Hypx

19 ms·

151.
by Hypx 6y ago
Note that an FE car can't run a full F1 race, and the "ICBM" doesn't exist in the context of motorsports. Both racing series are much more likely to stay where they are given the circumstances. The most extreme outcome w
152.
by Hypx 6y ago
Occam's razor suggests that any social media site that reaches a certain size becomes hostile. That's why no "new reddits" could gain traction without becoming just as bad or worse.
153.
by Hypx 6y ago
Waymo and Cruise are being much more careful. Consequently, they’re finding out that self-driving cars cannot be deployed yet without being dangerous to people. It’s not a surprise that Uber and Tesla have killed people.
154.
by Hypx 6y ago
I’m more willing to believe that Tesla is just committing fraud here before believing they have any kind of lead.
155.
by Hypx 6y ago
All attempts at self-driving cars are a failure so far. There are no exceptions. If Uber is struggling, they're all struggling. I expect similar if not worse stories coming out for the rest of them.
156.
by Hypx 6y ago
The problem is twofold: The first is that biofuel doesn't scale. Maybe if we shifted all biofuel production to aviation we could do it. But the market is growing over the long term. Which means biofuels will eventually stop being a sol
157.
by Hypx 6y ago
They're not. Some of these are just cheap plastics. Just line a steel pipe with these chemicals and you're good.
158.
by Hypx 6y ago
You can run the Fischer-Tropsch process and make any hydrocarbon fuel you want. Fuel efficiency of engines could exceed 50% in the near future. Remember, you're creating a scenario where we never figure out hydrogen, and therefore we&#
159.
by Hypx 6y ago
Modern research in Azhdarchids suggests that they could indeed fly. This is in spite of the fact that they largest of them would dwarf an ostrich.
160.
by Hypx 6y ago
In the same sense all chemicals have handling issues. In practice, it is basically solved. That's probably due to them using a vulnerable alloy, and was likely exposed to hydrogen while at a high temperatures. This is nothing like a ga
161.
by Hypx 6y ago
It states: > f Residence time = accumulated H2O divided by emitted H2O (days). Corresponding values for the stratosphere only are given in parenthesis. That seems like it is in days. Unless there's something that I missed, I'm
162.
by Hypx 6y ago
> It lasts for days in the lower troposphere but years in the stratosphere I addressed this in my other reply. Table 1 of the study you cited stated that the residence time of stratospheric water vapor is measured in days. I'm not s
163.
by Hypx 6y ago
Well into the hundreds of degrees C.
164.
by Hypx 6y ago
Hydrogen is being created and consumed on a vast scale on Earth. The possibility that there are huge pockets of hydrogen gas trapped under impermeable rock layers cannot be ruled out. For one thing, natural gas pretty often contains hydroge
165.
by Hypx 6y ago
That falls under the “maybe” category. Synfuel are not easy to make, and will add a substantial layer of extra complexity to an already complex process. If it can’t be done cheaply then it might not happen or make sense. Hydrogen is not an
166.
by Hypx 6y ago
> High altitude water vapor is just as big of a problem as CO2 as the lifetime of water vapor in the stratosphere is measured in years, not days or hours like it is in the lower troposphere. On Table 1 of your study, it’s measuring resid
167.
by Hypx 6y ago
Metal-air cells have the same problem. That’s why they were briefly considered for airplanes, and then abandoned once they realized that problem.
168.
by Hypx 6y ago
H2O as an emission lasts for days, not centuries. It shouldn’t be that big of a deal. You do realize a fuel cell is a hydrogen-air battery? If you’re going to bring up metal-air batteries, you might as well skip to the end and try to figure
169.
by Hypx 6y ago
Those tests seem to be at >200˚C if I’m not mistaken. Hardly room temperature. Regardless, the main trick is to avoid using certain types of high-strength steel, line exposed surfaces with polymers, or using composites where ever possibl
170.
by Hypx 6y ago
It's not that there's a big debunking article, but rather people have used hydrogen for decades and not encountered those problems. For instance, hydrogen pipelines existed since the 1930s, showing the problem is eminently solvabl
171.
by Hypx 6y ago
More like none of the above. The problems are long solved or greatly minimalized.
172.
by Hypx 6y ago
Except if you're making vast amounts of hydrocarbon such as methane at a cost effective rate, then there's little real incentive for any of the electric stuff. Internal combustion stays viable effectively forever.
173.
by Hypx 6y ago
Because it's not an issue anymore. It's only a problem with certain types of metal alloys, which can be averted using different alloys, plastic linings, and using carbon fiber where possible.
174.
by Hypx 6y ago
Read about the Hyundai Nexo and Honda Clarity. Far more companies are pursuing hydrogen than you think.
175.
by Hypx 6y ago
At the scale we're looking at, it would still be around $2.5T. Actually more, since this process adds an additional inefficiency step.
176.
by Hypx 6y ago
So the future is internal combustion powered cars forever?
177.
by Hypx 6y ago
Green hydrogen is the long-term option, which makes hydrogen the much less resource demanding option. People who keep on repeating the 'hydrogen = fossil fuel" argument is just the same kind of argument leveled against battery pow
178.
by Hypx 6y ago
The problem with LNG is that it's still a fossil fuel, still cryogenic, and that methane itself is a potent GHG. The first problem you could solve using synthetic methane, but the latter two still drives you towards LH2 as being the be
179.
by Hypx 6y ago
> Namely: It'll diffuse through just about anything on a fairly short time scale if it isn't kept as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures, and it causes almost all metals to become brittle. Both claims are wildly wrong. Neither a
180.
by Hypx 6y ago
Synthetic jet fuel will need hydrogen as an input chemical. This is not an "either-or" question.

More ›