Comment on Know thy enemy

• skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  not now, but if hydrogen were to be used as an energy source/storage, then it’d be used plenty. same with batteries

  source

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    We can make hydrogen, we can’t ‘make oil’.

    source

    • grandkaiser@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      We absolutely can ‘make oil’. Been doing it since world war II. Synthetic oil is extremely common.

      source

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I mean, yeah, but also, that’s not really efficient or effective for burning.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • jonne@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yeah, there’s no reason to be transporting hydrogen long distances. You can make it anywhere that has water and electricity. And if you’ve transitioned to a hydrogen based economy, ships wouldn’t run on oil any more anyway, so there’s no problem there.

      source

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        there absolutely is? What if i can buy hydrogen at 1$ per ton, from the hydrogen production empire, meanwhile in the manufacturing empire hydrogen is produced at 2$ per ton. Economically, it would make sense to buy that hydrogen from the hydrogen production empire.

        It’s not going to be as significant as a trade as something like coal and LNG obviously, but the market IS going to do this in some capacity. And it’s a beneficial thing for everybody.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • MarcomachtKuchen@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yeah but your electricity also needs to be produced by reusable manners, which commonly results in solar power. And since the intensity of solar rays and the amount of sunny hours per day vary on the global scale there are some countries which are capable of producing more hydrogen and cheaper than producing locally. I know that the German government is looking at Marocco to establish a hydrogen production and import.

        source
    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      you really think this is going to stop the globalism aspect from happening? If you can ship something, and get better market rates on it, you’re going to do it. Economics follows the cheapest route, not the most efficient.

      It also just makes sense if you think about it. Places like alaska are going to struggle to generate green energy compared to another place like, texas for example. If you can ship in green hydrogen much cheaper than you can locally produce energy, why wouldn’t you? It’s a reasonable solution to the problem of supply and demand scaling.

      source

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yeah, but Alaska uses dramatically less energy than… like, everywhere. Given that there are no people and the only industries are either oil or resources.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      no we can’t make hydrogen everywhere, there will be regions with large excess of renewable energy compared to population. these places could export hydrogen. you also don’t need a lot of transport if crude is extracted near place where it’s used, like for example heavy crude from alberta

      source

      • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        The problem with the comparison is hydrocarbons are the energy source, hydrogen is no it’s just the energy carrier. It is very inefficient to convert energy to hydrogen then convert it back again. Something like 60% round trip efficiency. Not to mention the cost and loss in loading into containers and shipping it around the world. It’s also not a very dense fuel per volume especially compared to oil. It’s just way easier and cheaper to have cables that run from one place to another. They are already building one from Australia to Singapore and if it’s successful that will probably open the floodgates. There aren’t many places that are more than 2000 miles away from large sources of renewable energy even if your thinking places like Alaska which could do hydro if there ever was dense enough populations anywhere that would consume it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That implies that we can make electricity everywhere, which is technically true but not really the case because there’s countries with more and with less free space, with more suitable places and less suitable places to put renewables.

      Those ammonia tankers will happen. At that point btw we’re not just talking about electricity, but also chemical feedstock.

      source
  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    While true, it’s very unlikely we’ll use hydrogen. It’s very impractical for this use compared to alternatives

    source
  • DogWater@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If you have water you have hydrogen.

    there’s no reason to transport hydrogen if they build infrastructure to use it as a fuel they will build a process to make it on site

    source