4 ms·
> Hence why "efficiencies" is just an excuse. No. There is no reason to believe that the efficiency can be significantly improved. If the efficiency of clean h
by cpgxiii 4y ago
> Hence why "efficiencies" is just an excuse.
No. There is no reason to believe that the efficiency can be significantly improved. If the efficiency of clean hydrogen is bad enough and will always be that bad, it's very possible it is more efficient to power vehicles through easily transported liquid hydrocarbons (which are almost certainly always going to be better in effective volumetric and mass energy density) and spend the power saved to run centralized carbon capture.
> both lithium and hydrogen are on the same column on the periodic table. That they should both behave very similarly to each other in all matters related to battery chemistry
Hydrogen is a notoriously difficult element to work with, that behaves in complex and poorly understood ways, even now. Aerospace applications, arguably those with the most experience in handling hydrogen, routinely struggle with its challenges.
- _hypx 4y agoThat's absurd reasoning. Once you have a battery system, you don't worry about Carnot's theorem and therefore you aren't limited by the efficiency limits of heat engines. It's pretty much an imaginary limit after that, and is similar to all of those people who didn't think Moore's Law could continue past some arbitrary point. Hydrogen and lithium are both on the same column and have one electron in their outer shell. They should have very similar chemical properties. You're just demonstrating the problem I was talking about: That the facts should be driving a strong motivation to solve these problems. Instead, it is just a series of excuses to not try. As if climate change just wasn't something to worry about.
- 988747 4y ago[dead]