4 ms·

You should try reading the study. It is clearly a non-economical idea. Physics has nothing to do with it. And BTW, there has been a zero emissions solution to

by _hypx 4y ago

You should try reading the study. It is clearly a non-economical idea. Physics has nothing to do with it. And BTW, there has been a zero emissions solution to this problem for thousands of years: sail-ships. The fact that we don’t use sail-ships reveals where the problem lie.

epistasis 4y ago
I'm glad you agree that physics has nothing to do with this, but the article spends quite a bit of time evaluating the economics, to the contrary of what you state. That's the entire point of this article. For exmaple: > Under the near-future scenario, the TCP of battery-electric shipping is lower than that of the incumbent ICE ship at ranges around 3,000 km for all ship classes. Science is one of those topics that HN does not do very well. Every time a science subject comes up there are lots of false statements that are very easily contradicts.
- _hypx 4y ago
  That figure comes from speculation about future technology. Right now, it breaks down at around 1,500 km. And that is based on (from what I can tell) very generous estimates regarding the cost of implementing the idea. I think an honest person will admit that we cannot implement this concept right now. You can only say that maybe in the future it will be possible.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    The title is literally "cost declines raise prospect." This is all that I have claimed. This is all that the article has claimed. Agreed, an honest person can say that. But an an hoenst person can not say that it's impossible because of "physics" or for that matter that it's impossible because of economics! I'm not sure why we should take your assessment that they are "very generous estimates" when you started with the false assertion that it's "very clearly non-economical" while pointing to the paper itself as evidence, when the paper refuted you. If you have a complaint, make it, please don't just smear with innuendo, especially since you are reading the paper. The numbers of $100/kWh, which you talk about as mere speculation, are like forecasting future computing performance and thinking the safe move is to assume no improvement in computing costs. People that have assumed that storage would stay at the same cost have been proven wrong year after year after year. Suggesting that somehow, just now, prices will stop decreasing, is wild speculation with no basis in fact and should be dismissed out of hand, unless the claimant can at least bother to come up with some resin for the change.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      Just to be clear, they’re assuming $50/kWh, cheap infrastructure costs for the recharging system, alongside heavy taxes for tradition ships, plus other assumptions, to get to your claims. It’s much more of a stretch than you’re letting on.

by _hypx 4y ago

epistasis 4y ago

I'm glad you agree that physics has nothing to do with this, but the article spends quite a bit of time evaluating the economics, to the contrary of what you state. That's the entire point of this article. For exmaple: > Under the near-future scenario, the TCP of battery-electric shipping is lower than that of the incumbent ICE ship at ranges around 3,000 km for all ship classes. Science is one of those topics that HN does not do very well. Every time a science subject comes up there are lots of false statements that are very easily contradicts.

_hypx 4y ago
That figure comes from speculation about future technology. Right now, it breaks down at around 1,500 km. And that is based on (from what I can tell) very generous estimates regarding the cost of implementing the idea. I think an honest person will admit that we cannot implement this concept right now. You can only say that maybe in the future it will be possible.
- epistasis 4y ago
  The title is literally "cost declines raise prospect." This is all that I have claimed. This is all that the article has claimed. Agreed, an honest person can say that. But an an hoenst person can not say that it's impossible because of "physics" or for that matter that it's impossible because of economics! I'm not sure why we should take your assessment that they are "very generous estimates" when you started with the false assertion that it's "very clearly non-economical" while pointing to the paper itself as evidence, when the paper refuted you. If you have a complaint, make it, please don't just smear with innuendo, especially since you are reading the paper. The numbers of $100/kWh, which you talk about as mere speculation, are like forecasting future computing performance and thinking the safe move is to assume no improvement in computing costs. People that have assumed that storage would stay at the same cost have been proven wrong year after year after year. Suggesting that somehow, just now, prices will stop decreasing, is wild speculation with no basis in fact and should be dismissed out of hand, unless the claimant can at least bother to come up with some resin for the change.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    Just to be clear, they’re assuming $50/kWh, cheap infrastructure costs for the recharging system, alongside heavy taxes for tradition ships, plus other assumptions, to get to your claims. It’s much more of a stretch than you’re letting on.