I wish I got to do fun little projects like this at my job. Anyway, this proof of concept shows that hydrogen would be a great alternative to propane and natural gas for cooking. Hat tip to @hypx@mastodon.social.

  • Corigan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sooo just cooking gas with more steps.

    Oil industry loves pushing hydrogen but it’s nearly all made from fossil fuels, so what benefit is there?

    • inefficient_electron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Key words being “current supply”. There are major moves being made to change this. Supply and demand need to grow at the same time if this is to work though.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Blue hydrogen is made by stripping the hydrogen from fossil fuel hydrocarbons (chains of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name), and sequestering the carbon. It produces a fuel that contains enough chemical energy to be burned as fuel, but without the carbon atoms that would turn into greenhouse gases.

      Most hydrogen currently produced though, is gray hydrogen (made from natural gas, but without sequestering the carbon, so that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere).

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The biggest use-case I see for hydrogen is more of an energy storage and transfer mechanism. With the world switching to renewables that generate power inconsistently, some countries are looking at putting the extra power into hydrogen generation via electrolysis, which can then be used at night/low-wind days to keep the power grid stable.

      If we ever get to the point that we’ve got a surplus of renewably generated hydrogen, then it could make sense to start using to power cars, heating, cooking, whatever.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fossil fuels, including coal, are also used to produce electricity. They simply need to be prohibited or at least strictly rationed. Fortunately, hydrogen can be produced without emitting greenhouse gasses because it is still necessary for processes like steel and fertilizer production. It’s also a practical replacement for fossil fuels in transportation and, as Toyota demonstrated, food preparation. As I replied to someone else, sometimes we need portability and/or a flame when it comes to cooking. Electricity just doesn’t cut it in those cases.

    • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      If the process to make hydrogen is clean, burning h is way way way cleaner. That’s the math, not the source. The source can become an economics problem rather than necessarily an environmental one (imagine like 45 footnotes for where we do stuff that makes this not true, I’m just trying to capture the goal)

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Burning hydrogen is 10x cleaner but not pollution free.

        Using a fuel cell creates electricity and heat without pollution, but is a source of heat enough to call something a BBQ?

    • Geobloke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think Japan is pushing it, because they import most of their kJ. They don’t like nuclear for obvious reasons and there’s a few reasons they probably don’t like renewable projects like a lack of land and being a natural disaster prone country. So they are left with importing energy and hopefully value adding to it enough that it’s worth while