Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GandalfSwagOff t1_iya9e7k wrote

Reply to comment by Methylatedcobalamin in Rolls-Royce successfully tests hydrogen-powered jet engine by je97

>It takes energy to produce hydrogen.

What are you even talking about? It takes energy to produce oil, coal, nuclear, solar, geothermal...What is your point? Are you arguing that it takes MORE energy to produce hydrogen?

6

Methylatedcobalamin t1_iyar6g0 wrote

Dude, think about what I wrote.

Nobody digs hydrogen out of the ground. It is manufactured for use.

Geeze.

1

Prophet_of_Entropy t1_iydhxd9 wrote

its worse than all of those, there is no natural source we have access to like fossil fuels, and you only use it once unlike actual green alternatives.

1

Ericus1 t1_iyatfau wrote

Yes. The round-trip conversion to first produce then use hydrogen is significantly less efficient than directly using the electricity or fossil fuels themselves. Problem is batteries aren't energy dense enough for long-range flight and fossils are dirty. However, hydrogen - unless frozen and compressed - also has terrible energy density and requires highly specialized storage and handling. The better solution IMO is not stopping at hydrogen but going to fully synthetic fossil fuels, but either way will require massive surpluses of green power that don't exist yet. Right now 99% of hydrogen comes from natgas.

0