Honest question: I measure gases as a career, and I’m always fixing leaks in my instruments*. How do people who push #hydrogen as a home heating solution propose to avoid catastrophic leaks?
*I use Swagelok fittings, the same ones used on airplanes and in industrial settings.
Thanks to #DW for producing this comprehensive debunking of the "#hydrogen future".
It's ridiculous how many companies are peddling this stupidity (e.g. for home boilers because "we already have gas pipes") and #EU governments are buying into it.
@Odaeus This is pretty generic anti-hydrogen and pro-battery propaganda. It's basically just market from people who have specific goals and use environmentalism as a way to make money. In reality, fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. They are fundamentally necessary to solving climate change. Naysayers are practically climate change deniers by refuse to acknowledge this.
@acemaxxanalytics PHEVs were basically sabotaged because they never got the subsidies that BEVs got. This created an illusion of BEV success. But reality is catching up to BEVs. As a result, market forces are shifting consumer interests to HEVs and PHEVs. BEVs sales will plateau or even starting decline because they are simply too expensive.
The point of solar panels is not to ensure "solar profitability," but to make for a greener, better world. Its profitability is only justified insofar as it moves us towards that goal. If we want to switch to renewables, then sometimes we're going to have surplus, because of how renewables work. This is well known and discussed ad nauseam. If that makes power markets unstable, then the problem is with markets, not with there being too many solar panels.
@theluddite The problem becomes that solar panels will no longer be profitable to own. Even in a future where solar power is dominant, the real source of profits will come from whomever that can arbitrary the price swings. The solar panels themselves become an expense that is part of another business.
@CarbonBubble The alternative has already died off as a serious solution. The author is writing from this strange place where it is still 2019 and ideas like e-trucks are still on the table. In reality, those ideas have been quietly abandoned or scaled back.
@rvaughnmd Sales are in decline in multiple nations, plateaued nearly everywhere else. It would have declined significant if it wasn't for dramatic discounting.
Sales numbers in the car industry are a lagging indicator because of that. The next step will be large production cutbacks, which will lead to the significant sales decline that we already know will happen.
@hopfgeist A tiltrotor/VTOL is not that implausible. We already have something similar in the V-22 Osprey. So at the very least, it should be possible.
SSTs must solve the sonic boom problem and will need engines designed specifically for them. This will require billions of dollars at the minimum. Boom's problem is that they might not have the resources to even get close to a flying demonstrator.
@hopfgeist Then you are saying the same thing people said about wind, solar, batteries, etc. That they will "never be cost effective or practical."
In the long run, the price of fossil fuels will go to infinity. Meanwhile, renewable energy will never use up any resource. And if you think generally, about how you are just using wind, sunlight and water to make fuel, then it is simple enough to project that green hydrogen will cost next to nothing in the long run.
@phlogiston This is BEV propaganda. It is blatantly ignoring real problems, such as how "direct charging" isn't actually possible with 100% renewables.
The practical differences in efficiency is negligible, and in many scenarios a hydrogen or (rarely) power-to-liquid solution is the more efficient.
@NVEVA A tiny, 1-2 kWh battery. The BEV cult has poisoned the well on alternative options with misinformation. In reality, they need to look at the limitations of their own idea.
@NVEVA In the short run, there are other types of EVs, namely hybrids and PHEVs, that can be implemented faster. BEV fanatics have demonized them, and are pushing for 100% BEVs, even when it is impractical. This is really about pushing a product, not coming up with a solution to emissions.
There are no "studies" suggesting hydrogen is impractical. Mostly it is BEV propaganda disguised as studies. In reality, FCEVs already exist right now and work 100% as viable cars. /1
@NVEVA Since FCEVs are also EVs, but without the giant battery, they will likely be much cheaper to produce. They will also be cheap to operate, following expansion of green energy and infrastructure buildout.
It is reasonable to assume that FCEVs will be the cheapest type of EV to drive at some point in the future. Some studies have suggested this:
@stib@NVEVA Sure, mass transit is a better idea. You can even have directly electrified vehicles like trolleybuses.
But eventually, you will need cars for special cases. Those special cases do not favor BEVs, which really exist in a area where mass transit makes more sense.