Hydrogen cars can usually safely vent their fuel. Even inside a garage venting hydrogen likely won't burn long or hot enough to set anything on fire; car and home very likely to survive. Contrast that with an EV blowing its top where car will definitely not survive and house likely won't either.
I know, I know; but you have to make that comment when this kind of thing comes up, it's the law.
Also, yes, the difficulty with hydrogen isn't the hydrogen per se, it's the additional requirements around storage. Hydrogen's very hard on storage vessels, not purely in most things being leaky as far as hydrogen's concerned, but also in embrittling whatever storage vessel you use.
Unitednuclear pioneered an interesting system where hydrogen was stored as a metal hydride that would release the gas when the metal was heated. It lost some energy efficiency due to needing power for the heater, but it allowed enough hydrogen to be stored in an ordinary vehicle to equal 15 gallons of gasoline.
It may not be energy efficient, but gray hydrogen is cheap in the United States because you can manufacture it from natural gas and we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In theory we're talking like a thousand years of the equivalent of sub 2 dollar gas (and that is including compression and all the other extra costs). Unfortunately shitty energy policy undermines that.
I know hydrogen is currently much worse than batteries but if the same resources had been put into hydrogen that may not be the case.
You can just stick some electrodes into water - doesn't even have to be clean water - and make it that way.
One of the less farcical plans for clean power is a shit-ton of nuclear plants (fusion or fission, doesn't affect the plan) running electrolysis all day every day to generate the hydrogen needed to replace fossil fuels.
There was a pretty good writeup someone posted here (maybe you) not long ago explaining precisely that, and it was rather compelling. The evidence for sabotage was circumstantial (expected whenever you try to investigate something 100 years after the fact) but the fact that the tragedy was largely invented and accelerated by media propagandists - as they do with everything - is without question. I believe the clip was actually fake/broadcast before the actual casualty numbers were known. Then it was spliced together with later footage in newsreels shown at the theater to kill the airship industry.
Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
Oh, the humanity!
Hydrogen cars can usually safely vent their fuel. Even inside a garage venting hydrogen likely won't burn long or hot enough to set anything on fire; car and home very likely to survive. Contrast that with an EV blowing its top where car will definitely not survive and house likely won't either.
I know, I know; but you have to make that comment when this kind of thing comes up, it's the law.
Also, yes, the difficulty with hydrogen isn't the hydrogen per se, it's the additional requirements around storage. Hydrogen's very hard on storage vessels, not purely in most things being leaky as far as hydrogen's concerned, but also in embrittling whatever storage vessel you use.
I'm surprised the makers of Rise of Skywalker didn't invoke this as a troll response to people who question how Palpatine survived.
Unitednuclear pioneered an interesting system where hydrogen was stored as a metal hydride that would release the gas when the metal was heated. It lost some energy efficiency due to needing power for the heater, but it allowed enough hydrogen to be stored in an ordinary vehicle to equal 15 gallons of gasoline.
There may also be the threat of committing suicide after creating a car that works with hydrogen fuel cells that is reliable and cheaper than gas/oil.
The problem is that sourcing hydrogen isn't energy efficient.
It may not be energy efficient, but gray hydrogen is cheap in the United States because you can manufacture it from natural gas and we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In theory we're talking like a thousand years of the equivalent of sub 2 dollar gas (and that is including compression and all the other extra costs). Unfortunately shitty energy policy undermines that.
I know hydrogen is currently much worse than batteries but if the same resources had been put into hydrogen that may not be the case.
You can just stick some electrodes into water - doesn't even have to be clean water - and make it that way.
One of the less farcical plans for clean power is a shit-ton of nuclear plants (fusion or fission, doesn't affect the plan) running electrolysis all day every day to generate the hydrogen needed to replace fossil fuels.
That clip is oil industry propaganda and the Hindenburg disaster was oil industry sabotage.
There was a pretty good writeup someone posted here (maybe you) not long ago explaining precisely that, and it was rather compelling. The evidence for sabotage was circumstantial (expected whenever you try to investigate something 100 years after the fact) but the fact that the tragedy was largely invented and accelerated by media propagandists - as they do with everything - is without question. I believe the clip was actually fake/broadcast before the actual casualty numbers were known. Then it was spliced together with later footage in newsreels shown at the theater to kill the airship industry.
Can't have the Kaiser's Eyes in the Sky floating over the Channel now can we?
Sounds interesting, could you send me the link to that post? I have never thought of that before.
Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
Cool it with the antisemitism bro.