[panick21_]

You are the one making argument for hydrogen powered cars and that's totally detached from actual reality.

> Cargo ships do not travel short routes

With short I mean not crossing major oceans. Battery powered ships can do a lot of routes.

> MOE has not actually been invented yet, and there is no evidence it will be either cheap nor scalable. It's currently very expensive and requires plenty of exotic materials to work even as a concept.

Both of these claims are just plain false.

> The fact is, a hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper than a battery infrastructure. That is simply due to the nature of pipelines versus wire.

That is such a terrible and utterly idiotic oversimplification.

The reality is, one of these exists and we can make realistic estimate, hydrogen infrastructure simply doesn't exist.

> So it is 5-10x cheaper to make and move hydrogen around compared to electricity: https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-hydrogen-offshore-wind

A bunch of small trial projects supported by governments, that make grand claims.

You like to talk about reality, in reality of the 100s of GW of wind turbines, basically non use hydrogen as an energy transport. And the waste majority of announced new wind projects do not plan to produce hydrogen in the future.

> Reality doesn't not favor batteries or excessive electrification.

And yet in actual reality, you know the one we actually live in, electrification is happening with ever increasing speed and the hydrogen industry barley exists and as far as it does it is almost completely driven by state investments.

Its pretty fucking rich to claim 'in reality' when actual reality is suggesting the exact opposite.

[_hypx]

Except the most important routes are about crossing oceans. Asia to Europe or Asia to North America are very important routes. You pretty much hand waved major details here.

Then show me a working MOE system. I'd love to be enlightened about a working system that went beyond lab experiment.

You're the one ignoring actual expertise here. Here more people with expertise making the same claim: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo...

> It is about 10 times cheaper to transport energy by a hydrogen pipeline than by an electric cable.

At some point you are simply rejecting evidence without any counterevidence of your own.

The reason why we turn use hydrogen to transport energy right now is because the technology wasn't available until recently. But that is changing: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230411-h2pipeline...

As the technology becomes available, economics will dictate more hydrogen infrastructure.

Your simply misinformed. Hydrogen investment is enormous in its totality: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/hydrogen-projects-inve...

All you're doing is making wild assertions without evidence.

[_aavaa_]

> 10 times cheaper.

This is a bogus claim. Show us some hydrogen pipelines that are in operation which are thousands of kilometres in length.

And the cost is per energy. Which energy? Output energy when you get electricity at the other end? Or chemical potential energy in the H2, which is meaningless since we can’t get it all.

[_hypx]

Are you really going to go around and dismiss properly sourced claims? Where is your counterevidence? And no, you cannot just concern troll your way around this. There are people with real credentials making these claims. You cannot dismiss them without evidence of your own.

[panick21_]

People who make grand claims based on small trial projects that have almost no commercial traction, unless you can show a source that this technology is going to have exponential growth in the next couple years.

And 'people with credentials' also believed in hydrogen cars and wide deployment of synfuels for automotive. There are lots of claims made over the last 20 years by people with credentials. But I guess you still believe in hydrogen cars so its probably not worth having this debate.

[_hypx]

You’re just a short-sighted naysayer. Guys like you are repeating the same garbage that anti-wind and anti-solar people said in the past. All you’re doing is proving that you have no interest in progress.

[panick21_]

Lithium batteries and improvements in battery technology is more recent then hydrogen. You are the one holding one to an outdated relic of the past claiming it to be the future.

Wind and solar are replacing fossil fuels (or in the rare case of Germany, nuclear). Hydorgen cars by the time they could finally come about would be replacing already carbon free battery cars.

Hilariously enough is not only are you holding on to a relic of the past, you are also defending a technology that is far less energy efficient and is not even green, and wont be for many decades.

You can't just declare something progress because it has always been progress. Its simply a technology that has already been overtaken by something far better before it was ever deployed. That is really progress. What you are doing is declaring something the future and then holding on to it forever and claiming that its the only possible progress.

So in reality you are the one not actually looking to progress, but defending historical idea of progress.

[_aavaa_]

This is not a properly sourced claim at all.

You have a source from where you heard about it, but if you open up the link the person simply states this as fact. They do not back up their claim with any facts or sources, they simply say it.

The onus is not on me to provide counter evidence for an unsubstantiated claim. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence backing it up.

[_hypx]

The person in question is a expert in the field and has decades of researching green energy topics. That is considered evidence. It is you who is just making shit up. You are literally expecting everyone to just accept your words. We merely want evidence instead.

[_aavaa_]

> The person in question is a expert in the field and has decades of researching green energy topics. That is considered evidence.

No, that considered an appeal to authority.