4 ms·

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

by _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.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      > Would spending that on other chemistries (ex sodium ion) produce better results? You are still acting as if investment in one idea somehow precludes investment in another. This entire time, I was stating that we can easily justify vast sums of R&D in many possible ideas. That should include hydrogen, not coming up with a series of excuses to avoid it. Especially considering that hydrogen fuel cells already exist commercially, and are already well past the lab stage (something na-ion have not gone past). Finally, the words "high likelihood" is not a well defined claim. You can easily adjust your numbers to justify or reject any idea depending on what you personally feel. In reality, we are strongly motivated to pursue many ideas simultaneously and we do not have the luxury of ignoring options.
      - stetrain 4y ago
        > You are still acting as if investment in one idea somehow precludes investment in another. This is the political reality. Yes we should be doing more. > I was stating that we can easily justify vast sums of R&D in many possible ideas. Perhaps we should, I’m not sure that “can easily” applies to spending trillions on R&D. > That should include hydrogen, not a series of excuses to avoid it. Especially considering that hydrogen fuel cells already exist commercially, and are already well past the lab stage. Agreed, we should be researching hydrogen for energy storage. And we are. We are also researching other chemistries with different tradeoffs. And a few of those chemistries have become viable as current market products, so they are receiving different kinds of investment to move them from research products to broad implementation. > In reality, we are strongly motivated to pursue many ideas simultaneously and we do not have the luxury of ignoring options. Agreed. I have not seen any evidence yet that hydrogen is being ignored as an energy storage medium.

by _hypx 4y ago

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.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    > Would spending that on other chemistries (ex sodium ion) produce better results? You are still acting as if investment in one idea somehow precludes investment in another. This entire time, I was stating that we can easily justify vast sums of R&D in many possible ideas. That should include hydrogen, not coming up with a series of excuses to avoid it. Especially considering that hydrogen fuel cells already exist commercially, and are already well past the lab stage (something na-ion have not gone past). Finally, the words "high likelihood" is not a well defined claim. You can easily adjust your numbers to justify or reject any idea depending on what you personally feel. In reality, we are strongly motivated to pursue many ideas simultaneously and we do not have the luxury of ignoring options.
    - stetrain 4y ago
      > You are still acting as if investment in one idea somehow precludes investment in another. This is the political reality. Yes we should be doing more. > I was stating that we can easily justify vast sums of R&D in many possible ideas. Perhaps we should, I’m not sure that “can easily” applies to spending trillions on R&D. > That should include hydrogen, not a series of excuses to avoid it. Especially considering that hydrogen fuel cells already exist commercially, and are already well past the lab stage. Agreed, we should be researching hydrogen for energy storage. And we are. We are also researching other chemistries with different tradeoffs. And a few of those chemistries have become viable as current market products, so they are receiving different kinds of investment to move them from research products to broad implementation. > In reality, we are strongly motivated to pursue many ideas simultaneously and we do not have the luxury of ignoring options. Agreed. I have not seen any evidence yet that hydrogen is being ignored as an energy storage medium.