1183
Anon has a power fantasy
(sh.itjust.works)
No.250341473
>fantasy setting has magic and flying creatures
>still using horses as main transportation
No.250341651
>>250341473 (OP) #
>setting has nuclear energy
>still using coal as main energy source
The main problem is storage since hydrogen is so small. But yeah, it's absolutely a great idea as a battery of sorts, I just don't know what the costs look like.
I think mobile applications make more sense though, so things like trucks and forklifts. Those really benefit from quick refuels, so they could fit into places where fossil fuels dominate today.
Yes that is the problem. Maybe there's some chemistry that could help with this? I don't know I'm not a chemical engineer.
Also airplanes. Jet engines can run on hydrogen with little to no conversion. Problem there is the low density of hydrogen means airplanes need to be redesigned to have much larger tanks, and cryogenics need to be involved. Airbus has some ideas about this, but it's still very much in the concept phase.
But for transport trucks there's an interesting solution being tested in Germany where overhead wires are run over the highways, similar to overhead wires for trains. Trucks connect to that when on the highway. So the trucks would only need battery for making stops then they're off the highway and would recharge again when back on the highway. Seems like a good solution to me, but it's still being tested.
But hydrogen could replace natural gas for heating and for those who refuse to give up their gas stoves. But as you say, it's small so the gas pipes would need to be upgraded to have tighter seals for that to work.
Hydrogen is too inefficient for homes, the better bet imo is a hard sell for induction cooktops. Hydrogen is just too hard to transfer (doesn't compress nicely), inefficient to produce, and there's going to be leakage issues.
It's much better to produce that hydrogen very close to where it'll be used. I'm imagining areas with lots of factories and whatnot producing hydrogen with excess solar and using it on site. The losses would be worth it because it's probably cheaper than batteries (esp considering time to charge batteries, runtime of equipment, etc).