1
Victoria warned against ‘very inefficient’ hydrogen buses after trial announced
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Melbourne Trains
0 readers
1 users here now
A community dedicated to trains and other forms of public transport around Melbourne and Victoria.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The link is dead.
You have an inverted view of reality. Hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. Your idea don’t exist outside of science projects and underwhelming early demonstration versions.
I just clicked it and it works. There's a bunch of sodium ion batteries for sale.
The current fuel cells that waste most of the energy and are manufactured in very small numbers for pilot programs are exactly what I'd describe as underwhelming early demonstration versions.
Now it is working.
But it doesn't matter. Those are hoax products. None of them exist in the real world. You can't actually buy them, or they are secretly some other type of battery. No one has actually seen a working sodium-ion battery in public.
Fuel cells are already in mass production. Again, you are simply living in the early 2000s on this subject. You are wildly outdated on your knowledge.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. That’s why green hydrogen still represents less than a tenth of a percent of global hydrogen production. That’s why there are only more than three hundred and seventy plug in battery vehicles for every hydrogen one, to say nothing of hundred year old green technology like Vancouvers trollybuses.
That’s why for every watt of power a hydrogen fuel cell outputs you only needed 2.3 times as many watts to power it, as compared to batteries which even after transmission and inverting losses require a whole 1.15 watts of input for every watt of output./s
Hydrogen fuel cells are at best, a way for Shell and Chevron to stay relevant. More likely, a way to eat large quantities of money on tech demonstrators instead of proven, off the shelf replacement technologies like overhead wires or batteries.
There are already, largely but not entirely overblown, concerns over how we can build enough electrical generation capacity to make up for eliminating oil and gas. You would need to more than double that new capacity to make hydrogen work. It may have a place in industrial applications, but transport is a dead end. We need solutions now, not expensive tech demos from startups.
Funny, because you can replace "fuel cells" with "solar cells" and you would've nearly mirrored the anti-solar power rhetoric of a decade ago.
What you're doing is blatant Ludditism. It is closer to being a climate change denier tactic than anything honest.
It’s funny, your quoting BP and Shell about climate change while comparing me a denier. You could disprove the solar cell argument a decade ago, but yon haven’t even bothered to try to defend hydrogen, just continuing with personal attacks on everyone vaguely critical of the oil companies magic solution.
You're too brainwashed to know what you're talking about. Very likely you're just regurgitating what the battery industry wants you to think.
Hydrogen is obvious a zero emissions fuel. It is as self-evident as wind or solar. What you doing is the exact same thing as what climate change deniers did. Somehow argue that new green technology is secretly a scam, or it is impossible, or a trick by the fossil fuel industry. In reality, saying such obvious lies makes you the climate change denier.
You mean a tenth of one single percent is possibly zero emissions, the rest is a heavy emissions fuel. Hydrogen is not a new technology, hydrogen fuel cells powered the bloody moon landing, and that one had a ten percent higher efficiency than the ones you’d find in any modern, technology demonstrator, i mean vehicle.
Battery technology has seen continuous practical improvement in density, efficiency, and capacity over the last forty years. Fuel cells haven’t, not significantly anyway, and are just as impractical for common useage now as they were then.
Again, i can’t help but notice that you haven’t presented any evidence for your extraordinary claims, any reason to believe that this tech could possibly do what you claim is self evident, just make personal attacks.
Same story with solar cells, again. Everything starts at zero, and nothing is magically perfect from day one. You are doing exactly what climate change deniers said about all new green technologies when they first came out.
Meanwhile, battery cars are older than internal combustion cars. You think you have a point here, but you don't. You are cheering on totally obsolete technology as if it is anything new.
In reality, you are just being brainwashed by corporate propaganda. All you're digging your hole even deeper, and even more indistinguishable from blatant climate change denier.
Everything starts at zero, but we arn’t on day zero of fuel cell development. We’re on decade six. There is already massive demand for green hydrogen at a comprehensive price, just as there has been for years, yet supply remains at a tiny fraction of a percent.
Electric cars are not new, but practical alternatives to lead acid batteries are. Yet somehow, despite these new battery chemistry’s being so much newer than hydrogen, they now make up more than half of all new cars sold in some countries. Hydrogen cars came out in the nineties, and still can’t find buyers.
Also, for someone who is calling me brainwashed, your the one who can’t seem to find a single verifiable fact to back up your argument. Just saying over and over again that if you don’t support a fossil fuel your a climate change denier.
And we are in the second century of battery powered cars. Even solar cells are technical over 100 years old.
The difference is that we already tried battery powered cars, and replace them with internal combustion cars. It is fundamentally an obsolete idea. Guys like you want us to stop advancing and stop stick with obsolete technology.
You're frankly too deep in your delusion to be worth "disproving." As long as you oppose green energy, you are a climate change denier. And as a long as you reject new ideas, you are a Luddite. There is no need to go into detail over how nonsensical your position actually is.
Except your the one opposing green energy at every turn. Hydrogen created from natural gas can not in any way be called green energy, and yet that’s what your defending to the exclusion of actual green energy solutions. Hydrogen powered transport is not a new idea, just a failed one.
Lead Acid cars failed, not batteries in general. Thouse have advanced to the point they are more common than gas in some countries new cars. Hydrogen by contrast has remained a oil executive fantasy.
Wrong. You're the one opposed to green energy at every turn. You're just so brainwashed you can't even understand your own position.
Everything is as green as its energy source. Electricity can also be made from natural gas. Is electricity now an elaborate conspiracy by the oil companies? Seriously, it's multiple levels of delusional thinking and cognitive dissonance.
No one has every built commercial hydrogen cars until a few years ago. It is fundamentally a never-before-seen technology. If you reject the climate change denier tag, then you get the Luddite tag.
Toyota and Honda both began leasing Hydogen cars over twenty years ago. By twenty twenty, all but three of half a dozen major automakers to release hydogen vehicles had abandoned development in favor of batteries.
It is absolutely ludicrous to compare electricity to hydrogen. Eighty percent of my electricity is powerd by renewables with no oil company involved, as compared to the fraction of a single percent of hydogen. To think the two are the same is to so fundamentally reject reality in favor of propaganda that i don’t even know where to start.
You mean in a series of highly experimental vehicles and with no refueling infrastructure, then sure. But in reality, no has seriously tried hydrogen cars until recently. All the support for BEVs is just the result of government subsidies. It is entirely a fake market, and will die off as soon as the subsidies end.
Wind and solar were just rounding errors on the grid until recently. You could've easily made the same argument for BEVs until recently. Not that it matters, because the insanely resource dependent and extremely expensive batteries doom them to inevitable obsolescence for a second time. Car companies that won't get on board with hydrogen will just die off.
You know hydogen requires the same batteries right? Enough platinum to directly power a car is far to expensive, so all hydrogen cars need a large battery to store charge for acceleration.
If BEVs are the result of subsidies, then why are hydrogen vehicles, which enjoy the exact same subsidies still a rounding error? Before you say fueling infrastructure, note that Honda spent quite a lot of money trying to build that out in 2008. Also note that a failure in fuel infrastructure is also a failure of hydrogen.
Batteries can be recycled, hydrogen still has to be made out of fossil fuels for very single fill up. If the market for BEVs is artificial, then why would there suddenly be a market for a far more expensive and far less convenient technology like hydrogen?
You mean 1-2 kWh of batteries? Not the same thing. The platinum claim is outdated. It is no more than a catalytic convertor in newer designs.
Hydrogen have not received any real subsidies, at least not yet anyways. The main limiting factor has been the refueling system, which has been mostly ignored until recently. All of this is changing though. The next big deal in green energy is the hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, stop repeating climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen is made from water. When used, it turns back into water. It literally self-recycles with zero effort. Batteries are infinitely inferior on this criteria.
Except hydrogen is not made from just water, now is it. It’s made by using two tones of methane gas and five tons of water to make one ton of methane and six tones of co2. Thouse six tons of co2 are not recycled, neither is the natural gas that was used to make it. To say otherwise is what actual climate change denial looks like, as it is literally denying that a process emits vast quantities of co2 in favor of pretending it doesn’t exist. Hydrogen vehicles revive the exact same subsides as battery vehicles dispite this, and and have had public refueling points in California for over a decade.
Again, stop with your climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen can be made from water. Just like electricity can be made from green sources. Saying that it must be made from fossil fuels is a conspiracy theory and just proves that you are climate change denier.
I never said it must be, indeed k have very clearly brought up the amount that is made from just water several times.
It can be made from just water, but is ninty nine point nine percent of it made from just water? No, it is not. It is made from steam methane reforming. Even the companies betting their future on hydrogen say as much, to pretend otherwise is quite literally denying that co2 is related to climate change.
Again, you're repeating more climate change denier rhetoric. Again, you can make hydrogen from water. It is as green as its energy source. This is the exact same argument as the one made for BEVs. If you cannot wrapped your head around that, then you are too brainwashed by BEV propaganda to even see straight.
Hydogen is as green as the energy source, and the energy source in the article were talking about is explicitly fossil fuel only. As previously mentioned, BEVs don’t need to waste nearly two thirds of the power the consume. Many of them are already fully powered by solar, unlike the aforementioned tenth of a percent of hydrogen, and they have half the cost.
This is going nowhere. You either won’t even read my comments or more likely are just trolling. If so, while this “debate” was admittedly amusing your mostly just making an ass of yourself in public.
If you really are deluded enough to have been serious however. I ask, do you already own one of the thousands hydogen cars, as compared to the millions of EVs?
Ohh who am i kidding, i doubt you’ll even stop to think about this. Instead you just project and repeat the same arguments you have no doubt heard leveled against hydogen, but don’t really understand why they make you feel unsure or you’d see how silly they are when taken out of that context.
You keep calling me a climate change denier while outright denying the climate impacts of your pet idea. You call everything propaganda while repeating the same few feel good lines right out of mouths of oil company marking teams. You talk about hydogen like it’s two thousand and there’s still a question as to what will power the cars of the future.
In the time since then we’ve nearly doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Maybe in another twenty years we’ll have enough idle solar and wind to create the enough green hydrogen to satisfy its use in steel and a thousand other industries. I do hope so, but today it is doing nothing but adding to emissions while taking money from well proven technologies.
These buses could have been outfitted with overhead lines in 1990 to draw all thier power from solar and wind, but now will continue to use fossil fuels well into the future in the hope an oil company delivers on its promise to dispose of itself.
I’m not going to continue this, I had hoped that while you would no doubt be too set into your ways to be convinced, the information might prove useful to anyone scrooling past, but at this point your just saying the same lines over and over agian, with no actual information to even disprove or add context to. Besides we’re far to deep for anyone sensible to still be reading.
It’s been, interesting, enjoy the holidays Hypx.
Again, you are repeating a climate change denier's argument. No one cared that solar cells are inefficient. But somehow now, it suddenly matters.
Sorry, the problem is that you are utterly delusional and brainwashed by BEV propaganda. It's impossible for you to even see straight.
There is nothing but for you to stop being a climate change denier. That is all.