3 points

Imagine the explosion upon impact. 🤣

permalink
report
reply
24 points

No… No, it isn’t… But you can imagine what it would be like if it was, right?

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Hydrogen-powered planes almost ready for takeoff

No they aren’t, and they never will be (save for maybe a few small private one-offs). Certainly never for anything commercial.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

While I certainly agree with the first part of your comment, what makes you sure they’ll never be commercially viable? The energy density and application of liquid hydrogen is getting pretty good these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
2 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=4x0fPZrPV3M

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*

Hydrogen sounds like a great idea for decarbonization until you get around to asking, “wait, where do we get the hydrogen from?” and realize that it’s incredibly energy intensive and the most popular process releases a lot of CO2 directly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Hydrogen is an energy storage, like a battery, so of course it requires a lot of energy to produce, that’s the energy that you get back when consuming it (minus inefficiency losses of course).

The advantage of hydrogen over fossil fuels is that it can be produced from renewable energy, while fossil fuels cannot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Last time I checked, CO2 released at that altitude has 3x the effect on radiative forcing, so it’s good that we’re not dumping it up there. I know water is also a greenhouse gas, but I expect the residence time to be substantially lower than for CO2. So it would be a net positive as long as we’re emitting on the ground the same amount of CO2 as emitted up there (we’re probably emitting more, but probably not 3x more and it would be easier to capture at the exhaust than from up there)

PS: more on radiative forcing factors here https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj26701/files/media/file/s3-radiative-forcing-rfi-memo_public.pdf

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

There’s a comment on another post with this article doing the math on this, and it seems like the net emissions (when you account for efficiencies) actually favour steam-reforming + fuel cells.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Leaking hydrogen into the upper atmosphere sounds like a bad idea. It extends the life of methane, making the green house problem worse. I really hope that they reduce the leaking issue to a minimum.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

But the short term profits!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Isn’t it flammable? I’d think leaks would have to be zero for even more basic reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes, it’s very flammable. But it’s also very light. Lighter than Oxygen. And the molecules are small which means most air tight applications don’t work well. Even the tanks they make now still has this issue where hydrogen molecules can escape through the barriers over time.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 508K

    Comments