Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

billybaconbaked t1_ix7nv76 wrote

Reply to comment by netz_pirat in Canadian Pacific’s hydrogen-powered locomotive makes first revenue run - Trains by bitfriend6

and also never will. electron transportation characteristics dont allow that.

a bullshit future being promissed that goes against physics.

And hydrogen is worse for the environment even compared to Natural Gas when the whole chain of production/extraction+ transportation is considered.

hydrogen is trash.

−3

netz_pirat t1_ix7t89i wrote

So sorry for being ignorant, I only had two years of physics at university.... but what exactly goes against physics?

In my home country, we're expanding renewable energy generation to a point where we have excess energy in Summer to ensure we have enough in Winter. With that, we'll need an energy dump to keep the nets stable, and preferably one that allows us to store energy for other purposes down the road.

While the efficiency of Hydrogen generation from electricity isn't great, it's better than nothing and can be used as a precurser for artificial fuels.

I agree with you that whatever can be powered by electricity directly should be powered directly, but for stuff that cant, hydrogen and derivates are the next best thing we have.

1

billybaconbaked t1_ix953yo wrote

Sorry I can't find the specific video from Thuderfoot explaining the problem of storing an electron energy level and then being able to release it.

The "why's" on Lithium usage (sometimes some other happy to have electrons metals, but lithium is king).

The "why's" on battery tech is stopping to get better and graphs with the theoretical limits.

Even with bullshit materials as a superconductor blah blah, carbon nanotubes blah blah. Lithium will still be there to be able to "store" those electrons/energy levels for you.

Battery tech will not evole much more. Few % only.

And never forget. ONE SINGLE TESLA Y BATTERY needs 250 tons of mined soil to be produced.

Simple maths around the usage and price of lithium makes this whole play bullshit. If this becomes a reality, lithium needs to drop pure from the sky or the price will become unreal.

There is only way to decarbonize without destroying the planet mining or killing more humans (a.k.a keeping the poor poor). Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is THE ONLY WAY.

It's physics. It's math. Just stop and do the math. How many solar panels are needed? At what distance? At what capacity of operation? Considering wheather? Considering mining? Considering storage for all of that energy? Do that math for some reasonable ammount of joules of energy for Hydrogen.

Wind/Solar DO NOT ALLOW for a clean hidrogen to exist. THEY JUST DON'T.

Wanna a Hydrogen economy? Just don't do it and go for a synth-Ammonia economy and nuclear.

If you still wanna the hidrogen... go for nuclear at least so your hidrogen can be truly considered "green hidrogen", not the lies told today of what is green.

PHYSICS/MATH impedes this planet going foward with this bullshit... but no problem... let's just wait and hope I am wrong. As much as Thunderfoot and so many other scientists that don't really care about the status quo. Just plain math/physics.

0

netz_pirat t1_ix9eeki wrote

Okay, you're mixing up quite a few things here.

a) None of that explaines why hydrogen is trash

b) even if Lithium will stay the "best" type of battery, for grid storage where space is less of an issue other battery types will come online that are way cheaper and have less enviromental impact. We already have some. (Iron air, Redux flow,...)

c) You are also mixing up energy generation and energy storage. You can't put a nuclear reactor in a motorbike. Also, we won't have enough nuclear fuel, and it's not exactly clean to mine either if we use nuclear for everything.

d) what do you thing Ammonia is? NH3. You want Ammoniak, you need hydrogen first.

e) one important goal has to be to use less energy, so hopefully we'll need less renewables that one would think. We already had summers with negative energy prices in Europe, with more and more Solar panels & wind turbines being installed, thats going to happen more and more.

​

please please watch less youtube videos.

1

billybaconbaked t1_ixa0g4f wrote

a) the podcast has all the data, and also the efficiency data. hidrogen is trash. what canada is doing is ABSURD. it's going to fake produce clean hidrogen and export it (in things that dont exist, not even in 5 years... the ships to transport and the HUGE plants to do electrolization).

canada has no energy to spare and is going to produce "green hidrogen" to export and balance the internal grid by burning more gas.

b) iron phospate uses lithum. no pure iron battery.

c) nuclear + synth ammonia. ammonia is the "battery"

d) the process to make ammonia is VERY different from hidrogen, no electrolisys, better eficiency.

e) how do you consume less energy by making hidrogen? a SUPER inneficient process? and transport it, also ABSURDELY low efficiency because of the size of the tanks necessary (liquifing hidrogen ridiculously inneficient)? and build all it's infrasctructure if the efficiency of doing so and carbon being produced is super high?

please watch the podcast.

start having better classes.

1

netz_pirat t1_ixbrttq wrote

Dude...sorry to be so blunt, but you have no clue what you are talking about. If the podcast is as good as you claim (which is possible because I kind of see the points it's trying to make) you didn't really understand it.

Please, as a absolutely bare minimum go on Wikipedia and read up on ammonia synthesis.

While you are there, you can also look up the composition of iron-air battery.

0

billybaconbaked t1_ixcytu4 wrote

You are very dumb.

Please go item by item again there and counter them.

"Iron phosphate batteries"

"Burn fossil fuels to make electrolisis, to have hidrogen, to cool down, put on a ship to Germany to be burned again". 3 steps with more then 50% loss in efficiency.

The stupidity of you on your "2nd year" of college in physics is crazy bad.

Defending ABSOLUTELY CLEAR trash in r/futurology... LOL

How many posts here are absolute lies? 99%?

0

netz_pirat t1_ixdv38y wrote

You introduced iron phosphate. I was always talking about Iron air.

You introduced burning fossil fuels. I was always talking about using excess renewables.

Oh... And I had 2 years physics as part of my bachelor& masters in aerospace engineering.

I am out of this discussion.

0

billybaconbaked t1_ixdzffv wrote

Dumb kid. Poor kid can't do math.

This whole post is dismounted on just calculating the efficiency of producing Hydrogen, at an AMAZING 50% efficiency in a machine that never breaks, using amazing Natural Gas to feed such machine since Canada is not deploying more nuclear, just faking some investments in modular reactors. SO IT IS NAT GAS FEEDING THIS SYSTEM.

SIMPLE. MATH. Canada is going to burn natural gas, at low efficiency, to transform into electricity, put into de grid, somewhere that is going to be used at an electrolosis plant, producing Hydrogn... and needs A LOT of energy to cool it down to transport it. And then you burn that amazing H2 into the most perfect 50% efficiency engine... look at the amount of steps that you are losing a LOT of that energy. It's a machine that does not work.

Believing in such thing, doing the SIMPLE MATH of efficiency drop, even removing tons of steps and pretending the world is magical, this will make more CO2 then help in anything.

Iron Air. Sure... Salt batteries also, right? Fusion energy maybe? Tech that DOES NOT EXIST... thanks a lot. Super argument. Amazing discussion.

Promisses of the future. Go r/Futurology

You are very dense. You never discussed anything. Bye bye. Amazing 'discussion'. I hope you remember this in 5 years when Canada launches this amazing project.

Maybe you should watch more podcasts... just not JoeRogan... maybe you should frequent r/science and r/Futurology less and have more physics classes.

1