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

You can read the archive version: https://archive.ph/nbcGP

It's cheaper than putting a charge point on every parking spot, and far more convenient. It is no more dangerous than a gasoline station.

Far better than continuing using fossil fuels.

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

You'll be shocked at how little hp you really need, provided there is enough torque. Even the most powerful tractor trailers max out at around 700 hp. And an FCEV can use a battery for auxiliary power.

It is hydrogen-electric.

Nuclear is really just metal in a big water tank. The cost comes from trying to maximize safety. It can be cheap if we mass produce it. People are pretty much engaging in special pleading every time they declare nuclear to be uneconomical.

If you really believe that, then you'd support nuclear power. It is extremely safe these days and is a much better option than to deal with more climate change. You want more options, not less options, in this fight.

A lot of this dives deep into wishful thinking territory. We will need to spend trillions of dollars to make a pure renewable energy solution viable. People will find out that nuclear is not magically guaranteed to be more expensive. If it wasn't the case, why are new nuclear reactors still being built and more are being planned?

Germany is definitely rethinking it's anti-nuclear position. Ignore the viewpoints of the current political group in charge. They are deeply unpopular. Politicians outside of that group are advocating for a return to nuclear.

France is keeping and building more reactors. This is not a "more complicated story." It is simple proof that nuclear is viable.

Just so we’re clear, it is cheap fossil fuels that made nuclear uneconomical. Solar and wind provide a very different type of power in comparison, and do not really compete against each other. There’s a reason why countries that abandoned nuclear are suddenly thinking about restarting nuclear again (see Germany). Meanwhile, countries that fully adopted nuclear (see France) are seeing no pressure to abandon it.

It has grown beyond the ability of one person to handle. We want to hope for the best, but must prepare for the worst.

Ernest has not been seen in a while. So no, there's basically no admin currently available.

Have you seen the steam stats? Very few people played this game.

All steps can approach 100% efficiency. It is not much different than how a battery car works.

Fuel cells have already been test to 30,000 hours in real world settings. We're easily looking at million+ miles in certain circumstances. This is plain Ludditism to think that reliability can't be achieved.

You're clearly stuck in the past. Green hydrogen production is rapidly expanding. It is the new solar or wind boom.

Again, you are the one brainwashed by corporate propaganda, mainly from Tesla. An FCEV is an EV. That is undeniable fact. As a result, it is equally as valid of a solution as BEVs are. The rest of your posts are you being totally confused by this fact.

Losses from pipelines aren't very large either. At long distances, this is actually less than what you will experience from wires.

Like I said, the entire process of making and using hydrogen is analogous to battery swapping. You have to think of the battery as being this fluid that can be moved around to where it needs to go, effectively replacing wires. But the end result is basically the same.

You cannot charge a battery and come out equal either. But losses can be minimized in both cases. Transportation via pipelines is also analogous to transporting electricity via wires. Both have losses, but it can be minimized.

Like I said, the idea is basically the same as battery swapping, except the battery in question is a chemical fluid that can be move around like it was electricity.

Because, again, you need to store that energy in banks of giant batteries. Something that is very expensive. And again, if you realize that FCEVs are basically doing to same thing, just using water instead of giant batteries, it is going to much cheaper while not actually reducing efficiency that much.

In the long-run, there won't be hardly ANY difference in efficiency, because again, both are electrochemical systems that work the same way. This is the basic fact that you are failing to grasp.

Finally, hydrogen is pretty unavoidable for a green society anyways. You need it for long-duration energy storage anyways, and so will industry and heavy transportation. Meaning that even an all-BEV society will still need vast amounts of green hydrogen if it really wants to break dependency on fossil fuels.

If anything, you are handwaving the problems of BEVs. Hydrogen is the solution to that ironically.

Because it's all electrochemistry? Have you even looked a fuel cell diagram? It is basically anodes and cathodes turning chemical energy into electricity. Just like a battery.

In fact, it arguably IS a battery. Hence why FCEVs are also EVs.

Green hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water using wind and solar energy. There is no carbon involved. As green energy scales up, the cost of this will drop to extremely low levels. Margin cost is basically zero, as you only need water.

As a result, it is a far simpler and scalable solution than going with batteries. You avoid all of the mining and infrastructure of batteries. And because it is so much more scalable, you end up having to use hydrogen for energy storage anyways. Even BEVs will have to depend on hydrogen power for long-duration energy storage needs.

The problem is, again, you are fully brainwashed. You are repeating nothing but BEV propaganda from companies like Tesla. And the ironic thing is that this all originated from oil & gas companies. It is climate change denial rhetoric only you don't know it.

And what is a battery, but an electrochemical system that converts chemical energy into electrical energy? A fuel cell works the same way.

The problem is that you have been fully brainwashed. Everything I said is true, and everything you said is false. You need to step back and realize who is lying to you.

Again, wrong. More gibberish. Green hydrogen can power any aspect of transportation. You do not need to have to involve carbon. Pipelines exist too. You can replace copper wires with pipelines, and it would be cheaper to move energy this way.

Again, the problem is that you need giant banks of batteries to power your all-BEV fantasy. That is much more expensive and in fact implies an unbreakable dependence on fossil fuels to build those things. Something avoided with hydrogen.

In fact, you have fully inverted reality. Hydrogen, not batteries, are mandatory in a renewable energy powered society. You will have to accept this simply fact.

Finally, you have to let go of BEV propaganda. It is all lies copied over from the oil & gas industry. It is all lies with zero basis in fact.

Again, all of this is pure gibberish. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. Both have the same level of efficiency in the theoretical sense.

Like I said, you are repeating bullshit from BEV companies like Tesla. All of the anti-hydrogen stuff is just corporate propaganda and has zero basis in fact.

And what's ironic is that it is copied from propaganda that originated from the oil industry. BEV companies repeating this stuff just means they are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against all green energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc., even BEVs themselves, when through the same crap. And you are doing the same just against fuel cells and hydrogen.

More gibberish. All of the steps needed for an hydrogen infrastructure can be powered by hydrogen. Even steel made for the purpose can be made via hydrogen reduction. So can any trucks or equipment needed. Meanwhile, all of the steps for building batteries or wires requirement fossil fuels at some point. After all, who is going to mine all of that stuff? Same with refining it to pure metals. You are unaware of how dependent BEVs are to fossil fuels. Something that won't be solved unless we adopt hydrogen on a vast scale.

And BTW, steel is a lot cheaper than copper. So pipelines are much cheaper than wires. In reality, you are just brainwashed by BEV propaganda mostly coming from Tesla. You'd save money by going with hydrogen. BEVs are the more expensive option.

Do you know what a fuel cell even is? It is an electrochemical system that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy. That is why FCEVs are also EVs.

You're just regurgitating blatantly Tesla propaganda. They are lying about the merits of FCEVs vs. BEVs. An FCEV is equally valid as an EV as any BEV.

The "conversion" steps are functionally the same as what happens inside a battery. Which is why the theoretical efficiency is the same as a BEV. You are effectively doing the equivalent of battery swapping, just with a fluid rather than a solid battery pack.

You can literally make it yourself. This replaces having to need giant banks of batteries, as well reduces the need for grid capacity increases. Furthermore, you need energy storage in general. That implies that even BEVs will need hydrogen for energy storage for long durations. As a result, there's not likely to be any meaningful increase in cost. And since wind and solar are so cheap, efficiency is not particularly irrelevant. The margin cost of production is basically zero anyways, so none of that matters. It will be far cheaper than fossil fuels in the long-run.

No one is going to meaningful control hydrogen prices in the long-run. It can be made via renewable energy like wind and solar. So it will have the same level of cost. Which is to say it will cost very little as wind and solar cost very little.

The same is also happening with hydrogen. We are shifting towards green hydrogen. People who claim otherwise are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against BEVs.

Fuel cells are far more efficient than ICEs. Refueling times are already comparable to that of an ICE car. Fuel cells can easily last the lifetime of the car. Range increases with every model. This is anti-progress and anti-green nonsense. You're pretty regurgitating corporate propaganda, either from the oil industry or from battery companies.

That's pure gibberish. An FCEV is also an electric car. It has the same theoretical efficiency as a BEV.

You can make it 100% with fossil fuels and it would still be greener than a gasoline or diesel powered car.

Then you are repeating an argument from the oil industry. To them, all green vehicles are secretly dirty, and therefore you must always buy an oil powered car.

Tesla is a massive stock pumping Ponzi scheme that just happens to have a poorly ran car company attached to it. People need to realize what the goal of Tesla marketing is really about. It will be remembered as one of the great investment scams of our time.

Expanding the electricity grid is more expensive than expanding infrastructure for chemical fuels. Wires are a lot more expensive than pipes. And require everything to be renewable will make this gap even bigger.

You pretty much have an inverted understanding of reality, likely due to how much BEV hype you have read. If there’s a way to get to zero emissions without having to deal with electricity, we would do it.

The inputs for hydrogen production are also basically free. It's literally solar or wind energy plus water. The same basic deal.

The problem with BEVs is that you have build thousands of giant batteries. One for each car and more for grid energy storage. It's actually expensive in practice. And unsustainable too.

You are giving yourself enough rope to hang yourself here. You are pretty much admitting that the cost of solar is really low. So who cares if we need more solar cells? Which themselves are made from processed sand. Not a big expense either. Better to build more solar panels than more batteries.

In reality, BEVs are failing as we speak. Every car company has announced some kind of scaling back of production. That implies a drop in demand, and that is the big problem. BEV economics are not panning out.

And please don't cite raw sales numbers as being meaningful. Car companies have dumped tens of billions of dollars each into production facilities. They pretty much have to sell in volume even if that means selling at a loss. And that's what is happening. Don't be shocked when the next stage is abandonment of their BEV plans. They've also lost too much money to waste even more money on the idea.

If you want to wait, sure. Be my guest. The market will go in the opposite direction of what you are thinking. You'll end up patiently waiting to be proven wrong.

The BEV movement is on its way out. People will remember it in the same we saw the huge push for ethanol cars a couple of decades ago. Just like how we never solved the fundamental issue of ethanol production, we aren't going to solve fundamental issues such as charging availability or battery production. Eventually there will have to be another solution proposed. One that can work for everyone. That pretty much forces us to look at ideas like hydrogen or e-fuels, with hybrids/PHEVs as an transitional idea to that. BEVs will be seen as an outdated idea.

Yes. It is just a matter of building that infrastructure. And we can reuse the natural gas infrastructure for most of it. People are basically stuck in the past on this subject.

That's fine then. Just be aware that being pro-hydrogen should be considered a good thing.