this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
382 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3682 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WITAF.

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  • 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
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

nah, no thanks.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, the home and workplace charging has basically won the day for anyone that doesn't spend most of their life driving.

Slightly sidetracking, I suspect nuclear power is also being pushed by the fossil fuel club as well, after 40 years of going "But Chernobyl!" Simply because it keeps people on gas and coal for about 20-30 years while it all gets built, is enormously expensive, and probably wouldn't be enough to meet demand anyway. And they can also veto any large green projects with "But the nuclear is on the way!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, that's definitely been the strategy of the liberals/nationals in Australia. In a country that historically has never had nuclear, has a bunch of state and federal bans against nuclear and no infrastructure at all to deal with nuclear waste or fuel, they want to build a nuclear plants (oh , and those will be micro plants which don't actually exist anywhere!) instead of continuing to build more renewables. And they're pushing hydrogen as well.

It's actually disgusting that an industry that knows it has no long term future decided that they should just delay the inevitable for just a few more years/decades at the cost of our only planet. I just can't fathom being this fucked in the head to make that calculation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

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.