Comment on [deleted]
Hypx@kbin.social 1 year agoThat's pretty much made-up. Hydrogen is not a big deal to handle. The "it's a GHG" seems to come from some special interest group funded by the fossil fuel industry. It's actually pretty suspect of a claim, and it was never a particularly big effect.
AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Hypx@kbin.social 1 year ago
It's the battery with the lowest amount of raw material needs. Quite literally turning water into an energy storage system.
Most of these studies are written by conservatives, or occasionally by wealthy liberal elites with significant conflicts of interest. No one should believe in them.
Put it this way: Wind and solar are terribly inefficient. Why did they catch on despite those problems? Because cost is very low. The criticisms are usually just old people making up stories to rationalize why their outdated investments are still viable.
AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Hypx@kbin.social 1 year ago
It's worth noting that those same group of guys thought it will have zero role to play just a few years ago. Now it's "limited roles." Who knows want the next report will say. And it's dominated by Tories and other conservatives. I even recognize some of them as critics of hydrogen. It is definitely not a real science paper.
Regardless, hydrogen is going to play a massive role, regardless of what some elderly people think. Factually speaking, there's very few alternatives to hydrogen in the first place. If not hydrogen, it would have to be something like ammonia or e-fuels. None of which are dramatically superior. As a result, by saying that it doesn't work, you're coming close to admitting defeat on climate change. That there are no solutions.