Hacker News Reader

Fuel cells interest me more than batteries because I'm not convinced that the materials needed for batteries are renewable. (Yes, I've already heard people argue that future battery technologies may not have this problem. I'd be more convinced by indications of how this problem might be solved than simple assertions that it will be solved.)

I think diesel will have its niche in the future, as the energy density concerns are legitimate and important for many applications. Biodiesel also doesn't have the same limitations in terms of materials the batteries do.

For personal transportation, I'm a strong proponent of human power, particularly walking and biking. No new magic technology is needed as far as I'm concerned. This is not practical in many places in the US, but if someone were to spend as much effort selecting where they live to have a good cycling commute as they do when selecting where they live to have a good driving commute, the problem would be mostly solved. Many people would have to change their lifestyles to do this, but I think those who do would typically find the changes acceptable or an improvement over their current situation.

>I respectfully argue that until you can make Diesel as clean as H2 fuel cell, the push to eliminate diesel burning engines will go on.

What market are these competing in?

In my profession (Marine Engineering; ship design), there is a large push to convert from diesel to cleaner fuels (e.g. LNG) due to International Maritime Organization (IMO) tiered emission regulations. LNG has a cost on par with diesel, so it's a no-brainer if you can afford the conversion. However, there is growing interest in H2 fuel cell powered vessels as the installed power cost continues to drop. Interestingly, H2 is being considered for energy storage and transport from deep sea wind farms to shore, vice long-run sub-sea power cables. The transport would be via Liquid H2 tanker. One of the supporting arguments is that the H2 fuel can be used directly in a growing number of H2-fuel cell powered transportation vehicles (Cars, buses) and industrial vehicles (forklifts, etc., which are actually very popular).

So, that's two big markets: Marine and Land-based Transportation.

1. http://www.sname.org/westerneurope/events/event-description?...

There will always be a market for diesel, at least in the US, because the US don't give a fuck about the environment ;)

Your statement is incorrect in regards to EU vs US diesel emissions. The US has high standards for diesel. The EU is more lax on NOX and diesel emissions.

>Our analysis of the respective emissions standards identifies that (broadly) US federal standards are more ambitious for key local air quality pollutants, particularly NOx, than EU standards. A key difference is that the US applies a single set of standards to petrol and diesel vehicles, while the EU allows higher levels of air quality pollutants to diesel vehicles.[1]

[1]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/58733...

>For my money, the best environmentally sustainable 'fuel' is

Of course there's also lots of really cheap, clean fuel, and ways to reduce GHG emissions, such as bicycling, sky sails, stairs/walking, telecommuting, etc.

I've never really seen the evidence that command and control style planned economies work very well.

Since undergrad, I've never heard a good argument as to why we shouldn't do what Musk recently supported: a tax on pollution.

Then let the market figure out where is best to put the money to solve the issue..? Then, if your ideas are correct--and they sound like they are--they would be more-widely adopted, and more efficiently implemented than bureaucrats would, as well.

I'm all for polution taxing, fines and even shutdowns. I actually find planned polution regulations to be far too lenient.

However, as an engineer with the power to change affect a piece of machinery's design, I don't have to sit back and say "hey, the government doesn't regulate black carbon, so I'll just do the easiest thing and use my budget to integrate diesel engine with NOx and SOx just under regulatory thresholds." Instead, I can decide to use my noggin to design a system that has the same (or even better) performance, OPEX and CAPEX, without burning diesel.

It's really not that hard. We have the technology. Engineers who desire a cleaner environment, just need to buck-up and push back on customers (or venders in this case) who are afraid to do something just because 'that's not how we did it in the past. That's what I do.

The power to change is not purely in the hands of regulators, it's also in the hands of 'doers'.

Pollution is a problem for the whole planet - we already know this. What is the sense in "letting the market decide" (whatever that means. Markets don't make any decisions, but I digress) if we already know the outcome we want. Legislate what we want to do and let's move on with our lives.

We don't want H2 cars or bikes or cleaner diesel engines. We want less pollution. Making it more expensive to pollute than to not pollute is the most direct way of attacking the problem. "Letting the market decide" just means that the government ought not care how we reduce pollution.

To respond to the GP post, IMO something like Cap and Trade makes more sense than tax for most forms of pollution; taxes only make sense for pollution when we have the ability to clearly quantify the harm done by the pollution. Most of the time we merely want to cap the amount of pollution, and cap-and-trade will more easily meet that goal than taxation.

Thanks for explaining the economics to the other user

>IMO something like Cap and Trade makes more sense than tax for most forms of pollution

Economists argue about this at length. Among those who write a lot to the public, you'll find figures like Mankiw among the most vocal supporters of a tax, and DeLong as one of the biggest supporters of cap and trade. Krugman, from what I have seen, seems to just want either one of them.

IMO the problem with Cap and Trade is that it needs to be implemented perfectly. So far it has had problematic corruption. For example, in some cases the greatest offenders (coal generators) have been handed allowances... For free... Which they can then sell on the market at their fair market value. So if anything, it has been a reward for being the first to harm others.

Not only that, then you have Wall St entering the picture, and in 2008 they proved their marketplaces dont always work so well. Bureaucrats and politicians, attorneys and accountants, endless committees, and endless meetings... It's going to be another War on Poverty all over again, where trillions are spent and the problem is not only never solved, but there has arguably never been evidence the problem has even been reduced.

Finally, how would cap and trade reward and incentivize micro and household economics? Are we going by an honor system on our tax returns to tally up our carbon allowances and deduct how many car pools, telecommutes, bike rides, stairs, cold showers, etc? This is all lunacy. Why try to do this in a heavy-handed way when this is the type of thing which markets are actually brilliant at solving. Probably because all those industry experts dont want to be obsoleted overnight.

Yes, handing the credits to companies for free is stupid. They should be auctioned off. Giving the coal companies credits is tantamount to saying those companies own the environment!

For CO2 at least the microeconomic incentives are simple because the amount of CO2 generated by burning fuel is fixed, so you can just require that retail sales of fuel come with a CO2 credit. For NOx, the emissions of which depend on many variables it's much more complicated, but I can't think of a good way of taxing those either.