3 ms·

But it should be noted, this is how progress usually happens, right? Little incremental gains in efficiency, added together over time. Although that does make

But it should be noted, this is how progress usually happens, right? Little incremental gains in efficiency, added together over time. Although that does make it hard to judge the significance of any one breakthrough.

ajross 4y ago
Yes. But you don't plan on an entirely new organization of the energy economy on the basis of that. To pick other examples: VLSI scaling happened first, then the software industry explosion. Lithium batteries arrived first, then people started developing mobile devices (and eventually cars). Planning on this great new "hydrogen economy" thing when even the best-case theoretical technologies represent only a mild improvement over what we have isn't responsible punditry, it's just playing "What if George Jetson had a Jetpack?" games.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  Hydrogen doesn't suddenly appear to create a new kind of market, like sudden availability of jetpacks would. Burning remainders of dinosaurs is on the decline. It is frowned upon by many due to CO2, it is not always readily available (see current war), and finally supply is limited. This leads to a decrease of availability, and at continuing demand an increase in price. Unavoidable. Prduction of electrical power from renewables is the cheapest form available already today. Also, it can scale without any practical limit. Power just isn't always available when needed, with surplus production at other times. Any improvement in storage cost (mainly device cost, much less efficiency) decreases the price of power from storage. At some point, the price of power from storage will drop below the price of power from fossil fuels. No magic step will be needed, simply increasing/decreasing prices will meet at some point.
- athrowaway3z 4y ago
  > Yes. But you don't plan on an entirely new organization of the energy economy on the basis of that. These kind of breakthroughs change the economics and composition of the new energy economy. They are not a challenge to the fact that harmful, limited, fossil energy is a very cheap and simple way to run an economy for a century or so.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Just to be clear. The one change everybody is waiting for is excess renewables capacity at peak times, not improvement on storage technologies. Of course, improvement at storage will always be good. It's just not the bottleneck right now. So, yeah, the article is great news. And it won't change the electricity paradigm at all. Both at the same time.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    > The one change everybody is waiting for is excess renewables capacity at peak times That's already the case in the northern parts of Germany. On windy days feeding excessive electricity to all neighbors, and still shutting down some wind turbines. The local energy company is planning 320 MW hydrogen production [0]. [0] https://www.ewe.com/de/media-center/pressemitteilungen/2022/10/ewe-plant-wasserstofferzeugung-im-kraftwerksmsstab-in-ostfriesland-ewe-ag https://www.ewe.com/de/media-center/pressemitteilungen/2022/...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ajross 4y ago

Yes. But you don't plan on an entirely new organization of the energy economy on the basis of that. To pick other examples: VLSI scaling happened first, then the software industry explosion. Lithium batteries arrived first, then people started developing mobile devices (and eventually cars). Planning on this great new "hydrogen economy" thing when even the best-case theoretical technologies represent only a mild improvement over what we have isn't responsible punditry, it's just playing "What if George Jetson had a Jetpack?" games.

someweirdperson 4y ago
Hydrogen doesn't suddenly appear to create a new kind of market, like sudden availability of jetpacks would. Burning remainders of dinosaurs is on the decline. It is frowned upon by many due to CO2, it is not always readily available (see current war), and finally supply is limited. This leads to a decrease of availability, and at continuing demand an increase in price. Unavoidable. Prduction of electrical power from renewables is the cheapest form available already today. Also, it can scale without any practical limit. Power just isn't always available when needed, with surplus production at other times. Any improvement in storage cost (mainly device cost, much less efficiency) decreases the price of power from storage. At some point, the price of power from storage will drop below the price of power from fossil fuels. No magic step will be needed, simply increasing/decreasing prices will meet at some point.
athrowaway3z 4y ago
> Yes. But you don't plan on an entirely new organization of the energy economy on the basis of that. These kind of breakthroughs change the economics and composition of the new energy economy. They are not a challenge to the fact that harmful, limited, fossil energy is a very cheap and simple way to run an economy for a century or so.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Just to be clear. The one change everybody is waiting for is excess renewables capacity at peak times, not improvement on storage technologies. Of course, improvement at storage will always be good. It's just not the bottleneck right now. So, yeah, the article is great news. And it won't change the electricity paradigm at all. Both at the same time.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  > The one change everybody is waiting for is excess renewables capacity at peak times That's already the case in the northern parts of Germany. On windy days feeding excessive electricity to all neighbors, and still shutting down some wind turbines. The local energy company is planning 320 MW hydrogen production [0]. [0] https://www.ewe.com/de/media-center/pressemitteilungen/2022/10/ewe-plant-wasserstofferzeugung-im-kraftwerksmsstab-in-ostfriesland-ewe-ag https://www.ewe.com/de/media-center/pressemitteilungen/2022/...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]