Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[AusWolf]

having Fiji water in a european supermarket, or 20 different brands offering the (same) german sausage on the N.A. market has nothing to do with (basic) variety/selection.
you dont need to have the same thing in more than a dozen or so variations, anything else is excess, and only contributes to pollution,
and doesnt add anything to your life, and just the emissions from transporting those things around the planet is a huge problem.

As a gourmet and home cook, I can assure you that those different kinds of German sausage are not the same. Eating quality food does improve your quality of life, but not everyone can afford it all the time.

e.g. why do you need eggs/milk/fruits/veggies etc, to be "made" further away than say 50-100km? no reason for that.

That I agree with (except when it's climate reasons).

ignoring for a moment that social change (to improve lives) doesnt give the biggest gains to "being greener".

Are you saying that working only 4 days a week instead of 5 doesn't reduce your commuting emissions by 20%? Or not having to take your kids to school? Or if your partner doesn't have to go to work at all because your salary alone can support your family? Imagine how much fewer cars there would be on the roads, stuck in traffic jams!

Edit: Or if every local workplace was mandated to start shifts at X o'clock and there was a good public transport network to take people to work at those times?

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

@lilhasselhoffer
stuff doesnt have to be 100% efficient (right from the start), the same way everything else wasnt (any type of transportation/heating).
even if its 20% like for solar, its still better than zero % (as in no one using it)...

No, it doesn't.

Let me explain this very slowly to you, one last time. Let me frame it in alternative fuels, as this thread is supposed to be about hydrogen.

Corn grows with sunlight, climate, and water. Said corn is functionally renewable. You can take the sugars in the corn, feed it into a bioreactor, and get bio-diesel. Said bio-diesel is much better than fossil fuel in terms of simplistic environmental impact...because the carbon pulled in by the plant is literally all the carbon that burning it can put off. Thing is, right now, the reason that countries like the US support bio-diesel made out of corn is because it's highly subsidized. It is literally only viable because the government throws tax dollars at it...and it is therefore stupid. They mix fossil fuels with ethanol and produce a less efficient burning fuel that is only "cheap" because our tax dollars are going to the system that makes it.
Now...let me explain what does make sense. Brazil. Sawgrass grows without cultivation, it can make biofuel cheap, and it's abundant. Great! Brazil can make bio-fuel make sense...but that doesn't mean corn based fuel in the US makes sense.


Now, let me suggest where solar fails. Solar panels are made of what? Primarily copper and heavier metals. We get them how? Well, extraction of minerals and burning them to produce purified elemental components. In the West we are required to burn things in an environmentally (relatively) safe manner. We then have to responsibly dispose of intermediary chemicals. We have that requirement because decades ago we did stupid crap, contaminated waterways, and have paid the price. The thing is, China is a younger country (regarding its government). They don't give a crap about the environment. They'll use coal to smelt the copper, power everything with coal, and then dump the strong acids and dangerous chemicals wherever. It's great that you get a cheap solar panel...but the cumulative environmental impact is even worse than burning fossil fuels.


Let me also suggest that your math is...just wrong. 100% surface area - 71% is water - maximum 29% coverage. Let's only assume that 5% of land is covered...because even solar farms are only close to 50% coverage with cells. Take out roads, building, etc... and 5% is generous. 29%*5% = 1.45% potential coverage. Now, each solar cell has an efficiency...which is 33.16% where most will not be that efficient. 0.4% maximum energy then... Well, that's assuming that no energy is lost in the atmosphere...no energy is lost due to clouds...and there is no additional loss due to conversion or anything else. Let's just call that 50%...assuming that all solar panels will be magically and without energy oriented perpendicular to the solar source. 0.2% of energy from the sun can then be assumed viable...assuming we're willing to basically invest all of the money into panels...and very efficient ones based on this calculation instead of the more common ones...


I've now spent way longer than you deserve giving you the benefit of doubt. Let me sum this up. Good and environmentally friendly solar is great...but it's not cheap and not common. It's also not an option for everywhere...and doesn't make sense for transportation. Hydrogen is great...but not ready for prime time in material and is thus not a discussion point. Electric vehicles are great now that high strength low weight structural materials (aluminum alloy), thus allowing for lower energy density to provide the same effective travel distance (mostly).
The problem is that the second you start talking China solar, realistic coverage for panels, the silly math that people want to pretend makes sense when they pull stupid huge numbers that don't have a place in reality, and the rather insane fact that I have to spend half an hour dissecting the same math again and again because some media idiot slapped together a pretty infographic without the brain power to consider what it meant is frustrating.

Let me also clarify that I am not calling you a media idiot. I'm suggesting that showing the total solar energy hitting Earth, based off of average solar radiation density and exposed surface area, is missing the point. I cannot store the thermal energy of an explosion...yet the effective energy density of a gasoline engine is higher than that of a battery (because 100% explosion - 10% pressure and heat - 15% mechanical transmission *1,000,000,000 is more than 1,000,000* 95% electric to mechanic conversion). It's funny that you make this argument...so let me explain this with a single sentence.

"It's funny that so many people can see the forest, or they can see the trees, but can't see how one and the other are the same without appropriate perspective." Green is only green if the sum total of things is green...otherwise if you draw artificial boundaries then green is nothing...and you'll never be anything but a fool for someone wanting to sell you the feeling that you're doing "green" things.

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
ignoring that i was born/raised and lived in germany for +40y,
family owned different gastro stuff, incl a restaurant for +70y in a major city.
so yeah, i do know a little bit what im talking about..


having a shorter workweek will not impact everyone, so starting with things that effect the whole planet,
(when things arent shipped around globally) for no other reason than "options"/profit, will be much better.


@Space Lynx
i never said anything about cases where its a "must" (have stuff coming from far away), never said anything about not having choices,
but why cant +70% of food things we consume, be some locally/national sourced, not shipped around the planet, same way my chicken doesnt have to come from another country, short of you being in places like Alaska.
anything else can be had in specialty/international stores/shops.


@lilhasselhoffer
when did i say anything about bio fuel?
i was talking about hw like solar/e cars etc in all my posts.
nothing will be 100% from the start, even mil or places like nasa with big budgets dont make it happen.
we need to start somewhere, and i rather have panels with 20% efficiency, than none.
but i guess you rather have no options in 50y.

the only "truly green" option for the planet is "US" not being here anymore, short of that, we will always have an impact.

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
ignoring that i was born/raised and lived in germany for +40y,
family owned different gastro stuff, incl a restaurant for +70y in a major city.
so yeah, i do know a little bit what im talking about..

It's still a "you" problem. I like international stuff (especially food) shipped all around the world. If I want to eat English food today, Chinese tomorrow and maybe something Eastern European the next day, I can.

having a shorter workweek will not impact everyone, so starting with things that effect the whole planet,
(when things arent shipped around globally) for no other reason than "options"/profit, will be much better.

How does it not impact everyone if it's mandated by governments? Do you think EVs impact everyone when most people can't afford one?

But yeah, let's do away with global shipping. Good luck building a PC to type your reply on!

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
again, stop assume stuff, as i never said ppl shouldn't have the option for selection,
it just does not need to be in the amount we have today.
not having 20 variations of the (same) strawberry jam wont make your live miserable, if it does, well...

again, stop assuming, as i never said anything about getting rid of global shipping,
its about REDUCING UNNEEDED shipping.

completely ignoring the fact that we need to get stuff shipped from other countries, because ppl buying cheap (instead of value),
and companies outsourcing jobs/manufacturing to other countries because the added shipping cost is still less than what they
would have to pay ppl in other (1st world) countries.
that shows how good the "mandate" system works, when companies are allowed to get around it..

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
again, stop assume stuff, as i never said ppl shouldn't have the option for selection,
it just does not need to be in the amount we have today.
not having 20 variations of the (same) strawberry jam wont make your live miserable, if it does, well...

again, stop assuming, as i never said anything about getting rid of global shipping,
its about REDUCING UNNEEDED shipping.

How do you classify "unneeded" shipping? Which brand of strawberry jam should be sold at your local supermarket, and which shouldn't? How do you explain it to the factory that you exclude? What about the businesses that rely on global shipping, and now would go bankrupt thanks to your ban? How about the local economy around said businesses, like people who'd lose their jobs, and such?

Besides, if you read the ingredient list of said strawberry jams, I'm sure you'll see they're not the same.

completely ignoring the fact that we need to get stuff shipped from other countries, because ppl buying cheap (instead of value),
and companies outsourcing jobs/manufacturing to other countries because the added shipping cost is still less than what they
would have to pay ppl in other (1st world) countries.
that shows how good the "mandate" system works, when companies are allowed to get around it..

So people on a budget should be forced to buy the local, but expensive stuff just because you think banning global shipping is more environmentally friendly than reducing commute times by 20% weekly?

 

[defaultluser]

How do you classify "unneeded" shipping? Which brand of strawberry jam should be sold at your local supermarket, and which shouldn't? How do you explain it to the factory that you exclude? What about the businesses that rely on global shipping, and now would go bankrupt thanks to your ban? How about the local economy around said businesses, like people who'd lose their jobs, and such?

Besides, if you read the ingredient list of said strawberry jams, I'm sure you'll see they're not the same.


So people on a budget should be forced to buy the local, but expensive stuff just because you think banning global shipping is more environmentally friendly than reducing commute times by 20% weekly?

you already have a way-more limited list at your local supermarket shelve space (some are licensing, while others are distribution limits/too saturated a market) - we're simply saying with increased cost of shipping, expect the foreign numbers to fall a bit further!

you will still see the big overseas jam brands (with a premium to pay for natural-gas boats), as well as potentially more local brands (open-up significantly more shelf space in ancient market like jam will encourage more local companies to fill-the-gap with new premium mixes)

(

 

[AusWolf]

you already have a way-more limited list at your local supermarket shelve space (some are licensing, while others are distribution limits/too saturated a market) - we're simply saying with increased cost of shipping, expect the foreign numbers to fall a bit further!

you will still see the big overseas jam brands (with a premium to pay for natural-gas boats), as well as potentially more local brands (open-up significantly more shelf space in ancient market like jam will encourage more local companies to fill-the-gap with new premium mixes)

(

That's a nice theory, but I don't think it works that way. It's usually the local brands that are more premium and expensive, because the workforce they use is higher paid, among other reasons. With this logic, one could think that organic products cost less due to the producer not using artificial fertilisers and pesticides, but it's the other way around because their yields are much lower.

 

[Ivan Bliminse]

BMW are still researching this fuel technology with their iX5 SUV.

ZINIO

www.zinio.com

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

@AusWolf
ignoring that i was born/raised and lived in germany for +40y,
family owned different gastro stuff, incl a restaurant for +70y in a major city.
so yeah, i do know a little bit what im talking about..


having a shorter workweek will not impact everyone, so starting with things that effect the whole planet,
(when things arent shipped around globally) for no other reason than "options"/profit, will be much better.


@Space Lynx
i never said anything about cases where its a "must" (have stuff coming from far away), never said anything about not having choices,
but why cant +70% of food things we consume, be some locally/national sourced, not shipped around the planet, same way my chicken doesnt have to come from another country, short of you being in places like Alaska.
anything else can be had in specialty/international stores/shops.


@lilhasselhoffer
when did i say anything about bio fuel?
i was talking about hw like solar/e cars etc in all my posts.
nothing will be 100% from the start, even mil or places like nasa with big budgets dont make it happen.
we need to start somewhere, and i rather have panels with 20% efficiency, than none.
but i guess you rather have no options in 50y.

the only "truly green" option for the planet is "US" not being here anymore, short of that, we will always have an impact.

You...really don't want to understand so this isn't a discussion.

That said, let me short this. You stated that green energy is better, and we should be doing it period. I stated that green energy is stupid unless it makes financial sense, and used biofuel as a direct example to counter your graph of energy...


Let me do you one step better. I'll jump to the endgame. Solar will never give us enough energy, unless it's collected in space. Mathematically it's impossible to provide enough energy consistently enough everywhere...and that's assuming we can be more efficient than current panels. Wind, hydroelectric, and other forms of green energy also share this issue. If we want real change then we have to consider stuff like bio-diesel in Brazil, hydrothermal in Sweden, and Nuclear in many other places. It's funny...because at the end of the day this was about hydrogen cars and you've managed to make it about alternative energy...which is fundamentally wrong-headed. It assumes things are mutually exclusive. I want hydrogen...if it wasn't a rolling bomb. I appreciate bio-diesel, assuming it isn't make from corn. I would love to have an electric car...if it wasn't more resource intensive and actually was better for the environment. The issue here isn't that I want to fight "green" tech...it's that green tech is often couched in the ignorance of people who want to feel like they're doing good, but not having the fortitude to actually confirm it.

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
funny how many thousands of years mankind survived, WITHOUT having ANYTHING (food etc) from another continent.

ignoring things like spices/salt (as in only growing in specific regions), its only been about 100y, of stuff being transported around the globe in large numbers,
and i dont remember having seen anything from say G.B. or even N.A. in a german store (incl larger cities) until the late 80s/early 90s,
so its clear to me, no one actually needs +60% of thing coming from other countries, that can already be sourced/made "locally".
and again, not talking about getting strawberries in Alaska, or Mangos in G.B. ...

i wont loose a single min of sleep, if someone thinks they cant see the next day without 20 different types of coffee creamer to chose from (as example),
but reducing things like that, especially if not made in the same area/country, will sure as hell reduce shipping thus emissions, one of the major problems we have (besides heat/power).


that is more related to not getting properly paid for the job you do.
look at places like Denmark, how much do they pay working at Mc D flipping burgers, and what benefits that come with having a job?

yet, the same int companies, (operating there without any "problems", and making profit), claim they cant operate under the same conditions (higher pay/taxes) in places like the U.S.

and local wasnt "expensive", as it was common, especially for everyday things like meat/poultry and eggs to name some.
it has become expensive, because ppl started buying things by the lowest price/disregarding quality, instead of looking for value.


@lilhasselhoffer
not just for energy, its about being greener overall, and NOT doing anything (like some suggest), is worse than trying something.

for me its about getting rid of "burning oil", and i dont care what does archive that (or where), as long as its not worse than burning oil,
e.g. making H2 with fossil fuel use, which is less green than burning oil.

never said solar is the holy grail, or that we need it everywhere, but you claiming things have to be "100% efficient" right from the start, is incorrect.
no tech, that has been invented by us (and is more or less used globally/everyday/every person), was "100% (efficient)" right away,
incl mankind itself (evolution).
but in case you know some, feel free to name them, so i can update my knowledge.

germany reached its 2020 goal for emissions in 2013, google how much this was for the "worse" for the country, financially speaking (vs doing nothing, and not having any cost)...

 

[claes]

This is so silly

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
funny how many thousands of years mankind survived, WITHOUT having ANYTHING (food etc) from another continent.

How many thousands of years did mankind survive without cars, airplanes, smartphones, TVs, computers, washing machines, gas central heating, etc. With that logic, all we need is basic food, water, and a cave or hut to sleep in. Should we ban everything else, then?

If your goal is to survive, you must be living a very sad life.

 

[defaultluser]

How many thousands of years did mankind survive without cars, airplanes, smartphones, TVs, computers, washing machines, gas central heating, etc. With that logic, all we need is basic food, water, and a cave or hut to sleep in. Should we ban everything else, then?

If your goal is to survive, you must be living a very sad life.

you'd be surprised how bored most folks get when a particular tech/market sub-segment hits saturation - they readjust priorities almost overnight! when you have new concepts driving this connected world almost-daily, the concentration-focus of individual mindsets changes just-as-often

I'll agree that there is still demand from some perfectionists ,most would be satisfied with way less choice

 

[AusWolf]

you'd be surprised how bored most folks get when a particular tech/market sub-segment hits saturation - they readjust priorities almost overnight! when you have new concepts driving this connected world almost-daily, the concentration-focus of individual mindsets changes just-as-often

I'll agree that there is still demand from some perfectionists ,most would be satisfied with way less choice

And that's fine. I tend to say that a "filter of input" attitude is absolutely crucial in the modern world. One doesn't need to eat everything, buy everything, listen to every news, watch every movie, play every game, etc. I would never even have time to do just half of that! But the fact that you have a choice shouldn't be frowned upon.

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
technically speaking, what all humans need, is water/air/shelter and heat,
anything past that is WANT, not need, no matter how you see it.

sure, im fine with having choices, just not "millions" of them, for every (dad gum) product there is/sake of consuming,
especially if it involves shipping it +1000km/mls.

globally speaking, how many ppl you think, bought a "before work" coffee everyday, 50y ago?
it seemed to work fine for decades to take a thermos from home, without the need to drive somewhere (additional and unneeded emissions),
and have the choice between 20 different lattes.
doesnt mean coffee shops like starbucks are a "must have", or that taking a cup of coffee with you (from home) is "survival"...


to shorten it: there are many things impacting planet/climate besides cars, so i would prefer to look at everything (incl shipping),
especially that we can implement right now, and not just focus on a single thing (H2) in small numbers, and at least a decade away.

i mean in the 60/70s experts thought it would we be driving nuclear powered cars 20y into the future..

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
technically speaking, what all humans need, is water/air/shelter and heat,
anything past that is WANT, not need, no matter how you see it.

What's wrong with wants? Seeing past our basic needs is one of the things that makes us human, no matter how you see it.

sure, im fine with having choices, just not "millions" of them, for every (dad gum) product there is/sake of consuming,
especially if it involves shipping it +1000km/mls.

globally speaking, how many ppl you think, bought a "before work" coffee everyday, 50y ago?
it seemed to work fine for decades to take a thermos from home, without the need to drive somewhere (additional and unneeded emissions),
and have the choice between 20 different lattes.
doesnt mean coffee shops like starbucks are a "must have", or that taking a cup of coffee with you (from home) is "survival"...


to shorten it: there are many things impacting planet/climate besides cars, so i would prefer to look at everything (incl shipping),
especially that we can implement right now, and not just focus on a single thing (H2) in small numbers, and at least a decade away.

i mean in the 60/70s experts thought it would we be driving nuclear powered cars 20y into the future..

You still haven't specified what constitutes an excessive amount of choice. You're just throwing the same vague idea around.

I don't care how many people bought a "before work coffee" 50 years ago. While I personally never go to Starbucks and such because it's an absolute ripoff, I don't have a problem with people who do.

You're right that not only cars pollute - they're just the easiest source of pollution to deal with, and while people blame ICE technology, I blame our "modern" ways of life. If you combine a massive lifestyle change along my suggestions above with industries switching to greener technologies (H2 trucks and buses for example), then we've already tackled the majority of the problem.

 

[claes]

This is so silly. It seems (?) obvious that you both agree that there is a need to curb production and consumption, why are you arguing about the human condition?

 

[AusWolf]

This is so silly. It seems (?) obvious that you both agree that there is a need to curb production and consumption, why are you arguing about the human condition?

My argument isn't for curbing production. My argument is that it's possible to maintain current levels of production, or even increase it while making a positive impact on both workers' lives and the environment. Here's an article on the 4-day work week as an example:

Which countries are embracing a 4-day workweek and how is it going?

Germany has become the latest testing ground for a four-day week with a new pilot project involving 45 companies starting in February. Where else has tried it?

www.euronews.com

If some technologies or services are bad for any reason, it doesn't mean we should cancel them and revert to a previous state of existence. It means we need to make those technologies better, and adopt our lifestyles around it. There's absolutely no reason to cut back on anything just to be able to maintain our outdated last-century work culture.

But let me stop the off-topic now. I've said what I wanted.

 

[claes]

Yeah there are only benefits to the environment if you reduce production, otherwise it’s a method to reduce underemployment and maintain levels of production by expanding the workforce, which doesn’t really do anything for the environment (and perhaps may even increase emissions and energy consumption as night and weekend shifts are expanded).

But let me stop the off-topic now. I've said what I wanted.

It’s been like three pages of you two circling around a bush and repeating yourselves lol

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah there are only benefits to the environment if you reduce production, otherwise it’s a method to reduce underemployment and maintain levels of production by expanding the workforce, which doesn’t really do anything for the environment (and perhaps may even increase emissions and energy consumption as night and weekend shifts are expanded).

Did you read the article? Studies have shown that a 4-day work week has minimal impact on overall productivity. The weekend being nearer and your better work-life balance contribute to minimising idle time. Don't tell me that out of the X hours you work a week, you spend all of it actually doing work. Heck, I'm writing this post at work, that's how productive I am. I could easily do my 40 hours worth of work in 32.

It’s been like three pages of you two circling around a bush and repeating yourselves lol

And you had to state that because...?

 

[claes]

Did you read the article? Studies have shown that a 4-day work week has minimal impact on overall productivity. The weekend being nearer and your better work-life balance contribute to minimising idle time. Don't tell me that out of the X hours you work a week, you spend all of it actually doing work. Heck, I'm writing this post at work, that's how productive I am. I could easily do my 40 hours worth of work in 32.

I did and it said that in some cases it did as you say and others it didn’t. Lemme know if you can respond to my claims, as far as I read it provided no evidence that there was a reduction in emissions or energy consumption

And you had to state that because...?

Because you’ve been off-topic for pages

 

[AusWolf]

I did and it said that in some cases it did as you say and others it didn’t. Lemme know if you can respond to my claims, as far as I read it provided no evidence that there was a reduction in emissions or energy consumption

Commuting 4 days instead of 5 is evidence enough, I'd say. But if you've been following this thread closely, then I'd recommend looking at my other suggestions that could also help reduce emissions - especially the one about co-ordinated shift start and finish times in a geographical area, and organising public transport around those times. Or the one about high enough pay to allow for only one partner to work while the other stays at home to look after the kids, for example.

There's lots of options to better our lives while also reducing emissions without giving up modern conveniences.

Because you’ve been off-topic for pages

Just say your point and stop trolling.

 

[claes]

Commuting 4 days instead of 5 is evidence enough, I'd say.

According to your own article companies are adding shifts, which means more commuters

But if you've been following this thread closely, then I'd recommend looking at my other suggestions that could also help reduce emissions - especially the one about co-ordinated shift start and finish times in a geographical area, and organising public transport around those times.

That’s great, which is why I’ve mentioned public transportation so many times, but doesn’t address the increased workforce issue

Or the one about high enough pay to allow for only one partner to work while the other stays at home to look after the kids, for example.

Now we’re really off-topic

Just say your point and stop trolling.

I meant exactly what I said, and you’ve conceded as much since you’ve started engaging with Fry — you are off-topic, know so, and continue to post off-topic messages. This topic is about alternative transportation methods, not maternity leave and wages

 

[AusWolf]

According to your own article companies are adding shifts, which means more commuters

That's one way to go around it, but not the only one. You don't necessarily have to increase the workforce if you can make production leaner and more efficient.

Besides, increasing the workforce helps unemployment which is just as much an issue as emissions are (but that's really off topic now, so let's leave it at that).

Now we’re really off-topic

Are we? I was talking about decreased emissions when only one car is used for work per family.

I meant exactly what I said, and you’ve conceded as much since you’ve started engaging with Fry — you are off-topic, know so, and continue to post off-topic messages. This topic is about alternative transportation methods, not maternity leave and wages

And like I said, I had no intention to continue until you jumped in to state the obvious.