• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    6·
    3 months ago

    To save you all a google: it’s made from natural gas, at a pretty significant energy loss compared to just burning the gas. It generates about 4 times more co2 than burning diesel.

    • JoBo@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      That is true of all colours of hydrogen other than green (and possibly natural stores of ‘fossil’ hydrogen if they can be extracted without leakage).

      Green hydrogen is better thought of as a battery than a fuel. It’s a good way to store the excess from renewables and may be the only way to solve problems like air travel.

      How hydrogen is transforming these tiny Scottish islands

      That’s not to say it’s perfect. Hydrogen in the atmosphere slows down the decomposition of methane so leaks must be kept well below 5% or the climate benefits are lost. We don’t have a good way to measure leaks. It’s also quite inefficient because a lot of energy is needed to compress it for portable uses.

      And, of course, the biggest problem is that Big Carbon will never stop pushing for dirtier hydrogens to be included in the mix, if green hydrogen paves the way.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Storing hydrogen is also really hard. It needs to be kept extremely cold, and when it isn’t, it tends to pass right through most storage units.

        But as a local battery, it can be very useful. Or for applications in large machinery where batteries aren’t a useful option yet.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I really don’t get why hydrogen remains popular. Hydrogen is significantly less efficient than lithium batteries in storing electricity. There are currently dozens of technologies on the way for improving batteries beyond what’s possible with lithium. So what’s the market potential for green hydrogen again?

        • ButtDrugs@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          It wins by a huge margin on the energy to weight ratio. In scenarios where weight doesn’t matter it’s dumb, but there is potential in places like air travel where it does make sense.

    • Cloudless ☼@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Any evidence to your claim?

      https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php

      Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fossil fuel

      Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        In reverse order:

        1 - it needs to be tranported

        2 - it needs to compressed and cooled, in order to transport it. You need to cool it down around 1700 degrees, because:

        3 - methane pyrolysis is done at around 1500 degrees C, getting something that hot isn’t free.

        4 - methane isn’t the only component in natural gas, so you need to seperate out all the impurities.

        5 - methane is a very strong contributor to global warming, so any natural gas leak from the drill to the factory adds co2equivalent.

        6 - you need to extract natural gas from the ground and transport it, which takes energy.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          Plus the big one is that my taking the hydrogen off of the methane, you’re left with carbon. And that carbon is usually reacted with oxygen to make carbon dioxide during the refining process. So for every two liters of hydrogen you make, you’d make a liter of CO2.

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            Hydrogen isn’t a solution at all. Literally anything is better than using hydrogen from methane, even shovelling coal into steam engines produces less CO2 equivalent.

            So, “don’t do that, it makes things worse”.

            I don’t think I should have to produce an answer to one of the main problems facing Western society to be able to point out that hydrogen is mostly natural gas under an asbestos bedsheet.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              It could make sense for planes, where batteries are just too heavy. But you’d need to weigh it against things like synthetic electrically produced kerosene or biodiesel.

            • Resistentialism@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              0·
              3 months ago

              How about hydrogen from water? Yeah, you need high amounts of electricity to get it, but, as one example, if it’s used in ICE engines, isn’t that significantly cleaner than petrol? And a lot less damaging than making lithium batteries? Once burned, wouldn’t it just react with oxygen to then form water vapour? And then, if it’s making water, that’s a self-sufficient cycle?

              I feel like hydrogen can potentially be a very good solution, but the technology needs to catch up massively. I mean, scientists are getting to on nuclear fusion reactors, and their yield seems a lot better than everything else. Even fission reactors.

              Also, I had this thought the other day, and yes, it’s extremely futuristic, with the right people in charge thought, but mining gas planets for the hydrogen. We’ll more than likely never inhabit those ones or use them for much, so we might as well use them for something, at least. At least before Dyson swarms become a thing.

              • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                Using excess green energy to produce hydrogen is a great option, but those events are pretty rare, and it doesn’t produce very much, compared to pyrolysis of natural gas. Using regular electricity isn’t very smart, since you’re burning hydrocarbons to create hydrogen from water, when you could just get them from the hydrocarbons, so that’s even less efficient.

            • danekrae@lemmy.worldEnglish
              01·
              3 months ago

              Should keep doing what we’ve been doing?

              WTF is people against asking questions?

                • danekrae@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  01·
                  3 months ago

                  Not something new? That seems a bit odd?

                  Try to answer the question people… What is the fucking solution?! You can’t just say “no” to everything, then “I have no suggestions”, but “don’t use new things” and “we shouldn’t use what we do”.

                  I’m not advocating for gas, oil or coal. Is the answer nuclear energy, solar, wind? Instead of just downvoting, try to use your words.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Is this a real question? It’s methane, ethane, propane and butane, mixed with carbon dioxide, and we get it from underground.

  • observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca
    English
    2·
    3 months ago

    Hydrogen was made approximately 400,000 after the big bang in a process called recombination, as the universe cooled down enough for stable neutral atoms to exist.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Maybe we should hit them back with the corporate co2 footprint

      Lets calculate the amount of pollution divided by the amount of employees

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Which, I’m all for us all reducing our footprint too, but knowing that at the same time we should be matching oil and gas executives through the streets for old fashioned tar and feathering at the same time.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    first you’d have to purify water by distilling it and then putting it through an R.O. with a regular water filter as a pre-filter.

    Then once you have that completely pure mix of hydrogen and oxygen you’d need to do electrolysis on the water. But that initial purifying process would have to be done very strictly, because if there’s even the smallest amount of salt or even chlorine in that water, or any other minerals then you could have a mixture of some very dangerous elements in the air around the water

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Attack geese.

    I’d normally suggest that attack geese are against geneva conventions or something… but these guys… they got it coming.

  • lauha@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    During peak wind or solar hours when the electricity usage is often lower otherwise.

    • Phoonzang@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      …and with what devices? Currently, there’s 11 GW of Electrolysis capacity available worldwide, with about 400 GW potentially realised by 2030. That’s 0.07% now of the total production of 16 TW from fossils, increasing to a whopping 2.5% in 2030. And that does not take into account that energy markets will be competing with industry that uses hydrogen as a reduction agent (steel, for example) to replace fossils. It also does not take into account that hydrogen is not as easy to transport than other fossils.

      Hydrogen might be the solution to the energy crisis, but for that we’d have to pick up our game immensely. Which will not happen if everyone thinks hydrogen is already freely and abundantly available.

      !Remind me in 20 years

    • weariedfae@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I’ll bite. I have no idea what the picture is doing or referencing and the joke answers are confusing because, again, I don’t get “the joke”.

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        The attack-🪿 is asking BP how the hydrogen is made because it’s an important question.

        Hydrogen can be made multiple ways.

        1. Split water (H²O) with electricity. You get ⅔ H and ⅓ O. When you burn the H you’ll get water back and ⅔ the energy you put in. In this way it can actually as a poor battery.

        2. Take Methane (CH⁴), the major part of natural gas and split it. You get ⅘ H and ⅕ carbon. So you’re releasing the same carbon that you would release if you just burnt the methane, and you’ll get less energy too. Then take away the energy it took to split the methane and you’re a lot worse off for no saving in carbon.

        3. Other oil and gas based sources, but that follow the theme of methane.

        Only the first one is “green”, and only if the electricy comes from a green source (like solar or wind). Burning gas to make electricity to make hydrogen is stupid.

        Oil and gas companies companies keep pushing hydrogen as green power, but really they want to keep selling oil and gas, and if they need to convert it into hydrogen to do it, that’s fine in their eyes. Doesn’t matter if they are still pumping carbon out of the ground. Doesn’t matter if it’s less efficient. It’s green washing plain and simple.

        Attack 🪿 is asking the question that would make them admit this.

        That thread was full of people complaining that nobody was doing anything with hydrogen and it was stupid to power cars from electricity directly. They are all just O&G company shills

        • weariedfae@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Thank you, I appreciate you took the time to write this out and provide context. I was only aware of the water method but that makes sense.