_hypx

63 ms·

751.
by _hypx 4y ago
You do realize that hydrogen has an effective energy density of ~1,000 Wh/kg? Even with the weight of tanks and fuel cells taken into account. Meanwhile, most of your listed battery chemistries haven’t been invented yet and may never e
752.
by _hypx 4y ago
There's only one element above lithium on the periodic table. If there's a replacement for lithium, it is hydrogen. Most of what you say is not that different than what people said about batteries. Let's not forget that li-io
753.
by _hypx 4y ago
People are just glossing over the problems of EVs while trumping up the problems of hydrogen. You'll end up with nearly unsolvable problems with EVs that will force you use hydrogen somewhere anyways.
754.
by _hypx 4y ago
You can convert existing cars to run on hydrogen. Also, hydrogen can be combined with CO₂ to create e-fuels.
755.
by _hypx 4y ago
FYI, coal is nowhere near dead. In fact it had it's biggest year just last year. It's most likely replacement is... natural gas. And if you replace "fusion" with "fission" it is a very sensible argument.
756.
by _hypx 4y ago
EVs are not a sustainable solution. It is just replacing a dependency on fossil fuels with battery related metals. All car companies will shift away from the EV and towards hydrogen at some point. The dumbest idea is thinking that nothing c
757.
Scientists Unveil Least Costly Carbon Capture System to Date(pnnl.gov)
2 points by _hypx 4y ago|0 comments
758.
by _hypx 4y ago
Your memory is compressing the timeline. News Corp bought MySpace in 2005. And MySpace was still bigger than Facebook until mid-2008. Of course, it was no longer cool long before that event, but that problem doesn't show up in formal m
759.
by _hypx 4y ago
Battery technology has utterly stagnated. There has been basically no changes in energy density in over a decade. All "progress" has been in the form of reduced cost, but even that has ended. PS: Please don't post some Bloomb
760.
by _hypx 4y ago
It’s pretty obvious that many environmentalists don’t want solutions. They just want to feel superior to others because they have solar panels on their roof and others don’t. Anything that could potentially render those solar panels unneces
761.
by _hypx 4y ago
This is just another anti-nuclear blog post. It is as irrelevant as every other anti-nuclear blog post that came before it. The problem with renewables has always been that it is not a form of dispatchable power, and that it is highly varia
762.
by _hypx 4y ago
You can steam reform plastic and get hydrogen for that purpose. It will imply that you have to lose a percentage of your plastic input, but if it is just plastic waste then that is not a huge problem.
763.
by _hypx 4y ago
Those are purely made up numbers. A fuel cell will easily be more efficient than an internal combustion powered car. Also, a battery is not 100% efficient, nor is charging an EV 100% efficient.
764.
by _hypx 4y ago
Fuel cell vehicles also use electric motors. They will not lose to combustion engines on efficiency. You seem to contradict yourself on how you think hydrogen vehicles work.
765.
by _hypx 4y ago
No petrol engine can match a fuel cell on efficiency. Especially once you realize the existence of refining losses.
766.
by _hypx 4y ago
But population growth is plateauing.
767.
by _hypx 4y ago
I’m going to make the argument that the tokamak is the wrong way of going about nuclear fusion. It is simply too big and expensive to build, and that is assuming it even works. The first commercial fusion reactor will problem be something e
768.
by _hypx 4y ago
And once you realize that nearly all renewable energy production has a marginal cost of zero, then it quickly becomes the overwhelmingly best idea for energy storage.
769.
TSMC’s 3nm Conundrum, Does It Even Make Sense?(semianalysis.com)
14 points by _hypx 4y ago|3 comments
770.
by _hypx 4y ago
That's not going to happen in the short run. It's even skeptical it ever happened in any real significance on the large scale. Every improvement in efficiency just meant a dramatic increase in use of that technology.
771.
by _hypx 4y ago
I'm gonna disagree with that statement about Blender. It is still growing and will probably drive a lot of commercial 3D suites into extinction. It just hasn't happened yet.
772.
by _hypx 4y ago
MRAM is faster than DRAM. It can do more than that. It has a real chance of filling the gap between SRAM and DRAM, possible replacing SRAM where density is needed.
773.
by _hypx 4y ago
It might be SOT-MRAM over STT-MRAM. I'm of the impression that SOT-MRAM doesn't have the slow write problem.
774.
by _hypx 4y ago
Less power is still better. Also, if we have to solve the SRAM scaling problem with 3D chip stacking, this will be an issue.
775.
by _hypx 4y ago
These things are more accurate called "spintronics." They are very different from conventional magnetic recording technologies.
776.
by _hypx 4y ago
There's already talk of STT-MRAM or SOT-MRAM replacing SRAM. They offer similar performance while also being non-volatile. If SRAM scaling ends, this becomes a much more promising technology. https://semiengineering.com&#x2F
777.
The Death of SRAM?(fuse.wikichip.org)
145 points by _hypx 4y ago|70 comments
778.
by _hypx 4y ago
Agreed.
779.
Chinese activists stage hunger strike outside Apple's California headquarters(axios.com)
15 points by _hypx 4y ago|0 comments
780.
Whatever Happened to the Open Internet?(daily.jstor.org)
4 points by _hypx 4y ago|1 comments

More ›