3 ms·

How is that any different than anyone with an obsession with green energy? In reality, it is a necessary component of a sustainable society. Something that you

by _hypx 3y ago

How is that any different than anyone with an obsession with green energy? In reality, it is a necessary component of a sustainable society. Something that you failed to realize. What I know is that your position on hydrogen is pure FUD. I know as a matter of fact that your views on the material science side of things are false. You can send hydrogen via natural gas pipelines. It is fully possible to "switch over." At worst, you will have to line the insides with some kind of coating: https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hydrogen%20Gas_White%20Paper%202023.pdf https://www.ul.com/sites/g/files/qbfpbp251/files/2023-02/Hyd... And yet a pipeline is 10x cheaper than sending electricity. As it turns, basic physics does not change no matter how strongly you describe it as "backwards": https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... You are continuing to deny reality with this post: If you are talking about massive overprovisioning, then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. And you can beat around the bush all you want; it does not change the fact that practically free electricity is happening right now, and it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Again, the only necessary resource is water. The cost floor is far lower than any other idea you can conceive of. And since it is cheaper to store and move hydrogen around that electricity, you will eventually abandon an all electricity-based solution in favor of one that moves energy around with hydrogen. > Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. No one is fixated on hydrogen. It is the anti-hydrogen Luddites that are fixated on stopping it. This inevitably causes a conflict where rational and non-brainwashed people come out and say "No, you really do have to accept this that this is a necessary part of the solution."

_aavaa_ 3y ago
There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. These plant cannot be turned on and off quickly ebnough to not produce this excess electricity, and because the grid must remain balanced (all the production must be immediately met by demand) they have to pay people to take the electricity off their hands because it's the cheapest option for them. Solar and wind you can simply turn off, they do not have to pay peopel to take excess energy off their hands since they can simply choose not to make it. Adding solar and wind will cause negative rates to occur, but it is not the solar and wind that are paying those negative values, it is the gas/coal/nuclear. If you are buying electricity at a negative rate you are helping out a fossil fuel plant (or if your lucky a nuclear one). > it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Nope. Equipment still has a cost, no matter how many times you ignore it. As for who is fixated, and/or brainwashed. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
- _hypx 3y ago
  > Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. Funny how that never happened until recently. Only with the introduction of renewables did such things happen. I agree that there's no point in continuing to talk to you. Your mind is made up. I will leave it up to history to debunk your argument. It is a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric, that something made from free electricity and water cannot ever be cheap. It is obvious that that cannot be true, but for some it will take more than words to convince them otherwise.

by _hypx 3y ago

_aavaa_ 3y ago

There's little point of rehashing things a 6th time, but I'll leave this for people who come back later and ever read this: > then you are going to have negatively priced electricity coming from renewables. This is the most obvious and most irrefutable point here. Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. These plant cannot be turned on and off quickly ebnough to not produce this excess electricity, and because the grid must remain balanced (all the production must be immediately met by demand) they have to pay people to take the electricity off their hands because it's the cheapest option for them. Solar and wind you can simply turn off, they do not have to pay peopel to take excess energy off their hands since they can simply choose not to make it. Adding solar and wind will cause negative rates to occur, but it is not the solar and wind that are paying those negative values, it is the gas/coal/nuclear. If you are buying electricity at a negative rate you are helping out a fossil fuel plant (or if your lucky a nuclear one). > it will lead to practically free hydrogen. Nope. Equipment still has a cost, no matter how many times you ignore it. As for who is fixated, and/or brainwashed. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

_hypx 3y ago
> Solar and wind do not have negative electricity rates. Negative electricity rates are caused by a fixed/hard to ramp down source (nuclear/coal/gas) whose electricity is not needed. Funny how that never happened until recently. Only with the introduction of renewables did such things happen. I agree that there's no point in continuing to talk to you. Your mind is made up. I will leave it up to history to debunk your argument. It is a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric, that something made from free electricity and water cannot ever be cheap. It is obvious that that cannot be true, but for some it will take more than words to convince them otherwise.