391–400 of 520 posts
Teslas may not be anymore the future of EVs, but we can't deny that by building the Power Charger infrastructure, Tesla gave consumers the confidence to buy an EV knowing that it wouldn't be basically a geofenced vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is incredibly energy dense, can be stockpiled for a long time and is extremely safe. Yes its expensive but its one those industries any serious nation needs to subsidise for the energy security it offers and the countless high skill jobs it fosters.
Well, no it's never been extremely safe by any stretch of the imagination. That's just an extreme interpretation of the way it's not as extremely unsafe as it could be. Plus at the rate it's being addressed by a few enthusiasts, it could be getting remarkably safer, maybe even in one person's lifetime someday. Developments may be positive but it makes the most sense to be realistic and avoid the completely unfounded…
This is compared to, for example, a coal plant, which is quite unsafe to be near constantly, all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be moved by pipeline as a compressed gas, not as LH2. The US already has > 1000 miles of H2 pipelines.
All between co-located industrial generators and consumers. H2 pipelines are DOA due to the absurd compression costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it such a terrible idea? In theory you can generate it via electrolysis in places with plentiful renewable energy, and then you've got a very high-density, lightweight fuel. On the surface, it seems ideal for things like cars or planes where vehicle weight matters. Batteries are huge and heavy and nowhere near as energy dense as gasoline.
Besides being expensive to generate unless you already happen to have an electrolysis plant handy, hydrogen is awkward and hazardous to store. Once generated, it costs yet more energy to liquefy, and then it seeps right through many common metals, weakening them in the process. It's just not a good consumer-level energy source, and nobody could figure out why Toyota couldn't see that. Interestingly, liquid hydrogen i…
Why wait though ;)
With common metals hydrogen fits in between the matrix naturally to an extent.
Not like for efficient storage though, just the embrittlement, which gives researchers even more challenging things to be careful about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if the economics of hydrogen motors worked out for planes and shipping, the argument is that it would also economically work out for cars.
Is suspect large trucks may eventually move to hydrogen, but smaller passenger vehicles will stay on batteries. The nature of hydrogen containment favors larger capacity, on account of better volume to surface area ratios.
And if you want to stop for 5 minutes instead of 30 you can use battery swapping solutions like the one Janus uses.
Batteries are feasible for long distance trucking today.
Green Hydrogen trucking uses 3X as much electricity as using it directly. Trucking's biggest expense is fuel, so that will be the killer factor ensuring battery will beat hydrogen for long distance trucking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There seems to be some kind of psychosis around it being the next oil There's a very well financed propaganda campaign.
Same with nuclear. The most expensive form of electricity generation there is. No grid operator wants to touch it, but the nuclear industry has been very busy lobbying congress and both the current and last administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is incredibly energy dense, can be stockpiled for a long time and is extremely safe. Yes its expensive but its one those industries any serious nation needs to subsidise for the energy security it offers and the countless high skill jobs it fosters.
Well, no it's never been extremely safe by any stretch of the imagination. That's just an extreme interpretation of the way it's not as extremely unsafe as it could be. Plus at the rate it's being addressed by a few enthusiasts, it could be getting remarkably safer, maybe even in one person's lifetime someday. Developments may be positive but it makes the most sense to be realistic and avoid the completely unfounded…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All between co-located industrial generators and consumers. H2 pipelines are DOA due to the absurd compression costs.
A BTU of hydrogen requires more energy to compress to a given pressure than a BTU of natural gas, but hydrogen also has lower viscosity, so less recompression is needed. The point you raise does not rule out hydrogen pipelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I like the false equivalence between reducing air pollution and not doing hate crimes against Jewish people. I haven’t asked them all individually, but I’m pretty sure my Jewish friends all enjoy breathing clean air.
From the site guidelines:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its the time shift. Burning a plant releases CO2 and it is still considered to be carbon neutral.
Sorry, that's just verbal sleight of hand. There's no such thing as "green" CO2.
Green CO2 was recently (in geological terms) captured from the atmosphere into biomass, that's why its release is basically net zero.
Fossil CO2 hasn't been part of the atmosphere in eons (back in e.g. the Crustacean, the CO2 ratio was many times higher), so its release is additive.