Donttouchmybiscuits t1_iwpcgmk wrote on November 17, 2022 at 10:05 AM

Reply to comment by filosoful in Overhyping hydrogen as a fuel risks endangering net-zero goals by filosoful

There are however a few instances where there’s really not much of a better option (as far as I understand it, I’m very much not an expert!) such as steel production. We’re going to need it as a part of our arsenal to decarbonise, and while it’s not yet a mature green tech, that’s much like solar was 20 years ago (and to a great extent still isn’t. Recycling panels really isn’t a thing yet). This “either or” mentality about electric and hydrogen is counter productive, they both need to work, have functional infrastructure, and get properly developed and deployed in their most appropriate applications.

Salahuddin315 t1_iwqhilk wrote on November 17, 2022 at 4:21 PM

Except that it is an "either/or" proposition. For an energy system to be feasible, there needs to be a focus on something. Either everyone uses the same technology or nobody does. Europe has thankfully realized this, so they're making a decisive move against fussil fuels in favor of wind and solar. That will be costly, but it is either that or sitting on the fossil needle until we're all screwed.

The planet is almost done for. There is no time or resourses left to spread out.

Donttouchmybiscuits t1_iwuvvb0 wrote on November 18, 2022 at 3:11 PM

Reread my last comment, take the time to understand what I’m saying (emphatically NOT that fossil fuels have a part to play) and then explain to me how wind and solar can take the place of the current fossil fuel used in the furnaces to make steel - not as a fuel, but as an essential part of the process. Hydrogen is pretty much the only answer at this stage. It’s not an either/or, because neither does everything, that’s a ridiculous way to look at it.