_hypx

22 ms·

241.
by _hypx 3y ago
There has been no evidence of this, not to mention people just get cars with even bigger batteries. It is likely to always be an expensive replacement problem.
242.
by _hypx 3y ago
His point is backwards. You want to switch to hydrogen if you want to avoid future crises. Batteries just create the same situation.
243.
by _hypx 3y ago
Tesla is shaping up to be the next Blackberry. They are stuck with just one idea: The battery powered car. An idea that predates internal combustion BTW.
244.
by _hypx 3y ago
This is totally backwards. We will have to switch to hydrogen cars because batteries are not sustainable. It is nearly everyone else that picked wrong and will eventually have to pay the price.
245.
by _hypx 3y ago
> With hydrogen based car though it's an almost exact copy of the ICE car. It's got a big, hot finicky fuel cell under the hood that requires ongoing highly qualified maintenance. That's utter bullshit. A fuel cell is lite
246.
by _hypx 3y ago
Tesla is the ultimate one-trick pony. There will come a day when the BEV is abandoned. Tesla has shown no ability to move past that event. Toyota will make whatever car is in demand in the future.
247.
by _hypx 3y ago
It's incredibly short-sighted to think like this. There will be a huge supply of hydrogen at some point in the future. This is due to it being the only truly sustainable energy storage technology. Nearly all others will have to be aban
248.
by _hypx 3y ago
California is very close to seeing blackouts right now. If there's another heat wave on the scale of last year, there will be blackouts again.
249.
by _hypx 3y ago
Bullshit. All car companies will have to abandon batteries because it is not a sustainable idea. It is Tesla and not Toyota that is facing a disruptive risk because of that.
250.
by _hypx 3y ago
Wrong. It is the smartest choice we can think of. It is battery cars that is just an irrational reaction to oil shocks of the 2000s. Hydrogen is actually a fully sustainable idea and will eventually be adopted across the board. Batteries ar
251.
by _hypx 3y ago
That's complete nonsense. Almost no lithium is recovered in recycling, and we will need a truly massive increase in virgin materials to even get the process started. It will be just as big of a problem as oil for a very long time to co
252.
by _hypx 3y ago
Hydrogen refuels just like gasoline cars. It is the most logical replacement for current cars. It probably will just happen via natural progress without any external desire for CO₂ emissions reduction.
253.
by _hypx 3y ago
> Until you realize that Toyota is peddling hydrogen as the future which makes about the least sense of anything you could choose. Wrong. It is the only technology in current existence that actually makes sense. Everything else is unsust
254.
by _hypx 3y ago
All cars are complicated. Hydrogen cars have an advantage of being truly sustainable, something BEVs are not. So it safe to say that it is inevitable that cars will transition to hydrogen. Personal opinions like these are just a repeat of c
255.
by _hypx 3y ago
Negligible. It is safer than gasoline.
256.
by _hypx 3y ago
That's entirely consistently with Moore's Law in NAND chips. I honestly think they were gouging us by not dropping prices earlier.
257.
by _hypx 3y ago
BEVs are not a sustainable idea. There will come a day when nearly all carmakers will have to shift over to producing hydrogen cars. It is Tesla, not Toyota that faces the disruptive threat.
258.
Empty Offices Become Apartments In The U.S. [video](youtube.com)
3 points by _hypx 3y ago|0 comments
259.
by _hypx 3y ago
Pretty soon, SteamOS will be separated out. Then Linux will makeup an even smaller portion of the "desktop Linux market."
260.
by _hypx 3y ago
That graph must be a misunderstanding by the DOE then.
261.
by _hypx 3y ago
Then you plainly don't know what that means. Appeal to authority means trusting someone who doesn't know the answer but you imply that that person does, or that the argument doesn't need evidence beyond the words of a person.
262.
by _hypx 3y ago
A truck will burn a lot less fuel per kg of cargo. That's because it is carrying many packages at once and fuel consumption is split across all packages. A drone only carries one package. So in reality a truck is a way more efficient w
263.
by _hypx 3y ago
That graph is plainly wrong. The initial point is at the same level as a lead-acid battery. There is no chance it is legit.
264.
by _hypx 3y ago
The idea of lithium batteries dates back to the 1910s. It is not a new idea. But this is irrelevant because both had their major advancements more recently. The fundamental problem with batteries is that they're heavy, highly resource
265.
by _hypx 3y ago
Don't forget kbin!
266.
by _hypx 3y ago
That sounds completely unsubstantiated. Nothing involved here is that complicated or expensive. In fact, the whole thing should cost less than a comparable BEV given how little raw material you need. And if properly designed, it should be p
267.
by _hypx 3y ago
The person in question is a expert in the field and has decades of researching green energy topics. That is considered evidence. It is you who is just making shit up. You are literally expecting everyone to just accept your words. We merely
268.
by _hypx 3y ago
Why would it be difficult in a car? It is the same principle as a compressed air car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_car
269.
by _hypx 3y ago
A hydrogen truck is basically the same idea just economically sane and doesn’t have a huge weight penalty. You’re mostly repeating BEV propaganda and it is mostly just close-mindedness. The point is that hydrogen trucks are actually economi
270.
by _hypx 3y ago
You’re just a short-sighted naysayer. Guys like you are repeating the same garbage that anti-wind and anti-solar people said in the past. All you’re doing is proving that you have no interest in progress.

More ›