3 ms·

> How much should we spend on Hydrogen vs EVs? You are aware of what is at stake here? Not even multiple trillions of dollar is a number too high to be unjusti

by _hypx 4y ago

> How much should we spend on Hydrogen vs EVs? You are aware of what is at stake here? Not even multiple trillions of dollar is a number too high to be unjustified. Anything less than $1 trillion should not even qualify as a serious argument against it.

stetrain 4y ago
But we have to weigh probability of success. We can’t spend trillions on dropping ice cubes into the ocean just because the stakes are high and we need to try something. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that there is a path to creating a hydrogen charging network that will be as efficient or effective as a direct EV charging network. More money doesn’t change that. I reject the premise that there is some conspiracy or avoidance to spending money on hydrogen vehicles. Tons of money has been spent and is being spent, with less useful results so far than other battery types. Every vehicle credit, infrastructure plan, or fleet emissions target I have read already calls out hydrogen alongside EV as qualifying. For use cases where the technology fundamentally makes sense, such as Aircraft where infrastructure only needs to exist at major airports and the energy density requirements are much more significant, there is active investment and development with a solid path to useful results.
- _hypx 4y ago
  So where is this battery chemistry with even higher energy density? Or comes from a resource more abundant that water? The answer is none that we know of. These are self-evident reasons why we should spend significant resources pursuing this path. Like I said, the arguments against that are just excuses. And no one is implying that this path comes at the exclusion of everything else either. That just seems like another excuse. We can easily fund everything else while also funding this idea too. Existing policies are pretty much rigged in favor of li-ion batteries. People sometimes cite fuel cell tax credits, but ignore the part where the government is heavily subsidizing battery factories or paying for charging networks. It is not remotely a fair comparison.
  - stetrain 4y ago
    Funding is available for battery projects because the previous funding spent on research has created a market-viable product that can replace a significant part of our vehicle fleet in the next decade. I didn’t say there was a chemistry with higher density than hydrogen. You’re the one saying people have forgotten hydrogen, or it is somehow generally not being supported. I haven’t seen any evidence yet that investment in research into hydrogen is lacking compared to other projects. You say the return on spending more is self-evident, so finding some actual evidence should be easy. If we could spend $1T and have a high likelihood of a high density storage system that can run on clean grid energy, doesn’t waste large amounts of its input energy, can be viably deployed in all areas where vehicles need to be recharged, I would support that.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      > If we could spend $1T and have a high likelihood of a high density storage system that can run on clean grid energy, doesn’t waste large amounts of its input energy, can be viably deployed in all areas where vehicles need to be recharged, I would support that. You seem intent on missing the point. This is the very reason why people should be open to the idea. Hydrogen is the very thing you are describing here. And let's not forget the issue at hand: the problems of climate change. It demands we spent significant resources tackling it, and thus refusing to spend money on potential solutions is the unsupportable idea.
      - stetrain 4y ago
        I know I was talking about hydrogen. That was the point. The point you are missing is the “high likelyhood”. Current round trip hydrogen efficiency seems to be below 50%. Is there an actual concrete path to making that 90%? Is spending $1T today going to achieve that? Would spending that on other chemistries (ex sodium ion) produce better results? I very much understand the issue at hand. And I do not think we are “refusing to spend money” on hydrogen. In fact I see quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that hydrogen is getting more funding than other avenues relative to the demonstrated utility thus far, because of that very alluring promise if it were to become viable for broad applications.

by _hypx 4y ago

stetrain 4y ago

But we have to weigh probability of success. We can’t spend trillions on dropping ice cubes into the ocean just because the stakes are high and we need to try something. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that there is a path to creating a hydrogen charging network that will be as efficient or effective as a direct EV charging network. More money doesn’t change that. I reject the premise that there is some conspiracy or avoidance to spending money on hydrogen vehicles. Tons of money has been spent and is being spent, with less useful results so far than other battery types. Every vehicle credit, infrastructure plan, or fleet emissions target I have read already calls out hydrogen alongside EV as qualifying. For use cases where the technology fundamentally makes sense, such as Aircraft where infrastructure only needs to exist at major airports and the energy density requirements are much more significant, there is active investment and development with a solid path to useful results.

_hypx 4y ago
So where is this battery chemistry with even higher energy density? Or comes from a resource more abundant that water? The answer is none that we know of. These are self-evident reasons why we should spend significant resources pursuing this path. Like I said, the arguments against that are just excuses. And no one is implying that this path comes at the exclusion of everything else either. That just seems like another excuse. We can easily fund everything else while also funding this idea too. Existing policies are pretty much rigged in favor of li-ion batteries. People sometimes cite fuel cell tax credits, but ignore the part where the government is heavily subsidizing battery factories or paying for charging networks. It is not remotely a fair comparison.
- stetrain 4y ago
  Funding is available for battery projects because the previous funding spent on research has created a market-viable product that can replace a significant part of our vehicle fleet in the next decade. I didn’t say there was a chemistry with higher density than hydrogen. You’re the one saying people have forgotten hydrogen, or it is somehow generally not being supported. I haven’t seen any evidence yet that investment in research into hydrogen is lacking compared to other projects. You say the return on spending more is self-evident, so finding some actual evidence should be easy. If we could spend $1T and have a high likelihood of a high density storage system that can run on clean grid energy, doesn’t waste large amounts of its input energy, can be viably deployed in all areas where vehicles need to be recharged, I would support that.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    > If we could spend $1T and have a high likelihood of a high density storage system that can run on clean grid energy, doesn’t waste large amounts of its input energy, can be viably deployed in all areas where vehicles need to be recharged, I would support that. You seem intent on missing the point. This is the very reason why people should be open to the idea. Hydrogen is the very thing you are describing here. And let's not forget the issue at hand: the problems of climate change. It demands we spent significant resources tackling it, and thus refusing to spend money on potential solutions is the unsupportable idea.
    - stetrain 4y ago
      I know I was talking about hydrogen. That was the point. The point you are missing is the “high likelyhood”. Current round trip hydrogen efficiency seems to be below 50%. Is there an actual concrete path to making that 90%? Is spending $1T today going to achieve that? Would spending that on other chemistries (ex sodium ion) produce better results? I very much understand the issue at hand. And I do not think we are “refusing to spend money” on hydrogen. In fact I see quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, that hydrogen is getting more funding than other avenues relative to the demonstrated utility thus far, because of that very alluring promise if it were to become viable for broad applications.