffer the terrible fate of choosing more than one option if you ever buy a new car? The horror.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, fool, read the words. “Instant change.” You can swap batteries. This has been prototyped for car and trucks but just like with phones, it’s fallen away because people get more out of an integrated battery. More capacity and superior overall design options. We could swap car batteries, but instant refill just isn’t worth making sacrifices for. And that’s exactly where hydrogen is: if that’s its only selling point, it’s not goddamn well enough. And no, you don’t have to be a wealthy homeowner like me to charge a car conveniently. Many apartment buildings and workplaces and even retail centers offer charging stations as well. It turns out that people enjoy charging while their car isn’t being used even more than they like spending a couple of minutes gassing up.

Anyway… you can rail against me but you can’t rail against reality. Hydrogen is a loser. You compare me to conservatards who spread negativity about battery EVs but the difference is, those are flourishing. I’m just commentating on hydrogen’s failure entirely post-facto.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

We did explore both options over the last 30 years or so. Batteries won for cars. Holding out otherwise at this point is silly.

Hydrogen might be what ends up powering long haul trucking, but I'd prefer that be replaced by electrified rail, anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Who's "we" here? Seems like major manufacturers are still pouring money into both technologies, meaning nobody but you and these other closed-minded commenters feel that they have everything all figured out and hold all the answers. GM and Honda just announced new investments into hydrogen vehicles as well.

This line of thinking is why EVs were crushed out of existence long ago until Tesla made them popular again just a few short years ago relatively speaking.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Who’s “we” here?

Public funding for research; in other words, all of us.

A bunch of companies connected to the oil industry want hydrogen to happen, because the oil industry knows they're the only economical source of hydrogen. Even among them, Toyota is about the only one who was willing to do the full nose dive into the tech, and it's biting them in the ass.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Forgive me but which of these major manufacturers rely on publicly funded research when designing new vehicles?

Also where's your source for companies like GM, Honda, and Toyota being connected to the oil industry and doing their bidding when it comes to releasing new vehicles? How is it biting them in the ass? Toyota is currently on the forefront of solid state battery tech for BEVs. Perhaps you shouldn't believe every article you read on the internet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Forgive me but which of these major manufacturers rely on publicly funded research when designing new vehicles?

Public funding tends to go on at universities. Major manufactureres then buy the patents and take the credit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

According to whom? Companies also do tons of research since they're building proprietary products to sell. Which patents used in my Toyota Camry were publicly funded?