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

politics

19118 readers
2504 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wait till he hears about gasoline

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

The material safety sheet for gasoline is a lot scarier than the one for hydrogen

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

'THE ONE TIP FUEL MAKERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT!'

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago (7 children)

From watching movies from the 60s-2020s, internal COMBUSTION engine's also have a tendency to explode. I haven't seen many hydrogen using vehicles exploding since the Hindenburg.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Theoretically a hydrogen fuel vehicle could explode because it has a pretty large tank of hydrogen on board. Practically it'll just burn up because it won't all be released at once. And I've never heard of a single case of that actually happening in the field. And you can be damn sure it would be all over the news.

[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I have a hydrogen car. H2 explodes more readily than it burns. The containment tanks are designed to mitigate this, and they are routinely tested with high-caliber rifles to make sure. There are YouTube videos of the tests.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lil bro remembers being traumatized by the hindenburg explosion when he was growing up. Fucking luddite.

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you know: the Hindenburg was built before plastics were a thing. Most think that the metal shell held the gas but no. It full of animal bladders/intestines that were filled with hydrogen and tied up .

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What hydrogen cars?

The sum total of Toyota and whoever else's efforts still amount to an inconsequential fraction of the vehicles currently in operation, probably not even a notable portion of a percentage point.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

We're dealing with a man who saw pictures of a spray bottle and the sun and decided it meant injecting bleach and putting a lightbulb inside you. Do not presume he thinks rationally.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 month ago (8 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

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (3 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)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 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.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 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.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Hydrogen cars aren't even something likely to catch on at this point anyway I'd think, despite Toyota's attempts to the contrary. Battery-electric cars have improved a lot of late making the advantage in range from using an energy dense chemical fuel less apparent, and hydrogen has to deal with both lower energy efficiency and the fact that hydrogen storage is rather difficult, while the infrastructure getting built has overwhelmingly been EV charging rather than hydrogen filling stations.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hydrogen is completely unsuitable for land based transportation because building the infrastructure and actually making the stuff is pretty hard to do at scale. The electricity grid, on the other hand, already exists. And once you've built the charger, you don't need to send a truck to refill it on a regular basis.

[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

H2 is way better for trucks and planes than batteries, because even with the reinforced tanks it doesn't weigh much, and the refueling does not take long.

I agree that battery electric is probably the way to go for consumer passenger vehicles, though.

/owns a hydrogen car

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

*if we can find a clean way of producing H2 at scale

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Wow, even when he's accidentally correct (hydrogen cars really aren't good), his "reasoning" (if you can call it that) is dumb as Hell.

The real problem with hydrogen cars (aside from H~2~ storage being a pain in the ass) is that they're mostly a greenwashing scam, since the vast majority of H~2~ produced is not "green" hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by renewables, but instead so-called "blue" hydrogen produced from natural gas or coal. If you're gonna do that, you might as well just fucking burn the hydrocarbon in an internal combustion engine directly and save yourself all the damn hassle!

[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The part that pisses me off the most about this is that in states that have a very heavy amount of Renewables like let's say California they are literally curtailing insane amounts of solar because there's literally nowhere for them to put it.

Meanwhile they will simultaneously say they can't do green hydrogen because it takes so much energy and isn't super efficient, they will also say the same thing about desalination it needs too much energy where are they supposed to get it from. Motherfucker you are literally curtailing solar constantly just fucking dump it into one of those two things who cares if it's not the most efficient 20% efficiency is better than 0% efficiency

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

Hmm, dumbass gives rant against green energy, I see rise in dumbass arguments against green solutions, hmm.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 1 month ago

Could he not? It's not just that he's wrong. It's that we'll have to defend the factual errors around a deadend solution.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because we've never had vehicles powered by a highly volatile fuel source before. /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Change in rhetoric since Elon jumped on board

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Toyota didn't like that.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Nuking hurricanes is cool though.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I actually read the safety reports from the NTSB, and they did an awful lot of testing on this Toyota hydrogen fuel cell cars. Even far surpassing the test parameters, the fuel cells remained intact and undamaged. In fact, it was pretty incredible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

hydrogen cars "explode."

Sounds like he's getting reality mixed up with Fallout.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see the man has never witnessed a 1972 Ford Pinto

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Notserious@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

He’s just shitposting from the mouth again

load more comments
view more: next ›