3 ms·
You are clearly misrepresenting my point. Your authority is not really an authority for a bunch of reasons. One of which is how he is basically a retired petrol
by _hypx 3y ago
You are clearly misrepresenting my point. Your authority is not really an authority for a bunch of reasons. One of which is how he is basically a retired petroleum engineer with very little understanding of the modern state of hydrogen. And yes, this usually implies an old person, something Arthur C. Clarke noticed in one of his writings about elderly scientists. And while your link is from this year, he's been saying the same thing for many years now without change. In fact, the only recent change in tone is his exacerbation, as billions of dollars are being invested anyways and he is upset about that.
You are not picking a critical engineer at random. You picking basically one of the very few credible critics, and they're all basically known to the community. The rest of the engineering community in this sector are certainly not as skeptical. In fact, you completely ignored my link about engineers that are doing real work in this area.
I asked previous about "who's actually saying this?" to the question of engineers that doubt hydrogen. And that question is still relevant, because outside of a tiny minority of scientists and engineers, most of whom are outdated and poorly informed, the rest are just armchair experts and random celebrities.
So the point is that you are simply wrong about your understanding of the issue. The intellectual community fully accepts the possibility of hydrogen as a widespread fuel and a way to solve climate change.
- ehvatum 3y ago> So the point is that you are simply wrong about your understanding of the issue. The intellectual community fully accepts the possibility of hydrogen as a widespread fuel and a way to solve climate change. That is terribly naive and wishful thinking, I’m afraid. For even the smallest-scale industrial applications, hydrogen is almost invariably produced on-site, near or within the manufacturing cell consuming it. Even if Linde charged nothing at all for hydrogen, electrolysis would still win: no 10kpsi (good lord) tank, no inevitable 1% loss per month of high-pressure hydrogen, no extra insurance premium. If you’d dealt with hydrogen in industry, you might appreciate the problems with it. The static electric discharge from fingertip to ground required to ignite hydrogen is barely perceptible, and a ridiculously low atmospheric hydrogen concentration will burn with a very hot flame invisible in daylight. The proposition of the public driving high-pressure hydrogen tanks around is brain-damaged. If you want fuel, you should make methanol from your hydrogen - for the same reasons that, if you want hydrogen, you already produce it from water or natural gas or propane. Hydrogen has been an excellent topic for boastful press releases by car companies, corrupt nations, and fossil fuel producers murderously determined to continue the status quo indefinitely. It’s ideal for that, because there’s no danger of practicality.
- _hypx 3y agoThen you are repeating the same mistake as the other person: Who is your source? All of the stuff you said, which engineer or scientist is actually saying those things? And no, some well-known critic like Paul Martin doesn't count. Those are outmoded and outdated people, and are totally clueless about recent developments in the field. On the other hand, real engineers with real experience in the area are saying the exact opposite: https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-announce-hydrogen-fuel-cell-production-plans/ https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-anno... In reality, you are just repeating the claims of some random armchair expert. These days, those seem to be usually battery car fanatics. Though you still see the occasional pro-biofuel or pro-fossil fuel guy. Either way, it is coming from a totally unqualified person.