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.
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.
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.
GM had record sales figures, just before they filed for bankruptcy. The problem with the car industry is that if you're willing to sell at a loss, any level of sales can be achieved. But that is not a viable business. In reality, too many car companies are selling BEVs at a loss. This will have consequences soon.
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.
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.
GM had record sales figures, just before they filed for bankruptcy. The problem with the car industry is that if you're willing to sell at a loss, any level of sales can be achieved. But that is not a viable business. In reality, too many car companies are selling BEVs at a loss. This will have consequences soon.
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.