the propane industry sees an opportunity to seize a share of the auto sector. Its representatives are working hard to convince public officials to switch to propane-fueled school buses, which they claim are “near-zero emissions” vehicles that are better for kids and the climate.
Except — that’s not true. Propane is still a polluting fuel: While it is refined differently than diesel and natural gas and combusted in uniquely styled engines, it still has a measurable impact on air quality and the climate. If PERC’s deceptive marketing to children, parents, and school administrators is successful, the propane industry threatens to lock in fossil fuels and their polluting emissions for another generation of schoolchildren.
Oh that’s true actually, you could probably call that emissions free in the sense that it really is harmless. I don’t know how I overlooked that tbh.
A lot of people are afraid because hydrogen fuel cells have a tendency to go boom, in terms of catastrophic failure.
There’s the going boom factor and the fact there is no good pressure vessel that can stop the hydrogen from slowly leaking out through the walls.
Also looking that up I just discovered this:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/scientists-warn-against-global-warming-effect-of-hydrogen-leaks/
“Hydrogen is such a potent indirect greenhouse gas that it “could undermine the climate benefits of decarbonisation efforts,” warned Ilisa Ocko, a senior climate scientist at the EDF”
So… that creates a new problem before it gets out the tailpipe.
I don’t know what it is precisely, but I imagine that the lifetime of free hydrogen in the atmosphere is extremely short - like on the order of hours. Probably not much to worry about.
If you don’t know, then pertinent information by leading climate scientists who do know, and are worried about it, is available at the link in my comment.
But since you seem inclined to make broad sweeping dismissals based on little more than your own admitted ignorance when you could’ve just spent like 60 seconds reading, I doubt this quote from the article will help you:
Maybe it will help other people to know why what you said is wrong.
I’m not saying it’s not a problem at all, but in general, we should focus our efforts on reducing emissions with high permanence. We’re already committed to an approximate sea level rise of about one meter over the next century, due in large part by CO2’s long half-life in atmosphere, up to 1000 years. By comparison, Methane’s half-life is about 12 years, and H2’s (which I did look up) is only 2 years. This makes it much less of a problem to deal with - not technically but socially.
The problem is that if we are still belching CO2 into the atmosphere in 2050 and find ourselves facing devastating cat6 hurricanes and global famine, the collective “oh shit” moment might spur action, but it’s unlikely to have any positive effect within a century, which would not bode well for civilization. By comparison, if we replaced our CO2 emissions with H2, that same “oh shit” moment could spur action that would mostly resolve things within a decade.
I view these alarmist articles about short-lived emissions the same way I see anti-nuclear rhetoric - a problem to be solved eventually, but not one that should stop us from taking advantage of its massive benefits.