_hypx

26 ms·

271.
by _hypx 3y ago
You are completely wrong. You are not thinking of the laws of thermodynamics. You are thinking of Carnot’s theorem. Which doesn’t apply because electrolyzers are not heat engines. They are electrochemical systems, just like li-ion batteries
272.
by _hypx 3y ago
Electrolysis maxes out at 100% efficiency . And theoretically, so can the fuel cell. So if both sides are 100% efficient, then there's your answer. Also, compressed gas is an energy storage idea. You can in theory extract energy from
273.
by _hypx 3y ago
> It happens quite fast, a tank will lose most of its capacity over a month. A claim backed up by nothing. In fact, no hydrogen tank is allowed to leak that fast by regulation. Something you can easily verify: https://newslett
274.
by _hypx 3y ago
The first claim is not true. The second claim is a dishonest distortion of facts. It is an "indirect" greenhouse gas whereby it extends the life of methane in the atmosphere. This is a pretty meaningless thing to say because it is
275.
by _hypx 3y ago
Are you really going to go around and dismiss properly sourced claims? Where is your counterevidence? And no, you cannot just concern troll your way around this. There are people with real credentials making these claims. You cannot dismiss
276.
by _hypx 3y ago
FYI, there is potentially enough natural hydrogen to last for thousands of years: https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-eart... As a shortcut to zero emissions, it has major potential. Nor is it
277.
by _hypx 3y ago
It technically is since natural hydrogen exists. The problem with this logic is that renewable energy is regularly plunging to zero or even negative prices. Renewable leads to massive swings between excess production and massive shortages.
278.
by _hypx 3y ago
Economics of road trains plus battery swapping will be disastrous. You will need many times more batteries than even other large BEV trucking ideas. In reality, it's pretty much a guarantee that hydrogen displaces batteries for most ca
279.
by _hypx 3y ago
Diesel has their own upstream losses. People are constantly using a double standard where they only include upstream losses for hydrogen while ignoring them for everything else. In reality, you are going to get closer to battery-levels of e
280.
by _hypx 3y ago
There are no fundamental limits when compared to batteries. You cannot name them because they don't exist. The point of fuel cells being electrochemical systems is to explain that these limits don't exist. What you're really
281.
by _hypx 3y ago
You mean something closer to every short-ranged EV with BEVs, and long ranged ones with FCEVs? That could work, although it would be admitting that most cars will be FCEVs. Though honestly, we'd be better off with more mass transit tha
282.
by _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 enlighten
283.
by _hypx 3y ago
If you realize that fuel cells are electrochemical systems, you'd also realize that there is no fundamental difference between how a fuel cell and a conventional battery works. Fuel cell cars are also EVs, just without the expensive an
284.
by _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
285.
by _hypx 3y ago
We don't have a working fusion reactor. We do have working electrolyzers and fuel cells. This is night and day difference. Electrolyzer and fuel cells are electrochemical systems and are basically batteries themselves. There is no fund
286.
by _hypx 3y ago
You are guilty of your own accusation. You are conflating many things together. For starters, you are completely ignoring all upstream losses like charging losses, transmission losses, or energy storage losses. You do not magically get ener
287.
by _hypx 3y ago
The whole wells-to-wheels efficiency is theoretically the same as doing it with a li-ion battery. The whole process is electrochemical. So there's no hard rule why this can't be as efficient as batteries. This also ignores the rea
288.
by _hypx 3y ago
The grid was not designed for everyone to charge large BEVs with them. Nor are there DC fast chargers on every block. And I’m not sure what 150 years ago had to do with anything. Today, we will build whatever infrastructure will allow for c
289.
by _hypx 3y ago
That’s the same argument said about wind and solar not that long ago. People are repeating history by saying the same thing. In the end, you are making something with just wind, sunlight and water. Since they are practically infinite resour
290.
by _hypx 3y ago
Batteries will always been heavy and be dependent on large quantities of mined materials. The advantage of hydrogen is that it is made from water. So the raw materials used to make hydrogen will trend towards zero, similar to what happened
291.
by _hypx 3y ago
That’s absurd. Hydrogen cars will drop to costs comparable to ICE cars. It is a massive reduction in raw material needs. Not to mention the millions of people who need fast public refueling since they do not have access to home chargers. Pe
292.
by _hypx 3y ago
The world has not picked a path at all. We are currently still dependent on ICE cars. And the BEV era will come and pass without ever seriously challenging that dependency.
293.
by _hypx 3y ago
You do not have an infinite quantity of batteries, nor are they particularly good at storing energy for long periods of time. In reality, electrolyzers and fuel cells are electrochemical systems. There is no more complexity in making hydrog
294.
by _hypx 3y ago
You figure there are cost issues related to lack of mass production. But ultimately, the chemistry is there and you can could have build something in the late 2000s or early 2010s at those higher energy densities. Certainly, any graph that
295.
by _hypx 3y ago
These are opinions based on profound ignorance. Many sectors can never reach zero emissions without hydrogen. Things like airplanes and ships. You must invest in the infrastructure no matter what. And how can you have hydrogen for steel pro
296.
by _hypx 3y ago
The author of that article is simply wrong. I've seen this post more than once now and it is becoming a serious mistake on their part. FYI, high energy density li-ion batteries existed since 2009: https://news.panasonic.com&
297.
by _hypx 3y ago
Not "cheap," zero and sometimes even negatively priced. The problem is that there is no way of utilizing that electricity. It is excess electricity generated by unpredictable renewable energy. You might as well use that free and u
298.
by _hypx 3y ago
Funny, because the economics of hydrogen is heading to nearly zero cost. This is the same trajectory of wind and solar. All of these things have one thing in common: They all are made from practically infinite and free resources. Wind, sunl
299.
by _hypx 3y ago
And again, how many BEV models were available a decade or so ago? What exactly is suppose to keep hydrogen cars from being developed? Also, why is your understanding of the marketplace something straight out of a video game, as if there is
300.
by _hypx 3y ago
There are about 300 million ICE cars in the US. BEVs are nowhere near ready to replace ICE cars. What’s ironic is that BEV fans are just repeating the same anti-EV arguments used against BEVs. They’re not even aware that BEVs were at zero j

More ›