Is it less than using fossil fuels for power exclusively? If so then it’s a step in the right direction. Yes I know it sounds like I’m shilling for BP now but we get lost in the doom spiral so fast we forget we are indeed making progress. We just have to keep their feet to the fire or…erm… solar panel?
And this is still a large step in the right direction, because cheap hydrogen creates an incentive to develop hydrogen infrastructure, which increases the demand for hydrogen, and can help lay the groundwork for a future in which hydrogen is produced from renewable sources.
Also, steam reforming lends itself well to CCS, and as such it can be performed without carbon emissions.
“Oh, your solution doesn’t break the laws of physics? Trash it, we’re gonna keep burning shit to make more shit we can burn forever until you have a magic solution or until we kill the planet”
You
The hundred year solution is nuclear. The thousand year solution is colonizing other planets.
Ultra dense energy has its place, namely where weight and volume are critical like in aerospace. Everything else can deal with not putting more carbon and worse things in the air.
Solar panels lasting for decades here and now, that’s close enough for all practical purposes.
Solar has a proven track record, hydrogen technologies never made it past gospel.
Using hydrogen doesn’t emit carbon. But the principal way hydrogen is produced is called steam reformation. It’s a process that turns methane (CH4) and water (2* H2O) into hydrogen (4* H2) and CO2 (i think, I’m not an expert). So all the carbon get emitted as co2. So it’s not better, and there are a bunch of inefficiencies too. (The reformation process itself, and transportation challenges, and leakage). But theoretically, it does centralize the emissions which would make them easier to sequester so there’s that.
In the USA for example about 99% of commercial Hydrogen is a byproduct of Steam Cracking Petroleum refinement. We have the technology to create hydrogen via other methods, but so far we’re not really utilizing them. Still, as a byproduct it’s better to use it than to not.
To my knowledge, with plenty of carbon emisssions
Is it less than using fossil fuels for power exclusively? If so then it’s a step in the right direction. Yes I know it sounds like I’m shilling for BP now but we get lost in the doom spiral so fast we forget we are indeed making progress. We just have to keep their feet to the fire or…erm… solar panel?
They’re not using electrolysis and water to make hydrogen, they’re using power and steam to crack petroleum products into hydrogen.
And this is still a large step in the right direction, because cheap hydrogen creates an incentive to develop hydrogen infrastructure, which increases the demand for hydrogen, and can help lay the groundwork for a future in which hydrogen is produced from renewable sources.
Also, steam reforming lends itself well to CCS, and as such it can be performed without carbon emissions.
In the spirit of the comic - how is the solar panel made?
short answer: once
Wow, solar panels that last forever? That’s quite the technological achievement…
“Oh, your solution doesn’t break the laws of physics? Trash it, we’re gonna keep burning shit to make more shit we can burn forever until you have a magic solution or until we kill the planet”
The hundred year solution is nuclear. The thousand year solution is colonizing other planets.
Ultra dense energy has its place, namely where weight and volume are critical like in aerospace. Everything else can deal with not putting more carbon and worse things in the air.
This is the dumbest fucking argument. I’m sorry but what point do you think you’re making?
Is it imperfect? Yes. Just like ALL OTHER THINGS. Is it a major improvement compared to burning coal? OBVIOUSLY YES.
Solar panels lasting for decades here and now, that’s close enough for all practical purposes. Solar has a proven track record, hydrogen technologies never made it past gospel.
how could hydrogen power possibly produce carbon dioxide
Using hydrogen doesn’t emit carbon. But the principal way hydrogen is produced is called steam reformation. It’s a process that turns methane (CH4) and water (2* H2O) into hydrogen (4* H2) and CO2 (i think, I’m not an expert). So all the carbon get emitted as co2. So it’s not better, and there are a bunch of inefficiencies too. (The reformation process itself, and transportation challenges, and leakage). But theoretically, it does centralize the emissions which would make them easier to sequester so there’s that.
In the USA for example about 99% of commercial Hydrogen is a byproduct of Steam Cracking Petroleum refinement. We have the technology to create hydrogen via other methods, but so far we’re not really utilizing them. Still, as a byproduct it’s better to use it than to not.