WITAF.

At best, he doesn’t understand what a Hybrid Car is.

2 points

Hydrogen comes from water. Oil comes from pits deep in the earth. To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars, the process of extracting it does. Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off. For oil - first you need gigantic oil pumps, then you drill a massive damned hole in the ground. At this point hydrogen is easier. The absolutely insanely stupid statement of “they explode”, yeah you moron, so did the Gremlin when they got rear ended, you don’t blame the fuel you blame the engineer. Complete idiots speaking their mind think they know, but in reality hydrogen and oxygen could replace oil and natural gas over night and there would be no change so long as the systems were engineered to handle the change in gases. Mostly it would be flow reducers because hydrogen and oxygen burn hotter and faster than oil and natural gas. But any explosions outside of the engine itself, are engineering failures, not of the fuel type which is one of the dumbest uneducated statements I have ever heard about a fuel type - " it blows up so I don’t like it" you rancid hotdog, what do you think gas does? A gallon of gas can send a 1 ton car 30miles, if you ignite it directly it can send every part of your body 30miles in every direction. IT’S WHAT FUEL DOES!!! WHAT MATTERS IS HOW WE ACQUIRE IT! THE TECH IS BUILT AROUND THE FUEL! Weak damn humans.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I get your point but hydrogen isn’t just sea water, you’ve got an awful lot more energy to put in after the “tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off” stage to separate the hydrogen from oxygen to get the fuel. The difficult bit comes after “get water”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And It generally requires a lot of electricity. So, batteries cut out the middleman.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Gonna clarify a few things…

Hydrogen comes from water.

This is like saying flour comes from cake. You’ve got it backwards.

To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars

Hydrogen opens up the possibility of using a fuel cell, skipping the noisy and inefficient combustion in favor of directly creating electricity and driving an electric motor.

Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off.

Not even close. To get hydrogen from water, you need a shit-ton of electricity and a lot of infrastructure, or you need to free it up with a chemical reaction (Aluminum and hydrochloric acid if I remember correctly). Right now the chemical way is lower cost and more available.

It’s better to use that electricity to move the car around, rather than split water with it and using the resulting hydrogen to move cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The late, great Heisenberg of New Mexico says that hydrogen explodes!

permalink
report
reply
1 point
1 point

Not a Walter White fan?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Raw Story:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-hydrogen-cars/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
31 points

Broken clocks and whatnot. Hydrogen cars are trash and completely unfeasible, not because they explode but because of the terrible efficiency and fueling problems

permalink
report
reply
13 points

And would need a huge new infrastructure for production and distribution. I’m convinced that most of the push for hydrogen is from oil and gas interests wanting to have essentially the same business they do now.

Clearly one of the advantages of EVs is how cheap and easy the infrastructure is compared to any other alternative (and somehow we’re still finding it difficult)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

EV infrastructure would be better if it was actually standardized and regulated to be like gas stations.

Right now, we have legacy charging ports and the new, now standard, Tesla port. So you have to make sure the charger will even fit your car. And, because we live in the future, everything is enshitified. Different charging companies have different apps that you need to download to pay for charging, many chargers are down for maintenance, but even with the app, there’s no guarantee you’ll be warned about the charger being down.

Chargers should be like gas pumps. Put in a card, put the plug in your car, and then wait for it to charge. Every plug should fit every car. The system that sprang up without government intervention is clearly insufficient, and needs to be standardized from the ground up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
  • Most manufacturers pledged to support NACs starting next year, and a couple already have. Also, Tesla is adding the older standard to at least some chargers
  • We might be losing “pay at the pump”, that was required for federal money to build out charging. Now we’re switching to NACs but Tesla hasn’t supported “pay at the pump” and I don’t know if that’s still a requirement. While it is actually more convenient to use the app and Tesla has been consumer friendly so far, I’m uncomfortable with yet another app holding my credit card hostage just so I can adult.
  • we should focus on rest areas on highways, both to build out the trip charger network and as something that can more easily be standardized/influenced
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

To add to that the system’s handling them degrade quite quickly if you think maintenance cost for a normal vehicle is difficult you should see one that has to handle high pressure hydrogen

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

But nobody’s actually taking about subsidising or making them, so there’s no point in ranting about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Hydrogen buses were a thing for a while, but it’s probably cheaper to just go with batteries now.

Feels like something that was surpassed before it ever got popular.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I could see hydrogen being useful for some applications where you don’t need the public infrastructure. Buses that refuel at a central depot could be one of those if there’s issues with battery electric being too heavy and stuff like that.

But for ordinary people that can charge their car at home or work without needing to go to a third place it’s hard to beat that convenience.

Hydrogen also has a history of being pushed by fossil fuel companies, probably because initially most hydrogen would be generated using fossil fuels, so it’s not exactly a fast track to reducing emissions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

and the need to build an entire new distribution network, but one that handles cryogenic fuel.

nah, no thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Actually they can retro fit oil and gas infrastructure to work with hydrogen. Guess who is pushing the “huRdUGyun iS thE fuTuRe” narrative. Yeah the people who own the oil and gas infra.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Actually they can retro fit oil and gas infrastructure to work with hydrogen.

citation requested because this defies literal physics. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt if you suggested propane, but gasoline storage is NOT cryogenic, would not hold large enough volumes of it, and aren’t capable of the pressures involved.

Sure, you can bury a hydrogen tank and support plumbing NEXT to a gasoline storage tank, but you still have to deal with handling cryogenic fuel. Do they really claim that?

So even if that’s an agenda, it’s fucking bent. Green Hydrogen literally ISN’T.

Seems like every solution the petroleum industry pushes is really just another excuse to pump more oil to burn in an already choking atmosphere.

fuuuuuck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Hydrogen fuel cells actually show quite a bit of promise. Mostly for large trucks. Batteries have a scaling issue. A battery powered 18-wheeler needs a much larger battery for a much shorter range.

Adding more load means you need more battery, and that larger battery is just more load that you need to haul.

This is sort of true with everything, but the important note is that a full battery and empty battery weigh the same.

Anyway. Commercial use is where it makes sense. There are actually a few other technologies that make sense in the commercial transportation space. Like ammonia.

Keeping these rather dangerous fuels commercial also allows for more strict safety standards.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

From watching movies from the 60s-2020s, internal COMBUSTION engine’s also have a tendency to explode. I haven’t seen many hydrogen using vehicles exploding since the Hindenburg.

permalink
report
reply
-12 points

Pretty sure the Hindenburg would have gone down the same even if it was filed with helium. Not that the hydrogen helped matters, just the initial problem wasn’t hydrogen’s fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

No… No, that’s not true. Yes, hydrogen and helium are both lighter than air. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end. Hydrogen is unstable, which is why it can explosively combust when mixed with as little as 4% oxygen. Helium is stable, helium won’t burn. So if it had been filled with helium, it might have crashed. But it definitely wouldn’t have been a catastrophic fireball…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The Hindenburg’s skin was also highly flammable. Regardless of what gas it contained it would still have burned as fast.

The leaking hydrogen was just the initial fuel that the static arc ignited.

One the skin was burning it was over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Downvotes for being correct, or at least, not entirely wrong. The exact cause may never be determined, but there are a lot of plausible theories that the fire did not start with hydrogen, but rather the outer coating.

If nothing else, hydrogen can’t burn without oxygen, and there’s very little oxygen inside the envelope. Something else has to leak first.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Thank you. After the deluge I did hit up Wikipedia. The skin was coated in flammable material as I remembered. It did say the skin being a major factor was controversial and that the burn patterns didn’t indicate that to be likely, which is fine. But just the blanket downvotes with no one addressing that is annoying. It stifles any conversation. Were I not a naturally curious person I wouldn’t have looked into it further. I’m sure plenty of the downvotes came from people that probably didn’t even know about the static discharge part and still don’t know because they just downvoted and moved on in their ignorance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It wouldn’t have. However, kind of ironically if it was filled with helium, it would have never gone up. Helium doesn’t have the same amount of lifting power as hydrogen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Theoretically a hydrogen fuel vehicle could explode because it has a pretty large tank of hydrogen on board. Practically it’ll just burn up because it won’t all be released at once. And I’ve never heard of a single case of that actually happening in the field. And you can be damn sure it would be all over the news.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I have a hydrogen car. H2 explodes more readily than it burns. The containment tanks are designed to mitigate this, and they are routinely tested with high-caliber rifles to make sure. There are YouTube videos of the tests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are they routinely tested in high impact crashes too? Slamming into a phone pole might be more energy than a rifle round.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

EV battery packs are also designed to mitigate thermal runaway events, even down to Tesla packs making every cell connection a fuse on case of issues. That doesn’t stop them from catching fire anyway after some accidents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s also a pressure vessel. Rupturing that might be scarier than just fire.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments