[_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.

[_hypx]

The idea of lithium batteries dates back to the 1910s. It is not a new idea. But this is irrelevant because both had their major advancements more recently.

The fundamental problem with batteries is that they're heavy, highly resource dependent, and take a very long time to recharge. This is not going to change unless you take extreme measure like battery swapping. Furthermore, as the world shifts towards SUV sized BEVs, it becomes its own environmental and societal menace. This is a doomed idea in the long-run.

The thing about fuel cell cars is that they are also EVs. They are basically the same idea as BEVs, just without the giant batteries. This gives us far greater flexibility. You can even envision the idea of plug-in fuel cell cars, eliminate pretty much any real arguments against them as a general idea. Everything can be shifted towards zero emissions just like BEVs.

And because FCEVs do not have the huge batteries of BEVs, they are fundamentally more sustainable. And if you are aware that they are also EVs, then they should eventually close whatever efficiency gap you imagine them having. Ensuring that the long-term world will be one dominated by FCEVs.

These are all simple and straightforward bits of reasoning. It does not take much effort to see that FCEVs are the future, and the only question is when. BEV fanatics like you are just spamming FUD against them, many of which are total red herrings. These are terrible arguments and all it does is undermine the credibility of BEVs. In fact, these are signs of a technology that is running out of steam, not a technology on the rise. If you need to lie to defend your business, then you are headed down the path of Reddit and Twitter, just waiting until some disruptive event drives you out of business.

[_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.

[_hypx]

Then you plainly don't know what that means. Appeal to authority means trusting someone who doesn't know the answer but you imply that that person does, or that the argument doesn't need evidence beyond the words of a person. It doesn't refer to actual experts in the field who have done actual research.

As I said from the outset, you are free to present any counterevidence. Heck, even a person of similar expertise saying otherwise. Anything more than you denying it.