• Tar_Alcaran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251
    edit-2
    2 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      672 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        292 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          152 months ago

          Yes. I’m not watching a video but it is a serious problem, especially as hydrogen degrades metals and finds its way out anyway. The private sector cannot be trusted to self-regulate nor the government to meaningfully regulate.

          Trying very hard not to succumb to nihilism here …

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Or, in other words, the hydrogen economy is prone to bubbles and explosions here and there.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Well then we won’t be chasing this technology until we can find a way to blame the consumer when it wrecks the environment…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 months ago

        And better yet, if the excess heat can be used. Last Friday i heard a sales rep from a (green) hydrogen company describe their solution as a heating solution that produce hydrogen at an energy storage conference. Seems fair to me😊

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          92 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.

          • dustycups
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 months ago

            I had to scroll way too far to find this - surely the main pro/con if hydrogen.

            Storage was an issue in the past. Is it better now?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 months ago

          Batteries are too heavy for many applications (including, arguably, cars).

          That doesn’t make hydrogen the only solution but it is at least a currently available solution. I posted a link about why the Orkneys (population 23k) are producing hydrogen and switching much of their transport to it: they have so much wind the UK (population 70m) national grid can’t take all the power they generate from it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Hydrogen is useful in a lot of industrial processes. It also maybe win the race for green aviation fuel, but this one is not likely. There is plenty of market for green hydrogen.

          There is also absolutely no reason to hype about any of it. Everybody hyping it on the media is trying to make global warming worse.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Industry uses A LOT of Hydrogen and that would increase dramatically if we stopped using fossil fuels as chemical feedstocks. eg. plastics, pharmaceuticals, dyes etc.

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      Oh great, and I was wondering why some of our policians were pushing hydrogen cars as an alternative to electric cars, despite even the car industry telling them to shut the fuck up.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        Some of car industry. Some are dumb or corrupt. Then a lot people/consumers just see the range and zero ‘direct’ emissions. They don’t look at cost per mile, total energy efficiency, fuel storage and distribution, etc.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      Stop Doing Marketing for Fossil Fuel Companies by Calling it “Natural” Gas Challenge

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        302 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          102 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            292 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              52 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                52 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -4
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Should keep doing what we’ve been doing?

              WTF is people against asking questions?

              • Tar_Alcaran
                link
                fedilink
                English
                122 months ago

                Obviously not. But switching to something new and worse also clearly isn’t the solution.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -8
                  edit-2
                  2 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.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 months ago

        I think the issue is where the energy to heat the reaction vessel comes from. The video shows green sources, but that isn’t the only way to do it. The thing is, this is ultimately an energy storage tech rather than an energy generation tech. You need excess capacity to make it work, and if that means you have to make up for a shortful with conventional generators elsewhere, you aren’t actually saving anything.

        I don’t know if the previous poster is right of course, but the planet is an almost closed system, and there really is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          The ultimate idea afaik is to build huge renewable energy power plants (for example solar energy in deserts) to generate it there, and then transport it through pipelines to wherever you need it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 months ago

            The only logical way to use it is as fuel for heavy transport if it’s produced in the same place that said transport refuels. We can’t keep petrol in pipelines, how do people think we’ll keep hydrogen in them?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 months ago

        Electrolysis, it works but it takes a lot of energy to produce, so burning hydrogen from this would be a fools errand.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Wouldn’t you spend almost same amount of energy to split water compared to heat produced by burning hydrogen?

          • Captain Aggravated
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 months ago

            Probably more because of entropy: Nature’s IRS.

            The only way for electrolysis to be greener than fossil fuels is to use renewable energy sources like wind or solar. It wouldn’t produce enough to gain much market share in any case. So the oil lobby is pushing to derive it from petroleum, because they’re Captain Planet villains.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 months ago

              That’s why I said almost.

              The only way for electrolysis to be greener than fossil fuels is to use renewable energy sources like wind or solar.

              Yep. Basically gas battery.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 months ago

        You can, but it is totally inefficient

        You get about 30% of the energy out that you put in

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 months ago

            Not THAT bad, really, it potentially has a much better mileage-to-weight ratio and sidesteps the issue of lithium recycling and politics

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Great to gravametric energy density, okay volumetric energy density, great availability, terrible charging efficiency, and complicated handling and storing mechanisms. Lots of tradeoffs.

    • Cloudless ☼
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        82 months ago

        Natural gas is a byproduct of ancient organic material being buried and slowly cooked by the earth’s heat. The hydrocarbons of the plant break down, and the gas rises. Under certain conditions, it gets trapped below non-porous rock and builds up.

        Basically, all fossil fuels are Carbon fixed from CO2 by plants, then trapped underground. The solid material we call coal, the liquid oil and the gas natural gas.

  • undetermined
    link
    fedilink
    English
    672 months ago

    Never forget bp started the „personal co2 footprint“ propaganda

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 months ago

      BP told me it was my fault they were emitting carbon, because I was paying them to do it. So I stopped paying them. No car. And I want the government to ban cars among other reforms so nobody else pays them.

  • molave
    link
    fedilink
    English
    342 months ago

    You know, when a proton and electron love each other very much…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    332 months ago

    You can make hydrogen greenly with electricity and electrolysis. But I doubt BP is doing that.

  • observantTrapezium
    link
    fedilink
    English
    272 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 months ago

      You mean the people literally answering the question? I doubt anybody is missing the point.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 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”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      v unsurprising that an anticommunist instance has so many people shilling for oil companies imo

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    fedilink
    English
    122 months ago

    Attack geese.

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

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        oh. good. glad that’s sorted. Lets also activate the uplands geese for naval operations.

        I wonder how much it would cost to train wild pigeons to shit on their shit. and how much that would cost… them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          Birds cannot control when they poop, so they’ll have to patrol their target.

          Which, when you think about it, is even more terrifying

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            I was thinking something like that bird feeder that taught magpies to turn in trash for food.

            they poop on a BP gas station… and get a reward.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 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