This reads like a cross between 2023-era ChatGPT and a mediocre high school student. Who talks like this?
this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
4 points (100.0% liked)
Hydrogen
667 readers
33 users here now
A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.
Rules
- All posts must be about hydrogen, fuel cells, or a related topic.
- Posters that only attack hydrogen will not be tolerated.
This community has been migrated from:
fedia.io/m/hydrogen
fedia.io/m/hydrogen@kbin.social(Original server is defunct)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Whether or not you agree with the environmental impact of gasoline and diesel" ? ... really???
Hydrogen as a fuel source seems like an attempt to perpetuate the existing model of centralized refinement, distribution, and purchasing. There are definite hurdles to scaling the electric grid if we perpetuate the number of vehicles but it is possible. If you take into account advances in electric motor and battery capacity and chemistry design and combine all that with green energy options, you have a system which probably scares big energy.
I think the play there, from a business perspective, was that hydrogen wouldn't have required as much new infrastructure. Gas stations and fuel delivery networks could be retrofit, and the consumer mindset of pull up and fill a tank doesn't have to change.
That's a generous interpretation though and obviously it didn't work out
You can make your own hydrogen.
You can make your own hydrogen gas, at home without too much cost. Cooling and compressing it to a density where it would be viable for fueling cars is an order of magnitude more expensive.
Something similar was said about home solar power and storage. Technological progress with make this cost effective.
Solar power off my roof splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then more power to compress and cool the hydrogen just so I can pump the hydrogen through a fuel cell to produce electricity to drive electric motors probably has energy losses at each step reducing efficiency. Doing this at scale and adding tanker trucks consuming hydrogen to deliver hydrogen to fueling stations exacerbates the problem further. It seems so much simpler to shove the energy from my roof into a battery and drive away.
There is no reason why it can't be cost effective. We aren't going to run out of sunlight, and all the necessary equipment can last decades or more.
I know fuel cells could be powered by alcohol as well as ammonia and natural gas. I mean they are still electric cars but are more like a hybrid with the fuel cells making electricity.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but definitely not on earth.
The simple reason is that energy companies want money, and lots of it. If you could run your car (or anything else for that matter) on water, they wouldn't make as much money because water is cheap.
Hydrogen is just fossil fuel++ and might actually be worse than just burning methane or no change at all since the emissions can be hidden. Producing hydrogen from water is a great deal more expensive that stripping the hydrogen from fossil fuels. This still emits the carbon just not at the tail pipe.
Using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen literally only produces hydrogen and oxygen; the two elements that make water. It's also 80% cheaper than extracting it from fossil fuels or biomass (peat). 🤨
If that's true... Then why is almost all hydrogen still being extracted from fossil fuels?
See my first comment.