zlacker

>>LinuxB+(OP)
Sounds like de-centralized power generation, maximizing remote work, and delivery vehicles powered by electricity and hydrogen is the way forward.

>>youese+24
Yeah, everything except the hydrogen part sounds like a good move.

>>r00fus+Q8
Hydrogen as part is totally reasonable. It gives us hydrocarbon density without us needing to add to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The important thing to remember when discussing it is that it's an energy storage medium, not an energy generation medium. Most of the time I get irritated is when people treat hydrogen as the latter. But if our culture is just too damn wedded to cars for now, and battery tech just isn't there yet, then using hydrogen as a stopgap--provided the hydrogen is made from renewable energy--seems fine to me.

>>gecko+t9
IMO ammonia makes more sense than hydrogen.

It doesn't cause metals to become brittle. Its relatively stable. It doesn't require as low temperature or as high pressure to liquidize. It also stores ~50% more hydrogen per volume, as each ammonia has 3 hydrogen, unlike elemental hydrogen with just 2.

>>trypto+Af
It's also highly toxic and a leak in the wrong place could kill thousands of people.

>>throwa+Fo
And hydrogen substrate isn't similar?

>>r00fus+kp
Hydrogen is not toxic by inhalation, but it's a much worse explosion/fire risk.

Hydrogen is flammable when mixed with air between 4% and 75%, and it takes a minimum energy of 0.016 millijoules to ignite. Ammonia is flammable between 15% and 28% and takes 680 millijoules to ignite. It takes much more energy to ignite ammonia and there's a much narrower range of mixtures with air where it can support combustion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit#Examples