this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025

16 points (60.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5958 readers

544 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

Hydrogen Is An Indirect Greenhouse Gas So Now Hydrogen Proponents Are Denying It (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 6 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/climate@slrpnk.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kbal@fedia.io 41 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1% then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system

Okay then. Good to know, in case we end up in some kind of alternate universe where that has any chance of happening.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

yeah still sounds like a better alternative. Really loaded headline.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago

tesla fanboys are the worst I swear

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 7 points 4 days ago

Just for the unaware, check the author out. He basically gets paid to shit on hydrogen

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

> speaks up against supposed climate change effects
> uses AI slop as an illustration
bruh.wav

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

The article itself provides the data to argue that it's sensationalist.

Hydrogen is therefore an indirect greenhouse gas with a global warming potential GWP of 5.8 over a 100-year time horizon. A future hydrogen economy would therefore have greenhouse consequences and would not be free from climate perturbations.

If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1% then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system. If the leakage rate were 10%, then the climate impact would be 6% of the current system

P.S.

Nobody in their right mind will spend energy to manufacture a gas and then let 10% of it leak out unused.

Leak rates characteristic of fossil gas systems are related to the nature of fossil gas systems.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Nobody in their right mind will spend energy to manufacture a gas and then let 10% of it leak out unused.

it's all a sham anyway. no one in their right mind will build an infrastructure reliant on cryogenically chilled liquid hydrogen, we can barely manage gasoline without fuel and oil getting everywhere, now we need to keep it supercold and pressurize the delivery?

have you seen gas stations? keep in mind, Lockheed had to develop spark proof switches and electrical systems, spark proof tools, all kinds of special equipment when they experimented with hydrogen powered aircraft and scrapped it because the fuel was too low density and too difficult to work with on large scales.

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I mostly agree. I have seen a local hydrogen gas station and they had to invest a lot in safety measures.

I don't see hydrogen as a viable street transport fuel.

However, I think it could be a viable stationary turbine or ship fuel, and a viable ingredient for synthesized methane or synthesized alcohols (provided that a cheap input of CO2 or CO is available).

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I have seen a local hydrogen gas station and they had to invest a lot in safety measures.

Cali, norway, japan or south korea?

However, I think it could be a viable stationary turbine or ship fuel, and a viable ingredient for synthesized methane or synthesized alcohols (provided that a cheap input of CO2 or CO is available).

this is feasible. I've also seen ammonia suggested as an intermediary, but think we need the full court press of possible options for heavy lift operations like this. We're seeing a whipsaw in temps because of our move from sulfate rich heavy fuel oils, but keeping this shit out of the atmosphere needs to maintain a priority. try everything for fuck's sake, there's gotta be something better.

also sea ops have the advantage of distilling hydrogen from seawater instead of *'blue hydrogen' barfff

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Cali, norway, japan or south korea?

Estonia. And it's probably the only one in the capital, with two more in the country. Nothing serious so far, folks are just experimenting a little. There's supposedly a fuel cell powered self-driving minibus somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Estonia

TIL! At least they're trying stuff out.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 days ago

True, but also hydrogen is notoriously difficult to contain, as it diffuses even through metal. This still seems sensationalist at best

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 days ago

HYDROGEN DUSTRY

SEAR NO EVIL

WO NO EVIL

IMPACT

[–] belastend@slrpnk.net 11 points 5 days ago

God i hate this AI font

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 6 points 5 days ago

SEAR NO EVIL

WO NO EVIL

IMPACT