Hypx_

Actually they exist now. You can generate hydrogen directly for sunlight and a photocatalyst. Although we don't know how cost effective this is right now, and the traditional way of having a separate electrolyzer might be cheaper for the time being.

The problem with (1) is that complaining about this is usually the last bastion of a dying industry. This is particularly true if the alternative is a completely new idea it would normally be much more expensive to begin with. So it would really just be a countdown until it is no longer true.

The problem of (2) is that all attempts to generate electricity with renewables (and with no fossil fuel backups) have resulted in extreme problems. In short, when it is windy or sunny, you have too much electricity and no way of storing it. When it is not windy or sunny, you have nothing and are forced to resort to fossil fuels. Ultimately, it's being found out that being able to store electricity is far more important than making it efficient.

And (3) is just dumb Ludditism. As if the small increase in complexity is any kind of problem. Fuel cells are far simpler than internal combustion engines after all. Batteries are actually worse from a supply chain standpoint since now you have a much higher need for certain elements that are not widely available.

The problem is that now it's hydrogen's turn to do the same with batteries. Tesla is facing it's own disruptive threat, something it is completely unprepared to deal with.

Hydrogen will ultimately disrupt BEVs into oblivion. This is the obvious disruption event that no one is seeing.

A hydrogen system is basically the two sides of a battery split into separate components. It's fully possible to build device that does both, although as of today this is less efficient.

The galvanic discharge rate is extremely slow and not really suitable as part of a rechargeable battery system. Any practical metal-air will have some way of discharging faster. The problem is that we have basically solved this for hydrogen-air but not for anything else.

You don't need to liquify hydrogen. Simply compression is enough. For large facilities not even that high of a pressure.

The round-trip efficiency for iron-air is going to be worse or the same as hydrogen-air. They are both the same idea but iron-air is much less mature.

The other point is that hydrogen electrolysis and storage is cheap and in fact extremely so. In large facilities it is <$1/kWh and is basically unrivallable by anything else.

Yes, but hydrogen-air is already cheaper than that. On large scales it is <$1/kWh and easily cheaper than anything can even theoretically attain.

Except we can store hydrogen quite easily. It is either pumped underground or in tanks, no different than natural gas.

Actually no. In China they use coal, and this is the predominant way we've been making aluminum in recent years.

I also heard that iron-air batteries are just another kind of metal-air batteries. The problem is that hydrogen-air batteries already exist, and are basically the same thing. Iron-air is therefore just reinventing of the wheel.

Hydrogen-air batteries are more than economical: They actually exist now. There's no rational reason to reinvent the wheel with iron-air.

Iron-air are just another kind of metal-air batteries. The problem with all of them is that hydrogen-air batteries have existed for decades and is basically the same thing. If it wasn't for 20 years of marketing propaganda we'd realize this and never bothered with reinvesting the wheel with another chemistry.

Just FYI, hydrogen fuel cells are hydrogen-air batteries. There's no rational reason to reinvent the wheel for what is basically an inferior version of hydrogen fuel cells.

Very cheap hydrogen-air batteries already exist. It funny people are praying for a complete reinvention of what already exists.

Luckily hydrogen-air batteries have been around for decades.

Note that with the rise of finFETs we can pull some of those numbers into the 3rd dimension. The effective gate length is higher than the amount of length it takes on the flat plane of the chip.

https://semiengineering.com/moving-to-gaa-fets/

It's likely that batteries won't be the future of automobile at all. You're just replace one limited resource with another. People also forget that the world economy is still growing and therefore there will be far more cars in the future than today. Once you realize that we will need to build multiple billions of cars in the future, plus all of the associated infrastructure, it should be clear that batteries cannot scale to that level of demand. It would have to be something like hydrogen since hydrogen can be made from water.

It's actually closer to $0.10/kWh, but we have to account for the cost of upgrades to the infrastructure.

Hydrogen can be piped via exist natural gas pipelines and stored in existing natural gas salt caverns or abandoned oil wells. So all parts of that statement are true.

You store hydrogen like you store natural gas: In underground salt caverns. This allows for weeks or months of stored energy.

The list is a joke. Nigeria, Ethiopia and Kenya are all on the top 8. Due to their large and rapidly growing populations, plus expected future industrialization, all three countries will experience extraordinary increases in GHG emissions. This is nothing but an admission that we don't have a plan of any kind.

Toyota is much more likely to be a major player in the future than Tesla. I don't think Toyota plans on being a leader of anything.

This. Electric cars are currently at the dialup internet phase of adoption. It's unlikely the current leaders will be the future leaders. Nor will the current technology be the stuff we will use in the future.

> Put these two plots together and you get a 99.6% chance that the objects are clustered, rather than uniform. That sounds pretty good to me.

That's not even three-sigma. I'm not sure if this is real evidence of a planet nine. Just a chance alignment of orbits seem like the most plausible explanation.

> Canalys noted that Apple was the only major PC manufacturer to see negative growth in Q2, due in no small part to waning consumer interest in iPads, according to the report. The company did see a 24% increase in notebook shipments thanks to recent success with the M1 chip.

I wonder what the future of the iPad is? I can't see it lasting very long as this standalone product that's halfway between a mobile phone and a laptop.

It can be either piped as hydrogen or converted into ammonia.

We need a way to move goods without emissions. If hydrogen can do it, then it is definitely a good idea.

Though in hindsight a 64-bit version of x86 would’ve killed them all anyways. Had Intel invested money into that instead, they’d still win easily.

You could use anything derived from hydrogen too. Ammonia, methanol, synfuels, etc.