5 ms·
Oh but trasmitting electricity is lossy. I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. I guess
by wollsmoth 4y ago
Oh but trasmitting electricity is lossy. I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think.
I guess you could put the panels on land but you'd have to pipe in water. You could pull from the ground water I guess.
- eropple 4y agoLong distance HV transmission has expected losses of a percent or less per hundred miles. That's not nothing, but compared to adding fully parallel infrastructure for a fuel source that doesn't seem to actually add up when you look at it? Eh.
- adhesive_wombat 4y agoAlso your have to fuel the tank logistic network: those H2 barges won't propel themselves (and a pipeline network of H2 is a nightmare for lots of reasons). Plus, distributed H2 generation is probably less efficient then a few massive refineries, and almost certainly would also consume more resources (worn out equipment, tanks, etc) which would take more energy to replace.
- vel0city 4y ago> I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. How are you going to move it without using any energy? Is that massive barge just going to move to shore and back using zero-point energy? Is the gas going to compress itself using that same zero-point energy source? Are we just going to ignore the much higher maintenance costs of all the moving parts of the ship and compressors and tank repairs versus the lower maintenance costs of fixed and stable solid infrastructure?
- Dylan16807 4y agoIt takes plenty of energy and effort to move tanks. And the actual electrolysis plant could be made within a mile of the shore if you're worried about how you'll supply water.