5 ms·

The waste majority of ships will be battery powered, even cargo ships, as most cargo transport is local and short route. Same goes for planes. For the rest hydr

The waste majority of ships will be battery powered, even cargo ships, as most cargo transport is local and short route. Same goes for planes. For the rest hydrogen is just a in between product, directly turning it into things like methanol or jet fuel. Steel and other metals can be made with direct Molten Oxide Electrolysis. That is a far better path forward then hydrogen. > You also need to think seriously about the downside of alternative ideas, and not pretend they are magically perfect. Given your absurd defense of hydrogen cars, I will just say, look in the mirror. > Batteries are heavy and expensive, nor are they environmental friendly to produce. If you see hydrogen as a far greener type of energy storage, then you will see there are upsides too. As a complete engineering solution end to end, batteries are far more environmentally friendly, far more efficient and far cheaper. Let alone if you also include infrastructure cost. Anybody who seriously investigates these things will come to the same conclusions.

_hypx 3y ago
This is seriously detached from reality. Cargo ships do not travel short routes, and "short-haul" airflight is far beyond the ranges of battery powered airplanes. You are completely ignoring physics here. MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept. No one is claiming hydrogen cars are perfect. But you are making highly delusional claims about batteries. Many of them are totally impossible. It's pretty obvious that you have never thought about these problems. It's just a serious of assertions from the marketing department of BEV companies designed to shut down critical thinking. The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. A pipe is hollow but a wire is not. So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  You are the one making argument for hydrogen powered cars and that's totally detached from actual reality. > Cargo ships do not travel short routes With short I mean not crossing major oceans. Battery powered ships can do a lot of routes. > MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept. Both of these claims are just plain false. > The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. That is such a terrible and utterly idiotic oversimplification. The reality is, one of these exists and we can make realistic estimate, hydrogen infrastructure simply doesn't exist. > So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind A bunch of small trial projects supported by governments, that make grand claims. You like to talk about reality, in reality of the 100s of GW of wind turbines, basically non use hydrogen as an energy transport. And the waste majority of announced new wind projects do not plan to produce hydrogen in the future. > Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification. And yet in actual reality, you know the one we actually live in, electrification is happening with ever increasing speed and the hydrogen industry barley exists and as far as it does it is almost completely driven by state investments. Its pretty fucking rich to claim 'in reality' when actual reality is suggesting the exact opposite.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Except the most important routes are about crossing oceans. Asia to Europe or Asia to North America are very important routes. You pretty much hand waved major details here. Then show me a working MOE system. I'd love to be enlightened about a working system that went beyond lab experiment. You're the one ignoring actual expertise here. Here more people with expertise making the same claim: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... > It is about 10 times cheaper to transport energy by a hydrogen pipeline than by an electric cable. At some point you are simply rejecting evidence without any counterevidence of your own. The reason why we turn use hydrogen to transport energy right now is because the technology wasn't available until recently. But that is changing: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230411-h2pipelines.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230411-h2pipeline... As the technology becomes available, economics will dictate more hydrogen infrastructure. Your simply misinformed. Hydrogen investment is enormous in its totality: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/hydrogen-projects-investment/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/hydrogen-projects-inve... All you're doing is making wild assertions without evidence.
defrost 3y ago
Globally, annually, there is roughly 850 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) worth of containerized goods handled at ports worldwide. Aside from container shipping there is raw bulk material shipping, eg: Western Australia ships > 800 million tonnes of raw ores to China annually (not local, not light). Looking at just container shipping and the major major routes; there is * 42 million TEU's intra asia (within asia, 'local' but not necc. 'short') * 42 million TEU's 'far east' to Europe + North America. and then a long tail of lesser volume routes, many quite lengthy (asia -> south americas, north | south americas, etc.) Point being by "vast majority" are you talking raw ship numbers (there are many small ships) or cargo volumes | weights? There is a truly vast amount of heavy tonnages being moved long distances and these consume the majority of shipping energy. If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Maybe 'vast majority' is an overestimation but there is a quite a lot of it. People underestimate how many routes can be done with battery powered ships. > If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave. My argument was not limited to that. I also said there are other solution that are not direct usage of hydrogen.
  - defrost 3y ago
    First up, I'm pro energy transition, so I'm essentially 'on your side'. I'd still like to see you make better arguments and work on the real world details (if you can be bothered) which will take time if you apply yourself. eg: batteries Sure .. somewhere there is the future. Right now, though, the largest installer of city scale battery parks in the world Neoen has yet to crack 10 GW installed: As at 31 December 2021, the company's total capacity was 5.4 GW, made up of 50% solar, 38% wind and 12% battery storage. Neoen aims to attain 10 GW in operation and under construction by 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoen That's total globally after successively installing the three successive "biggest battery parks in the world" each larger than the other. For a comparison point, Germany (a single mid sized European country) has a lowest overnight baseload minimum draw of 40 GW (all night long .. an then it ramps up). Realistically batteries must scale to being able to provide 40 GW for an hour (or more!) .. which is provision of power x length of time. And from there to scale out by a 100 and more locations. So, there's some way to go here. As for hydrogen and steel .. before you wave that away it might be worth looking into the concrete plans by the largest raw material providers for the largest steel plants globally. https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2021/06/02/champagne-of-the-energy-transition-australia-could-supply-large-quantities-of-green-hydrogen-as-early-as-2023 https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2021/06/0... https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2023/06/14/fortescue-partners-with-world's-largest-steel-maker-to-reduce-emissions-across-iron-and-steel-making https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2023/06/1... These are the concrete plans of those who are committed to climate action, have access to world class engineers, and already provide 100's of millions of tonnes of raw iron ore per year to steel production already. You don't have to agree with them, but they are taking action with several billion in capital backing them, so it pays to understand what they intend.

_hypx 3y ago

This is seriously detached from reality. Cargo ships do not travel short routes, and "short-haul" airflight is far beyond the ranges of battery powered airplanes. You are completely ignoring physics here. MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept. No one is claiming hydrogen cars are perfect. But you are making highly delusional claims about batteries. Many of them are totally impossible. It's pretty obvious that you have never thought about these problems. It's just a serious of assertions from the marketing department of BEV companies designed to shut down critical thinking. The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. A pipe is hollow but a wire is not. So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.

panick21_ 3y ago
You are the one making argument for hydrogen powered cars and that's totally detached from actual reality. > Cargo ships do not travel short routes With short I mean not crossing major oceans. Battery powered ships can do a lot of routes. > MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept. Both of these claims are just plain false. > The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire. That is such a terrible and utterly idiotic oversimplification. The reality is, one of these exists and we can make realistic estimate, hydrogen infrastructure simply doesn't exist. > So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind A bunch of small trial projects supported by governments, that make grand claims. You like to talk about reality, in reality of the 100s of GW of wind turbines, basically non use hydrogen as an energy transport. And the waste majority of announced new wind projects do not plan to produce hydrogen in the future. > Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification. And yet in actual reality, you know the one we actually live in, electrification is happening with ever increasing speed and the hydrogen industry barley exists and as far as it does it is almost completely driven by state investments. Its pretty fucking rich to claim 'in reality' when actual reality is suggesting the exact opposite.
- _hypx 3y ago
  Except the most important routes are about crossing oceans. Asia to Europe or Asia to North America are very important routes. You pretty much hand waved major details here. Then show me a working MOE system. I'd love to be enlightened about a working system that went beyond lab experiment. You're the one ignoring actual expertise here. Here more people with expertise making the same claim: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... > It is about 10 times cheaper to transport energy by a hydrogen pipeline than by an electric cable. At some point you are simply rejecting evidence without any counterevidence of your own. The reason why we turn use hydrogen to transport energy right now is because the technology wasn't available until recently. But that is changing: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230411-h2pipelines.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230411-h2pipeline... As the technology becomes available, economics will dictate more hydrogen infrastructure. Your simply misinformed. Hydrogen investment is enormous in its totality: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/hydrogen-projects-investment/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/hydrogen-projects-inve... All you're doing is making wild assertions without evidence.

defrost 3y ago

Globally, annually, there is roughly 850 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) worth of containerized goods handled at ports worldwide. Aside from container shipping there is raw bulk material shipping, eg: Western Australia ships > 800 million tonnes of raw ores to China annually (not local, not light). Looking at just container shipping and the major major routes; there is * 42 million TEU's intra asia (within asia, 'local' but not necc. 'short') * 42 million TEU's 'far east' to Europe + North America. and then a long tail of lesser volume routes, many quite lengthy (asia -> south americas, north | south americas, etc.) Point being by "vast majority" are you talking raw ship numbers (there are many small ships) or cargo volumes | weights? There is a truly vast amount of heavy tonnages being moved long distances and these consume the majority of shipping energy. If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave.

panick21_ 3y ago
Maybe 'vast majority' is an overestimation but there is a quite a lot of it. People underestimate how many routes can be done with battery powered ships. > If this is your line of argument then it deserves some refining to move past a handwave. My argument was not limited to that. I also said there are other solution that are not direct usage of hydrogen.
- defrost 3y ago
  First up, I'm pro energy transition, so I'm essentially 'on your side'. I'd still like to see you make better arguments and work on the real world details (if you can be bothered) which will take time if you apply yourself. eg: batteries Sure .. somewhere there is the future. Right now, though, the largest installer of city scale battery parks in the world Neoen has yet to crack 10 GW installed: As at 31 December 2021, the company's total capacity was 5.4 GW, made up of 50% solar, 38% wind and 12% battery storage. Neoen aims to attain 10 GW in operation and under construction by 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoen That's total globally after successively installing the three successive "biggest battery parks in the world" each larger than the other. For a comparison point, Germany (a single mid sized European country) has a lowest overnight baseload minimum draw of 40 GW (all night long .. an then it ramps up). Realistically batteries must scale to being able to provide 40 GW for an hour (or more!) .. which is provision of power x length of time. And from there to scale out by a 100 and more locations. So, there's some way to go here. As for hydrogen and steel .. before you wave that away it might be worth looking into the concrete plans by the largest raw material providers for the largest steel plants globally. https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2021/06/02/champagne-of-the-energy-transition-australia-could-supply-large-quantities-of-green-hydrogen-as-early-as-2023 https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2021/06/0... https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2023/06/14/fortescue-partners-with-world's-largest-steel-maker-to-reduce-emissions-across-iron-and-steel-making https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2023/06/1... These are the concrete plans of those who are committed to climate action, have access to world class engineers, and already provide 100's of millions of tonnes of raw iron ore per year to steel production already. You don't have to agree with them, but they are taking action with several billion in capital backing them, so it pays to understand what they intend.