• ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or there is a middle ground where you’ll actually get a nuanced take?

        I’m mostly curious about what they’re going to do with the hydrogen. Fuel cells? No hydrogen tech I know off has really proven scalable, reliable and cost effective. And while hydrogen generation was part of the issue it wasn’t the biggest one. I’m also keen to understand if they use fresh water or salt water. The latter then there is potential for a energy neutral or positive even desalination process which would be massive for large swaths of Africa.

          • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t have many buses like that yet and buses are always near population centers where using food waste to make biogas is simply much better in almost every way.

            As for storing excess energy sure if we’re talking solar generation but they use a lot of hydrogen too for this project and in that case pumping water up to the dam is a much easier and probably more efficient than generating hydrogen and either using it to run an engine or store in fuel cells. Fuel cells aren’t all that efficient. Overall a lot of money spent that will not at all pay for itself for that use case.

            I really struggle with why they’ve gone so heavily into generating hydrogen when there is a big lack of viable use cases. Though they’re far from alone in overestimating hydrogen, BMW and Toyota both invested heavily in fuel cell research (and BMW experimented with direct hydrogen use) and neither came out the other end a winner.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              China is pursuing lots of different energy alternatives to fossil fuels. That’s the correct approach in my opinion. We don’t know what particular approach or combination of thereof will be most efficient in the long term, the only way to find out is to try different things and see where you get. Thinking of it purely in terms of profits is a bit myopic.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You keep thinking about the long term but have you considered that these brand new technologies aren’t widely implemented yet? I bet you would think that it’s a good idea to get a job working with computers but in the 1970s there weren’t many about. If you need some help to work all this out, I can tell you a story about this guy called Robert Wayne or something.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is a great example of how real progress happens outside capitalist relations. Developing something genuinely new takes a lot of false starts, and it’s hard to predict when it’s going to become profitable. No capitalist wants to invest money into an idea indefinitely without knowing whether they’re going to get a return on it. This can only be done at state level when technological advancement is pursued outside the profit motive.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I don’t work at state media, and it’s pretty weird to assume that anybody who sees China favorably must work at Chinese state media to be honest.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow, you should really hook me up with that job. Didn’t know people got paid to post on Lemmy, seems like I’m missing out.

              • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I know you’re being sarcastic, but I’m not. My friend posted on Twitter and Reddit, among other sites. Go to the CD website and apply. You can also apply at CGTN. Why do Xi’s PR work for free?

                Not everyone who works there is a true believer but a few are and they get to advance over time.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I love how you’re just doing a low key smear on me here, and you probably think you’re being really clever in the process. It’s kind of adorable really.

      • emerty@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        From your own article 😂

        China is the largest producer and consumer of hydrogen globally, but less than 0.1 percent of the hydrogen it produces comes from renewable energy sources.

        • dgkf@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It can both currently produce only 0.1% of hydrogen using a green process, while also developing a new process that is 99.9% green (for the hydrogren that it produces using the new process). That means the overall production right now is probably still ~0.1% green, but the point of the article seems to be that they hope to transition to this new process, which sounds pretty cool.

          And to also knock out a few other misunderstandings, I’ll also address your comment below: The stats you link are for the number of plants, not the volume of production or consumption (what is claimed). Both stats can be correct if China has large plants that produce more volume than in other countries. But better yet, we don’t even have to root around for the details - the article cites it’s source: the World Economic Forum’s latest whitepaper (June 27, 2023), which in turn cites statistica “Global Hydrogen Consumption By Country”. So there you have it - China out-consumes hydrogen at a rate of about 2-times that of the next largest consumer (the United States). That seems to track pretty well, since both countries are similarly developed, and China is about 4x the size of the US by population. If you wanted to split hairs, you could say that this doesn’t include volume of production. Given the incredible lead in consumption volume, I’m willing to grant them that omission.

          And, not chalking this up to you, but I’ve seen other replies in here about how China is somehow cooking the books. That’s becoming more and more obviously wrong (and more than a bit racist). As one indicator, their universities occupy 8 of the top 20 institutions in the Nature index. For those unaware, this is a premier British-based peer-reviewed journal that releases a ranking of academic institutions based on their publishing to high-impact journals. China’s year-over-year change also means that they’re rising on that list rapidly.

          • emerty@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve made the same mistake, we need to know who makes the most green hydrogen, not who consumes the most H2

            • dgkf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              we need to know who makes the most green hydrogen

              That would be an awesome stat, but it’s not what the article claims. I explained that above.

              But because the topic has caught my interest I did some more digging. The only report I found was linked on Wikipedia, which says that 0.1% of all hydrogen globally is produced using renewable energy. This is the same figure China claims they produce, so by volume I would expect the total volume to be proportional to the production/consumption, which would mean China still would produce approximately 2x the next biggest producer. There could still be other countries punching way above their weight, but given the incredibly low net green production globally, we’d be splitting hairs over what amounts to research plant production. You’re welcome to continue searching for more specific reporting.

              Now, given that we’ve found ourselves on a tangent sparked by a misunderstanding of the article, trying to compare countries on a metric that amounts to 0.1% of production, I would say it would be a better use of both of our time to focus on how we get the other 99.9% of production over to green production. Given this article, China seems to be approaching that problem ambitiously and I’m glad to see it. To address climate change we absolutely need China to invest in green tech, so this article should only be received positively. I’m looking forward to tracking the progress, because it looks like there’s a lot of opportunity to improve globally.

              (sorry for duplicate posts, deleted the 3 others)

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having different standards for yourself and your adversaries. Anybody using whataboutism in place of an actual can be safely dismissed as a troll. Meanwhile, western media is certainly no less biased than CGTN and has been caught lying about China repeatedly.

          • Ronon Dex@mlem.a-smol-cat.fr
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Calling whataboutism is a logical fallacy used to justify having different standards for yourself and your adversaries. Anybody using whataboutism in place of an actual can be safely dismissed as a troll. Meanwhile, western media is certainly no less biased than CGTN and has been caught lying about China repeatedly.

            What are you on? Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. We are talking about the bias of CGTN, and you say “what about western media?” Yeah western media are also biased, but it doesn’t take away the fact that CGTN is a heavily biased media outlet, highly biased towards positive chinese news. I never mentioned any western media or said they were superior, but to avoid talking about this difficult topic, you change the narrative. Did I mention anything about western media? No! Because that’s not the topic.

            Whataboutism is not a logical fallacy. Far from it. Whataboutism has been heavily documented as a propaganda technique by many sociologists and rhetoric scientists:

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The actual propaganda technique is calling whataboutism when confronted with the fact that you’re being a hypocrite. It’s a well known technique used to deflect any criticism of the US regime.

              The fallacy of screeching whataboutism is in the use of a double standard for oneself and ones adversaries. If you screech that CGTN has bias, while similar level of bias exists in western media then what exactly is the point you’re making.

              In fact, simply screeching that CGTN has bias without addressing the content of the article is a form of ad hominem fallacy. You are dismissing the content of the article by attacking the source and claiming that it’s biased. You didn’t actually engage with the topic at all or show what this supposed bias is in relation to the topic. All your comment attempts to do is to shut down discussion because by attacking the source.

      • SIGSEGV@waveform.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who said anything about America? Fuck America. You know, most countries don’t brainwash their citizens with China-level nationalism.

  • u_tamtam@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s see, we have a post about China and then a ton of passive-agressive attacks in the comments, lots of bad faith and unsubstantiated arguments, a laughable two-sided view of the world, and a complete inability to form articulated responses using facts and logic? I think I’ve seen this before … oh, right, of course this is from https://lemmy.ml/u/yogthos with some help from https://lemmy.ml/u/gary_host_laptop