3 ms·

That’s still an easier problem than gigantic amounts of heavy piping or compressed gas transport everywhere. Wires are just cheaper and lower maintenance. They

by api 4y ago

That’s still an easier problem than gigantic amounts of heavy piping or compressed gas transport everywhere. Wires are just cheaper and lower maintenance. They are also more general purpose. Improving the grid will improve its robustness generally.

notacoward 4y ago
> gigantic amounts of heavy piping You are aware that liquids can be transported over land, not just in pipes, right? Like we already do for gasoline, in case you need a very concrete and relevant example. At least GP provided data, which is too rare around here.
- api 4y ago
  Transporting hydrogen by truck is going to be very energy intensive especially given the heavy refrigeration required to liquify hydrogen, meaning you're going to lose a lot more in the transfer than you do with the power grid. That's gonna really wreck the economics. You lose a lot in oil and gas trucking too, which is part of how you end up with stuff like "driving an EV powered 100% by coal emits less carbon per mile than an average gasoline car." It's not just the vehicle efficiency but the whole end-to-end system efficiency. Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > Transporting hydrogen by truck If you look back a bit, you might see that this whole thread started with me saying that I wasn't that keen on hydrogen. This is one of the reasons that I was suggesting ammonia or swappable batteries instead. > Trucking fuel around is very expensive. So is transmission over power lines. Transformers and wires are not free, nor are the rights of way they sit on, nor maintenance of same in remote locations. 5-7% is lost in transmission. Sometimes there are fires. Let's not be too selective about which advantages and disadvantages we focus on for which alternative. That's called cherry picking. I do think we need to get away from fossil fuels, and that transmission over copper lines should be our first choice in most cases, but I don't make up reasons why "just build out the grid" should be the only option we consider.

by api 4y ago

notacoward 4y ago

> gigantic amounts of heavy piping You are aware that liquids can be transported over land, not just in pipes, right? Like we already do for gasoline, in case you need a very concrete and relevant example. At least GP provided data, which is too rare around here.

api 4y ago
Transporting hydrogen by truck is going to be very energy intensive especially given the heavy refrigeration required to liquify hydrogen, meaning you're going to lose a lot more in the transfer than you do with the power grid. That's gonna really wreck the economics. You lose a lot in oil and gas trucking too, which is part of how you end up with stuff like "driving an EV powered 100% by coal emits less carbon per mile than an average gasoline car." It's not just the vehicle efficiency but the whole end-to-end system efficiency. Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > Transporting hydrogen by truck If you look back a bit, you might see that this whole thread started with me saying that I wasn't that keen on hydrogen. This is one of the reasons that I was suggesting ammonia or swappable batteries instead. > Trucking fuel around is very expensive. So is transmission over power lines. Transformers and wires are not free, nor are the rights of way they sit on, nor maintenance of same in remote locations. 5-7% is lost in transmission. Sometimes there are fires. Let's not be too selective about which advantages and disadvantages we focus on for which alternative. That's called cherry picking. I do think we need to get away from fossil fuels, and that transmission over copper lines should be our first choice in most cases, but I don't make up reasons why "just build out the grid" should be the only option we consider.