Hypx

Hypx , 2 months ago

Yes, kbin.social is being cut off: https://lemmy.world/post/14183949

Hypx , 2 months ago

Musk has swatted people he disagreed with. He is the antithesis of a free speech absolutist.

Hypx OP , 4 months ago

Green hydrogen is as possible as green electricity.

The problem with buses is that they are heavily driven everyday. So the battery dies quickly, leading to a lot of dead buses. In practice, battery buses are nearly unusable and will always be abandoned after a few years.

Hypx OP , 4 months ago

That's just repeating what people said of all green technologies when they arrive. "EVs are just coal powered cars." "Wind and solar will never make up more than a tiny percentage of energy." And so on. It is just being repeated for hydrogen.

Also, no one cares about efficiency for a practically infinite resource. Solar cells are only 15-20% efficient after all. This is really just a BEV fanatic's argument and it is just an excuse to stop thinking.

BEV fanatics are just bullshitting about the competition to BEVs. In reality, they have the largest resource footprint of them all, and is primed for their own disruption. A resource that only needs renewable energy and water as its key raw materials is vastly superior.

Hypx OP , 4 months ago

It is the same argument made in favor of wind and solar. Sustainable resources don't "run out" like fossil fuels. You can always make more by building more renewable energy farms and connecting electrolysis plants next to them. You can't say the same of battery manufacturing.

We actual do have the option of more efficient solar cells. The best exceed 40%. But we don't bother, as solar is practical infinite and therefore the best option is minimalizing cost. Not to mention how exaggerated this argument has become. As if an FCEV isn't already more efficient than anything except a BEV.

Hypx OP , 4 months ago

Dams are precipitation energy capture devices. A very limited resource. Geothermal is heavily limited by groundwater and near-surface magma formations. It is a very rare phenomenon. Hydrogen is entirely limited just by wind and solar, which is vastly greater. It is thousands of times beyond what humanity currently uses in energy. So no, there's no realistic limit there.

The reason why it will "take decades for wind and solar to replace coal and gas" is because they are intermittent resources. The limiting factor is all of the infrastructure needed to make them work in a reliable manner. But they themselves are easily scalable to well beyond all human needs. Hydrogen as it turns out, is key to building the infrastructure needed to make wind and solar work. So in practice, hydrogen can be scaled at the fastest rate we can scale any green technology. Something that is vastly slower if not impossible to do with batteries because they are resource constrained.

Wrong. The most generous figures for hydrogen will recognize that fuel cells and electrolyzers are electrochemical systems. They are functionally batteries but built in a different manner. The maximum efficiency is potentially 100%, the same as li-ion batteries. This is particular obvious in large-scale implementations where waste heat can be reused. So even with no breakthroughs, we can easily reach 70% round-trip efficiency right now in those cases. In short, this is just a pointless exercise. You bring up efficiency in a field where efficiency is nearly irrelevant, and double down on that deception by lying about how efficient it really can be. In reality, hydrogen is just superior to lithium as an energy storage concept.

Hypx OP , 4 months ago

There is many thousands of times more solar energy than humanity uses. This is well-known: https://www.in.gov/oed/about-oed/newsroom/fact-sheets/fuel-facts-solar-energy/

As a result, we cannot run out of it with any kind of reasonable assessment of future demand. As a result, everything that is purely dependent on renewable energy is basically infinite for all practical purposes. That implies hydrogen, not batteries. People like you are just spreading conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation for why batteries should be pursued. In reality, it is just a bad idea that will only be a transitional technology.

The second law of thermodynamics only state that 100% is the limit. For certain ideas, we can get pretty close. Both batteries and fuel cells can come very close. But this is all irrelevant, because as I said efficiency doesn't matter here. We have basically infinite energy. The rest of your argument on this point is just misdirection from the fact that we have basically infinite hydrogen but not infinite batteries.

You do not need lithium-ion batteries for FCEVs. It's feasible now to imagine cheaper and more sustainable battery types. The only reason why BEVs obsession with lithium based batteries is because of the need for energy density. No other type of car must have them.

Both sides of the equation can approach 100% efficiency:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752301X07800068
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/green-hydrogen-produced-seawater-fuel-alternative/152420/

Which is why hydrogen cannot actually be beaten by conventional batteries regardless of how the future turns out. They both have the same theoretical limit. Except one is basically infinite and the others are not. Batteries can only ever lead to an adoption of hydrogen based energy storage.

Hypx , 4 months ago

No one has ever explained how the energy is suppose to come back to Earth in a non-crazy fashion. Until then, this will always come off as an impossible idea.

Hypx , 4 months ago

IOW, this is right-wing propaganda. And given her skin-color, you can add racism to that mix too.

Hypx , 4 months ago

Blogs are a good idea. We should go back to them instead of being dependent on social media.

Hypx , 4 months ago

Lemmy needs to move away from downvotes altogether, or make it totally pointless. Just because Reddit uses it doesn't make it a good idea.

Hypx , 5 months ago

Critics of hydrogen are just repeating BS from either the fossil fuel industry or the battery industry. It is just a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric back when they were just getting started.

Hypx , 5 months ago

Then you're missing the point: Wind and solar were heavily dismissed or ridiculed when they were getting started. People mocked them just like what you're doing now.

Hypx , 5 months ago

Again, that is the same thing people said about wind and solar. The naysayers also claimed that they were impossible for similar reasons.

It doesn't matter that you personally didn't attack wind and solar. You are attacking green energy now, and doing the same thing as those that did attack wind and solar.

Hypx , 5 months ago

Neither was electricity until after we started to build wind and solar. People accused electrification plans of just enabling more coal. This style of argument is intentionally ignoring current and near-future developments. You're implying that nothing is changing or can ever change.

Again, you are perfectly recreating the same anti-wind and anti-solar arguments of the past. This is the same story, just with different names and dates. You really are attacking green energy. It's just via the "both sides are equally bad" style of attack.

Yes, people outright claimed that large scale deployment of wind or solar were impossible forever. There were even books written entirely about explaining how it was impossible forever. Entire energy research groups made annual predictions of imminent collapse of wind and solar power deployments, because it was assumed that it was just impossible forever. It's pretty obvious you had no memory or are too young to know about all of that.

Hypx , 5 months ago

No he didn't. It's just a bunch of random talking points and myths. He could've copy and pasted that answer from any of thousands of social media posts and it would've been nearly identical.

Hypx , 5 months ago

We can it store it long term. It is one of the major strengths of hydrogen. Your claim is near 180 of reality.

Hypx , 5 months ago

People have looked at hydrogen for long term storage. There is real science to back this up. Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X21011580

Hypx , 5 months ago

That's the OP. You didn't provide any sources yourself.

The issue of leakage is just a potential risk, as your own link mentions. In practice, it's a non-issue. We don't worry about gasoline begin too dangerous or EVs being too quiet. It is just fearmongering. Like I pointed out in my study, they are looking at hydrogen for long term energy storage, because it is good at it. Your claim that we can't store for long periods is simply wrong.

Hypx , 5 months ago

I just provided you a source. You're creating your own alternate reality here.

Hypx , 7 months ago

There's zero chance he's a broke Republican.

Hypx , 7 months ago

Ernest, the main developer of Kbin, has given an explanation of what has happened: https://kbin.social/m/kbinMeta/t/544021/So-what-s-the-status-on-the-update-edit-ernest-responded#entry-comment-3006120

Hypx , 8 months ago

People really don't know what "left" is suppose to mean. Socialism is suppose to be a real political position, not a slur. What is consider liberal these days is really right-wing politics.

Hypx , 8 months ago

I've come to realize that many a tech company are ran by morons.

Hypx , 11 months ago

It is likely impossible because it would mean that the investors will have "lost." There won't ever be a way to make meaningful amounts of money off of Reddit if they did that. Anyone could just move to a less ad-ridden version of Reddit and just see Reddit posts from there. In fact, this is the very fight that Reddit is waging over its API access. So no, Reddit is likely to die off and be replaced by something else. And that something else can never be a big money maker.