• UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    We aren’t consuming batteries anywhere near the rate we consume oil and coal. Hydrogen even less than batteries.

    So the amount of ships needed would still be a fraction of what we use now.

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          We absolutely can ‘make oil’. Been doing it since world war II. Synthetic oil is extremely common.

              • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m not disagreeing, but if the energy is surplus, might as well make hydrogen, at least we don’t end up with pollution.

                • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Oh certainly. Power storage is a real problem, especially with up-down renewables. I just didn’t understand why you were saying oil can’t be produced but hydrogen can. Synthesizing oil for power storage is a terrible idea 😄

                  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Same for hydrogen really. The only case where it really matters is flight, which requires energy densities that will only ever be achieved by hydrocarbons or maybe hydrogen.

        • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          no we can’t make hydrogen everywhere, there will be regions with large excess of renewable energy compared to population. these places could export hydrogen. you also don’t need a lot of transport if crude is extracted near place where it’s used, like for example heavy crude from alberta

          • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The problem with the comparison is hydrocarbons are the energy source, hydrogen is no it’s just the energy carrier. It is very inefficient to convert energy to hydrogen then convert it back again. Something like 60% round trip efficiency. Not to mention the cost and loss in loading into containers and shipping it around the world. It’s also not a very dense fuel per volume especially compared to oil. It’s just way easier and cheaper to have cables that run from one place to another. They are already building one from Australia to Singapore and if it’s successful that will probably open the floodgates. There aren’t many places that are more than 2000 miles away from large sources of renewable energy even if your thinking places like Alaska which could do hydro if there ever was dense enough populations anywhere that would consume it.

            • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              this is less of a problem when you don’t use it for energy, but instead as a feedstock like in synthesis of ammonia or steelmaking. you can make ammonia in many places, but it’s not the case for steel

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That implies that we can make electricity everywhere, which is technically true but not really the case because there’s countries with more and with less free space, with more suitable places and less suitable places to put renewables.

          Those ammonia tankers will happen. At that point btw we’re not just talking about electricity, but also chemical feedstock.

      • DogWater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you have water you have hydrogen.

        there’s no reason to transport hydrogen if they build infrastructure to use it as a fuel they will build a process to make it on site