Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

> And no, there's no mention of batteries there; it's literally a straw man fight, showing their applicability to daily solar power generation cycles while almost completely ignoring their applicability to annual cycles.

Why is it every single time someone in this thread speaks up they are just plain wrong?

Here is a direct link to the part about batteries. He talks about them for about 15 minutes which is something like a quarter of the video. There is even a chapter mark to take you to that part. He also mentions them half a dozen more times throughout the video and warns in the beginning that people like you will chime in with misinformation without watching the video. You proved him right.

https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?t=3054

> applicability to annual cycles.

He talks about that too. I'm not going to bother linking. Actually watch the video or move on.

> Just take a weekly chart of the actual energy output of the panels for the year, and calculate the price relative to the worst week

I don't have to. The United States government did and even considering the cost of storage, it's still cheaper than all the alternatives. Has been for years now. See my earlier comments for links.

Private investors have done the same math, and that's why almost all new electricity generation being built is solar. It's the basically free money. Nobody with a brain can legitimately think that digging goop out of the desert, doing expensive processing to it, shipping it to the other side of the earth, and literally lighting it on fire (repeatedly forever) is more efficient than "slap up a solar cell and a battery then enjoy free energy for 20-40 years".

> hat's because the pedophiles who run the world can charge me 30 cents for electricity instead of the 3 cents it would cost if it were generated by fossil fuels.

Why would Donald Trump do that? He promised the oil execs anything they wanted for a billion dollars. Again, see my other replies for the receipts on that one. And see Trump inviting Epstein to his wedding for the other part.

*EDIT* To save you the clicks: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/... https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Donald_Trump_a...

FT can work with pretty much any source of carbon and hydrogen.

The latter might come from an existing hydrocarbon (as with so-called "blue", "grey", "black", or "brown" hydrogen), or from electrolysis, which is not carbon-neutral. If the latter is powered by a carbon-neutral source (surplus renewables, nuclear), it's "green", and carbon-neutral.

CO2 can also be obtained from numerous sources. One prospect suggested when US peak oil was a concern, in the 1960s, was limestone. More recently, the US Naval Research Lab, as well as Google's Project Foghorn, looked at separating CO2 (in the form of carbonic and carbolic acid) from seawater, which is far less energy intensive than direct removal from the atmosphere. I'd looked up the history of research and industrial applications circa 2014, noted here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170719101136/https://www.reddi...>

https://web.archive.org/web/20230601122020/https://old.reddi...>

The US Navy has an interest largely for its carrier fleet. Whilst the carriers themselves are nuclear powered, their aircraft are not, and fuel provisioning for the aircraft fleets is a major logistical hurdle as well as a strategic vulnerability. No need to target the carriers themselves (heavily defended) if the supply tankers can be sunk, something present US adversaries might consider. One prospect would be to effectively recommission older carriers as fuel-synthesis platforms, capable of producing aviation fuel from seawater in situ and not having to transit between fuel depots and the fleet itself. Given the additional costs of transit and strategic significance, the economics should be somewhat more favourable than for civilian use. This was the subject of a number of papers published in the 2010s by the US Naval Research Laboratory (listed above). Earlier research based on other carbon sources was performed at MIT and Brookhaven National Laboratory in the 1970s and 1960s, respectively.

That presentation doesn't support your claim. The closest it gets is that solar attached to 4 hours of batteries is, ignoring tax credits, about (it's hard to read accurately from the graph) ~8% more expensive than combined-cycle plants.

But 4 hours isn't near a full night. At least 12 hours of battery storage would be necessary for that, possibly more depending on light angles and the relative supply-versus-demand loading at different times of day.

Roughly from the graph on page 8, that 4 hours of battery costs $22/MWh over solar alone. Presuming no further solar panels were needed, extending that 4 hours to 12 to cover the night would cost around $44/MWh more, bringing the total cost of 24h-reliable solar+battery to around $97/MWh -- WITH tax credits. Without tax credits it would be $20-$30 higher, but the graph is too low resolution to be precise. That compares poorly to the $65/MWh for combined-cycle for one single night -- which gets no tax credits accounted for in that graph.

I understand, but that's my point. Currently the case is 25% of the battery. Only the case can be removed. If you move the fragile guts of the battery into the frame (in no way reducing their mass or the frame's), you're effectively turning that 25% case to 0%. So, the most you can save is 25% battery weight.

That doesn't really nudge the power density needle all that much, especially when you consider that you don't throw batteries out the back as their energy is depleted, as you do with fuels.

How is it not an issue? The physics of hydrogen being one proton and one electron means it gets through everything, so something that's air tight and water tight still won't be hydrogen tight. So then you have to be extra careful with every coupling and fitting in order for it to be transferred. By "solved" you mean "if we do everything right, it works", which sounds like it'll be a total failure in the sloppy messy real world where things get kinda shitty but you still need them to work.