196 karma · joined January 29, 2014
Only if you assume all 2.7 million people are now homeless.
Price is a function of supply and demand. Obviously, increasing the number of people within a system without commensurately increasing housing will result in upward pressure on housing prices.
You could argue that the system-wide effect is minimal, but you would need data to do that, which you haven't provided.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/72760452215622860...
As for smoothing out the electricity supply, EVs themselves are likely to play a large role, as will home batteries. The grid of the future will be much more distributed than what we have today. Tesla recently released a report which outlines where we are, where we need to be, and what is required to get there. It's succinct yet comprehensive, and well worth a read.
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
Pretty sure at this point you're a paid propagandist.
If that's true: fuck you, die in a fire.
If not: I sincerely hope you learn how to think critically at some point. Have a nice day.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five-years...
No, they cannot attain the same level of efficiency. It's not even close, and no one who was arguing in good faith and had done even the most cursory research on the issue would make that absurd claim.
https://tide.theimi.org.uk/industry-latest/motorpro/efficien....
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mirai-fcev-vs-model-3-bev-pau...
You're just making stuff up. We're done here.
>Serious incidents are rare.
Even so, they're probably more common than you think. Google it.
>there hasn't been a single hydrogen car that has exploded
Uh... google "hydrogen car explosion."
>So just from that your argument is just lazy fearmongering and FUD.
So far, every point you've made has been weak or outright incorrect. Meanwhile, you have yet to seriously challenge any point I've made.
The reason for this isn't that I'm better at this than you. Your position is simply untenable.
I hope you figure out how to account for the bias that so obviously pervades your thought process. Cheers, I guess.
H2 is already expensive when reformed from natural gas - you can expect to pay 20-30 cents per mile to travel in the most advanced, fuel efficient H2 vehicle out there.
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-fresh-bl...
H2 made via electrolysis is a bit more than 3x that cost. Are you ready to pay $1 per mile to drive?
Of course, price generally declines with volume, so we could expect those numbers to come down if H2 were more widely adopted. But there is a thermodynamic floor on the cost of H2, which means that it will never be cost-competitive with pure electric vehicles.
https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a...
And then there's the complexity issue. As a former fuel cell engineer, I understand better than most how complex and finicky proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems are. They are easily poisoned, they're prone to freezing, they have long startup times, they require high-speed, expensive electric air compressors, and they have complex valving and sensors to ensure safe operation.
Purely electric vehicles simply do not have these problems. A battery and a motor is about as simple as a drivetrain can possibly be. EVs will always be fundamentally far simpler than FCEVs, which translates into a lower upfront vehicle cost.
You have no answer to these problems.
I suggest you stop furiously responding here and instead consider your biases, and reevaluate your position. Batteries are so much better than H2 for transportation on just about all fronts that the two are not even close to comparable. H2 at this point is a malicious distraction being foisted on the general public by oil companies attempting to stay relevant, and governments engaging in sunk cost fallacious thinking. The sooner fuel cells for transport (and H2 for heating) are relegated to history's dustbin, the better.
Oh, and as for your assertion that electricity sans nuclear and hydro is 85% fossil fuels... that's true... and irrelevant. 40% of electricity generated in the US today is renewable, and that number grows steadily each year. We would be absolutely foolish to use that electricity to crack water, compress the H2, transport the H2, and convert it back to electricity in fuel cells, losing 65% of the energy in the process, than simply using it directly via batteries. Come on man! Discard the propaganda, separate your emotions from your positions, and think for yourself!
98% of H2 is made from fossil fuels.
You know why, right?
Feel free to point out a specific claim I've made that you believe is bullshit, and we'll proceed from there.
Oh that's right, it's because you all parrot the same nonsense.
The valuable materials in EV batteries don't get used up - they're still in the battery, and can be recycled. We haven't figured out the particulars, but there's no reason why it can't be done. In fact, the biggest issue that battery recyclers are facing right now is a lack of batteries to recycle.
Stop swallowing propaganda wholesale. Start thinking for yourself.
Damn.
But the writing's on the wall: H2 is dead tech for passenger vehicles.
I worked as a project engineer in a hydrogen fuel cell test lab for a few years. H2 is EXTREMELY hazardous. It can be ignited by a miniscule amount of energy (i.e. a tiny static spark will do it), and it has a very fast flame front, which creates an extremely energetic explosion. It's also the smallest molecule, so it's very difficult to prevent leakage, and it embrittles and degrades most steels over time. Additionally, proton exchange membrane fuel cells (the most common kind) are poisoned by anything NOT H2, so you can't add odorous agents to H2 to easily detect leaks, like we do with natural gas. H2's only non-dangerous characteristic is its high buoyancy, which means it dissipates quickly in outdoor environments, but in my opinion that is not sufficient to offset all of its other dangerous characteristics.
I would NEVER live in a building that had H2 stored inside (as in, inside a vehicle tank) or pumped in it, and I would definitely not trust the general public to use it safely.
It also has to be stored at either incredibly high pressures (as a gas) or incredibly cold temperatures (as a liquid), neither of which are conducive to large-scale, long-range transport.
But the worst part of H2 isn't how dangerous it is or how impractical it is; the worst part of H2 is how incredibly inefficient a hydrogen economy would be. See Paul Martin's excellent summary of H2 for a thorough debunking of the main H2 talking points.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/distilled-thoughts-hydrogen-p...
An economic system has two purposes: to create wealth, and to distribute wealth.
The purpose of an economic system is not to provide people with jobs. Jobs are just the best way we've found thus far to create and distribute wealth.
If no one has to work but wealth is still being created, then we just need to figure out a new way to distribute wealth. UBI will almost certainly be a consequence of the proliferation of AI.