this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
179 points (88.7% liked)

Technology

57435 readers
4387 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I wish I got to do fun little projects like this at my job. Anyway, this proof of concept shows that hydrogen would be a great alternative to propane and natural gas for cooking. Hat tip to @[email protected].

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As Toyota has demonstrated (and speaking from my own experience), it's not that tricky. As for cooking with the stuff, sometimes you just need portability and/or a flame. Electric is a poor choice in those cases.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Portability is hard for hydrogen since you hadn't liquify it without huge pressures and cryogenic temps, so you need big tanks. But cooking stoves does seem like a pretty good use case.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As I said, huge pressures. You'll need super heavy or super exotic tanks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's so exotic about a composite pressure vessel? They're already used in scuba and paintball.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Scuba tanks only go up to 5.5ksi. I think you'd need more like composite over wrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) for 10ksi. Those are relatively new even in spaceflight. SpaceX discovered some new physics when their AMOS-6 mission exploded on the launch pad in 2016 due to oxygen freezing inside the composite layers.

Here's some more info on carbon fiber tanks vs COPVs https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/taibc7/in_our_experience_copv_gainpain_flattens_out/

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the experts who believes in this technology know a bit more than you and me who only read a few wiki pages.

If money is going into this, they also have a believable plan. But big oil certainly want you to think otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Huh? It's big oil and the like who are pushing hydrogen over electricity.

And the problem with hydrogen is largely to do with the laws of physics, so it's unlikely to change soon.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't understand this suspicion. It's easier to burn fossil fuels for electricity than to reform them into hydrogen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well yeah but they know their days of selling that are numbered, at least for lots of markets. If they can get people onto hydrogen they've got more money coming in for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Their days aren't numbered until governments actually say so. In the meantime, non-GHG emitting sources supply less than half of the world's electricity as is, nevermind the hypothetical demand of a predominantly electrified vehicle fleet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Governments and markets are saying so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But they can still sell hydrogen, they can't really sell solar panels. Even encouraging people to keep burning things (like hydrogen) benefits gas since it slows down electric alternatives to gas heating.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

They don't have to sell hydrogen or solar panels. They'll just keep selling fuel to power plants.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That’s an appeal to authority fallacy if I’ve ever seen one.

They’re doing proof of concepts, not mass production. They’re at best answering is it possible, not is it a viable alternative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Just need to waste a ton of energy extracting it then liquifying it then hoping that transport doesn't face any issues (and I mean, considering our track record with petrol which doesn't corrode everything it touches I sure as hell wouldn't worry about it [/s if it wasn't clear]) and then fill up your personal car that could have simply been powered by electricity from the beginning...

Also, ever heard of energy density? Because hydrogen won't win prizes on that front!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wait wait wait, you're telling me that taking electricity, sending it along wires, generating hydrogen with it via hydrolysis, packaging it, compressing it to an extreme degree, physically transporting it, putting it in pumps, pumping it into your car, then doing reverse hydrolysis to charge a battery that then powers an electric motor...

Is less efficient than sending electricity along some wires to your car battery, to then drive an electric motor?

I'm shocked!