• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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.

      • greyw0lv@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

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

        • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          But you could technically build huge solar panel areas in deserts and bring that hydrogen to populated areas. Or you could use excess energy from renewables to produce hydrogen, storing at least some of the excess energy for times where renewables produce less.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 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.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

      • Hjalmar@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s the states for actually burned natural gas. Natural gas is basically methane and is therefore not too good for the climate when it leaks (which it does)