• paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If weight isn’t an issue, then it makes sense to use a system that only costs a fraction of a hydrogen-powered setup.

      Trains don’t need to fly. Just pack them full of batteries or - arguably even better - just electrify the line wherever possible.

      That’s just not an option for planes, so hydrogen remains a potentially viable approach.

      • a_spooky_specter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same goes for large container ships. It won’t make sense to use batteries unless there are significant breakthroughs in capacity technology.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of the advantages of hydrogen is that tanks and fuel cells can withstand a large number of “charging cycles” much better than batteries. Additionally, for ships, the amount of energy needed to move is so enormous that I fear we’ll have a hard time creating batteries that are feasible for long-distance shipping.

          For short distance ferrying (including large, car carrying ferries) on the other hand, Norway has already implemented quite a few electric stretches. The major issue there is building the infrastructure to charge the ferries.

          • LouNeko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No they can’t, the membranes of fuel cells degrade extremely quickly, as I a couple of 100 cycles before significant efficiency loss. That’s currently one of the biggest issues with fuel cells and one of the biggest areas of research. Currently, batteries are far more reliable as an energy source.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • PurpleReign@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • EarthBoundMisfit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Desistance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Desistance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The output is water, right? Wouldn’t this put more water vapor in the atmosphere? Because water vapor also increases the greenhouse effect.