I'm a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.
I love hydrogen, but it's a bit of a pain in the ass to transport and store.
And only 30% efficient vs 80% for batteries.
How do you figure energy extraction of both are comparable metrics?
Unless you produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, you'll have to take energy into account as long as we don't have massive overproduction (which we're far, far away from). By using the less efficient process, you'll keep us reliant on fossil fuels for a longer amount of time.
Hydrogen is a storage medium, like a battery. Not an energy source.
I mean it's just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it's propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn't really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone's against that because "The cars would explode you psycho/moron!" and other stupid idiot considerations that I don't care about. But yeah, generally we don't have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it's not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don't think that matters too much.
I'm a big fan of hydrogen for stuff like cars. Install more than enough solar or hydro or whatever, then use the surplus energy to create hydrogen cells that can be stored long-term, so that the hydrogen itself is also created with clean, renewable energy, usable on demand.
I love hydrogen, but it's a bit of a pain in the ass to transport and store.
And only 30% efficient vs 80% for batteries.
How do you figure energy extraction of both are comparable metrics?
Unless you produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, you'll have to take energy into account as long as we don't have massive overproduction (which we're far, far away from). By using the less efficient process, you'll keep us reliant on fossil fuels for a longer amount of time.
Hydrogen is a storage medium, like a battery. Not an energy source.
I mean it's just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it's propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn't really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone's against that because "The cars would explode you psycho/moron!" and other stupid idiot considerations that I don't care about. But yeah, generally we don't have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it's not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don't think that matters too much.