this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
57 points (82.8% liked)

Futurology

1854 readers
50 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It would’ve been a great transition from fossil fuel, had we embraced it before EV tech was consumer ready. Now it’s just a step backward.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Hydrogen was never and will never be a viable and efficient transportation fuel

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Special exception maybe for aviation and rocketry. But even then, methane (if made using green energy and the Sebatier process).

[–] huginn@feddit.it 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can get comparable isp with methalox engines without any of the weight required to keep the hydrogen inside the rocket, right?

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Hydrogen ISP is still king by a significant margin, but ISP isn't the whole story -- hydrogen comes with additional tank weight (due to lower density) and storage issues (pesky molecular size...). So that trade-off for ISP only really makes sense for an upper stage like Centaur. I'm not sure it makes sense for New Shepherd even...

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Pshh you haven’t seen the peaks of blimp technology. On May 6th when they launch the Hindenburg we’ll see who gets the last laugh.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why do you think that? The fuel production side or the fuel consumption side?

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Production, consumption, electrolyzer efficiency limits and capital cost, storage problems, fueling problems, transportation problems, pretty much every aspect of this stuff makes it terrible for use as a vehicle fuel. All green hydrogen efforts should be focused on fertilizer production before anything else.