Shell Is Immediately Closing All Of Its California Hydrogen Stations | The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can’t make its operations work here.::The oil giant is one of the big players in hydrogen globally, but even it can’t make its operations work here. All seven of its California stations will close immediately.

  • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yes! A clean platform that needs METRIC GIGATONS of carbon positive infrastructure to set up and maintain. That is why I call shenanigans on your zero harmful emissions claim.

    VS

    We already have wires, and batteries are more than good enough for a vast swath of the everyday commuting public.

    • daqqad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hydrogen can be generated any time. Like when nuclear or solar or wind energy is otherwise going to waste. We don’t have and likely won’t have batteries that could replace it for decades.

      Modern batteries are absolute shit and definitely not good enough. I think a good indication that batteries are anywhere near useful will be when you can fly on battery power across the Atlantic.

      • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wait, so … They’re nowhere near useful when we can already use them for daily commuting easily because of some arbitrary goalpost for an unrelated transportation method? How does that even make sense?

        Infrastructure for hydrogen fueling requires production facilities, trucks to transport, and stations set up, to even start moving one vehicle let alone taking over any percentage of commuter traffic of any significance. EV fueling infrastructure requires… Pretty much the same grid we already have, at least as a functional baseline (yes, it needs improvements, but we’re not switching overnight so we have the time we need to make those changes; meanwhile, it’s already functional)

        • daqqad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          It isn’t arbitrary. Just a simplified example of stored energy to weight ratio.

          Infra would show up if people didn’t jump on wrong tech just like electric charging infra is starting to show up.

          • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            There’s that subjective “wrong tech” again

            And again, the wholesale infrastructure needed is what I’m talking about, not the infrastructure availability.

            Again: hydrogen requires, at a minimum, production facilities, trucking to distribution nodes, and fueling stations to get the fuel to the consumer.

            Electricity… Is already being delivered. It just needs a way to plug in.

            This has precisely zero to do with which tech has been “jump[ed] on”.

            • daqqad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m talking about public infra, not charging at home since most people cannot charge at home. Almost the same amount of infra is required since current capacities are nowhere near sufficient. So it has everything to do with people jumping on wrong tech and money being wasted on useless infra.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        We don’t have and likely won’t have batteries that could replace it for decades.

        Wrong. There are tons of options for grid storage batteries that are gearing up for mass production right now.

      • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ok chief, you know best. Better sit out buying a vehicle until the dust settles then I guess.

        Meanwhile, I’ll be charging my ‘not good enough’ EV and trying not to let the fact that it doesn’t measure up to your standards weigh to heavily on me.

        • daqqad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I already have an EV and I still think batteries in them are shit. These are not mutually exclusive.

          • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Hmm is it a leaf perchance? I’m very very happy with the 2020 Ioniq, it’s been solid, reliable, and true to its mileage estimate (I actually get 25km more range at 100% than the advertised specs)

            I’ve heard negative stories about Nissan’s battery tech - which is why I ask. Air cooling is not really helpful to lithium battery cells.

            It’s also possible you just got a bad module, and/or that you just have higher standards and expectations than I do, and these are also not mutually exclusive.

            • daqqad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I have an Outlander and I’m also getting more range than advertised specs. My issue with batteries isn’t defects in tech, but the stage of its development. There are simply no batteries that can even come close to energy storage capacity of hydrogen and unlike with gas (12-30%), hydrogen’s conversion efficiency when using fuel cell is ~60%.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      They make solar stations that will pull hydrogen right from the atmosphere. What carbon are you talking about…and you do realize the same power that would be used to make hydrogen in your example would also be charging batteries.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That is a waste of solar. It’s more efficient to put in batteries then kinetic. If there is no more batteries to put it in, you transmit the power over wires.

        With hydrogen it’s wasteful to create from electricity, then wasteful to turn into kinetic. Its wasteful to store as it’s the smallest atom so escapes easily, it’s low density so needs compressing. Then, to move it, you have to move storage around instead of just transmit over wires.

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Exactly. And just to be clear, because it’s annoying me every time people gloss over this, it’s not just some percentage points lost in the conversion of energy, it’s actually ~75% of the energy that goes to waste, from energy production to the final motion of the wheels. EVs on the other hand only waste ~25% of energy. Even with the wishful thinking that the hydrogen can simply be created in times of energy overproduction, you can’t beat a factor of 3.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Hydrogen is basically free energy though. Using solar to pull it from the atmosphere and then it goes in an ICE motor. Stations like these can supply hydrogen basically anywhere without needing to run wires to it. Providing fuel to ICE powered hydrogen cars.

            • frezik
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              You know that 75% loss of energy the GP mentioned above? That’s for hydrogen fuel cells, not hydrogen ICE. It’s even worse for ICE. Why the hell would we do that rather than putting that solar directly on the grid?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Because you can drop one of these and fuel hydrogen ice cars in the middle of nowhere. You can’t do that with solar and superchargers , they require substations.

                Sounds like all of you people live in the city. Figures how ignorant you all are, the USA is massive people don’t just live in apartment blocks in walking distance of their jobs and stores.

                • frezik
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  So hydrogen just appears somewhere? There’s no other infrastructure involved?

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    The fuck are you talking about, these micro plants, use solar energy to pull it from the atmosphere. This isn’t rocket science…

            • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s not free though. There’s such a thing called ‘opportunity costs’: If I have the choice between a ‘free candy machine’ that spits out one candy every hour, and one that spits out three candies every hour, I know what I’ll choose.

              I also wasn’t aware you ware talking about ICE powered hydrogen cars, where the efficiency is even more comically abysmal.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Cool your candy machine requires 10xs the investment and maybe even more because supercharger stations need substations near them. They can’t run on a 400amp box.

                • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  It seems to me like you’re comparing the costs for building one at the most out there location possible. Putting the questions aside if building anything in such locations would ever be profitable enough for something to be build, or if fast-charging is absolutely necessary: This absolutely isn’t true for the majority/average location, where your solution is the one that prohibitively expensive, not to mention that a good chunk of people wouldn’t even need a charging station at all when they can charge at home, maybe even using the solar panels already on their roof.

                  There may be some limited space for hydrogen ICE cars on the market, but it won’t be the solution that’ll see widespread adoption and support by car manufacturers as long as there’s a much cheaper and comfortable solution for 99.9% of people on earth (number made up).

                  Though if anything, I predict that specialized EVs with swappable batteries (which already exist) that can then be charged slowly with solar will become viable as they’re much cheaper and efficient in those areas.

            • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              This is crackpottery and your repeatedly re-posting this assertion without citing anything isn’t really supporting your position.

              Yes, yes, electrolysis is a thing.

              No, it is not free.

              FFS if you’re going to go for crazy theories why not dream big: here is a potential paint we could research for a few megacredits and buff our science to coat our walls and make hydrogen with. For not free but cheaper than electrolysis.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Right now, it doesn’t seam like we energy to waste. Not until all the energy is clean. Also, it’s always going to be cheaper to use a lot less energy. Until energy is free, which it isn’t even with renewable because of install cost and maintainance cost.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          A…waste of solar…internal ICE hydrogen motors is what these would be used for not fuel cell hydrogen.

          How are you wasting solar? Lol this makes no sense. These can be stood up anywhere, you cannot use these as super chargers for batteries…

          • frezik
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Because you can put that electricity directly into the grid rather than wasting it making hydrogen.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Lol that’s not the goal, the goal is to charge a car… you’re finding a problem to solve that’s not even in the same area…

              • frezik
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                You can use electricity on the grid to charge a car. Not sure if you were aware of that. It’s going to be a whole lot more efficient at it than hydrogen.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No shit. You know you need a substation to power a supercharger grid…you know how many substations just randomly exist in rural areas to power superchargers? And how expensive they are to build and maintain?

                  • frezik
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    And hydrogen won’t get you there. It’s much easier to build a substation than the new infrastructure for hydrogen.

          • jabjoe@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Look at the efficiency of the energy conversions. It is literally wasting solar.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              How is it wasted if it completely free energy? You cannot charge up electric cars quickly via solar…hell solar in general isn’t super efficient anyways lol

              • jabjoe@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                No energy is free because there is always installation and maintance cost. Lot’s of people change their cars off solar. Most of a car’s life is sat parked for hours. So slow is fine. My charger has a solar divert function I’m yet to get the solar for. Also, you change a house battery slow and then a car fast from it. Even here in the UK there are people doing it. Not solar all the time, but a lot in summer. House battery changed when your in the office, car overnight from that.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Hydrogen isn’t in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 20.9% oxygen, 70% nitrogen and some trace other gases, none of which are hydrogen.

        Hydrogen is produced either by splitting water (the H in H²O) or splitting hydrocarbons like Methane which produces CO² (the carbon part bonding with oxygen from the atmosphere, making that stuff we’re trying to cut back on).

        That second method is why the fossil fuels companies are so keen on it. Hydrogen can be a repacked form of natural gas.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes totally forgot how there is no water in our atmosphere…forgot the globe just has water in a few places and humidity doesn’t exist…

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Oh yes, that 1% water vapour (on average) that you want 2/3rds of.

            Gimme a break. I don’t think your machine producing hydrogen “straight out of the atmosphere” is going to be fueling many cars.