• jagermo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, yeah, same arguments as with solar, too expensive, not feasible, yadda yadda. Always the same.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        No, it’s different with hydrogen. If you want green hydrogen, you’ll waste at least 50% of energy. Then there are storage and flammability etc. We have everything we need for using hydrogen today, but somehow it is not used besides minor experiments.

        • jagermo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, but does energy waste matter if the other option is that you turn wind or solar input off? It should not run during high peak, of course, but if there is more energy in the grid than it uses? Turn it into hydrogen.

          And storage, strangely that safety topic never gets raised with nuclear. If we can build safe nuclear, we can build safe hydrogen storage.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            52 minutes ago

            True, if we have huge surplus of renewables, then the cost doesn’t matter that much.

            As per storage. Nuclear is far less problematic to handle in many aspects. Hydrogen is notoriously hard to store and if we go at scale, there would be massive amounts of hydrogen stored everywhere. A tiny spark away of a huge bomb.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            If we can build safe nuclear, we can build safe hydrogen storage.

            They’re facing entirely different problems.