Comment on 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.

• wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source

  • redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

        source
• echodot@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source
• scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Consumers adopt beeer 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?

  source

  • ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• frezik@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  We did explore both options over the last 10-20 years. Batteries won for cars. Holding out otherwise is silly.

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

  source

  • ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • frezik@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments