So, we all understand why hydrogen cars are a dead end

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.2237554]

...Right?

[Anonymous No.2237569]

Methanol ftw!

[Anonymous No.2237573]

I am an idiot and do not. I've viscerally repudiated them though for some reason, because as far as I know don't they use hydrogen to produce the electricity? Isn't it an extra step? I must be wrong, please explain.

[Anonymous No.2237574]

you best be joking with those percentages.

[Anonymous No.2237584]

I remember our chemistry teacher explaining to us that the cost-benefit is too poor for it to ever be a viable alternative.

I actually read that recharging stations for electric cars end up using massive amounts of coal. So much so that it ends up being worse for the environment.

There will never be a viable alternative to petroleum based cars until we somehow remove the automobile lobbies from government.

[Anonymous No.2237586]

>>2237584

Automobiles are fundamentally inefficient. The fact that life in our societies is near impossible without one goes to show how badly we've fucked up.

[Anonymous No.2237591]

>>2237574
What’s funny is that even if they were true, the issues of the low storage density of currant batteries, new loads on the power grid, and the wait time for charging would still ass rape away any efficacy gains. No wait that’s just sad.

[Anonymous No.2237597]

>>2237554
Without looking up the real percentages, the shortcoming of the right side is the expensive cost of energy capacity and the low energy density.

[Anonymous No.2237598]

How long does it take to charge a prius?

[Anonymous No.2237603]

>mfw electricity prices shoot up to pay for new power plants and infrastructure because everyone starts using electric cars

[Anonymous No.2237605]

>>2237586
>people don't share my love for hyper dense diseased human hives, that makes them evil.

[Anonymous No.2237638]

>>2237603
You do realize that with chargers that feed back into the grid, power consumption in places with primarily thermoelectric power (coal, nuclear) will hardly change at all, right? And that people who park their cars during the day/charge at night (that is, almost everyone) will likely *make* money by selling their charged power to industry?

[снайпер No.2237633]

>>2237584
>I actually read that recharging stations for electric cars end up using massive amounts of coal.

Well, you heard wrong. They actually use electricity.

[Anonymous No.2237649]

>>2237605

>People live in an efficient, healthy and environmentally sustainable fashion. That makes them evil.

[Anonymous No.2237652]

"Nuclear power stations are bad because they will blow up and because they are too expensive to build."
What if someone came up to you an said that? How would you respond?

[Anonymous No.2237663]

>>2237649
>efficient, healthy and environmentally sustainable fashion.
you type this, and yet you havent killed yourself.

[Anonymous No.2237674]

>>2237652
First point is wrong. Second point is correct but not necessarily "bad." Nuclear power plants are pretty expensive.

[Anonymous No.2237684]

>>2237638
>mfw battery technology is shit and will remain shit far into the future and that the cost is never factored in

[Anonymous No.2237695]

>>2237633
lol. where does most of the electricity come from? by todays standard, a lot of el. power comes from fossile fuels.
just because you cant see the smoke where you live doesnt mean it isnt burning somewhere. The point of electric cars is just as much to bring down local pollution in areas of high car density.

In a better world (hopefully in the near future), they will be all nuclear (or some sci fi fusion ) powered lowering the actual emissions.

Actually had a discussion with a guy who made the argument that pressurized-air propelled cars could not be unenvironmental. as they just ran on air.
He is actually a politician in the city i live in. scary.

[Anonymous No.2237696]

Too bad we lost the secret of Tesla's wireless power grid. We could have avoided all of this.

[снайпер No.2237698]

>>2237674
Mostly because there's so much red-tape involved in building them.

99% of the red-tape is there because of the environmentalist movement.

They didn't kill oil, coal, or natural gas. No, they went after one of the best, most environmentally friendly sources of power we have available to us.

The power of ignorance!

[Anonymous No.2237704]

>>2237674

>implying alternatives are cheap.

they are expensive but pay off big time in the long run. But that is not a good enough incentive in a world that is run on yearly budgets

[Anonymous No.2237709]

>>2237696
no real secret, just extremely inefficient, microwave power for directed line of sight works fairly well, but takes more infrastructure on both ends.

[Anonymous No.2237713]

>>2237696

Oh look. A Tesla fag.

Where does electricity come from, again? The friction of the Earth against the Aether? Yeaaah...

[Anonymous No.2237716]

>>2237696
>tesla worshipper
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2237727]

>>2237713
>>2237716
Apparently we have lost the secret of sarcasm as well.

[Anonymous No.2237732]

>>2237698
Quite. Hell if you compare them to windfarms, their build, operating and maintenance costs are still massively cheaper for the same output. Factor in that most modern reactors wouldn't necessarily produce all that much radioactive waste next to equipment that needs to be replaced from time to time and you're left wondering why the greens aren't all over it as the saviour of mankind and panda bears.

[Anonymous No.2237748]

>>2237704
>we lose money on every transaction but make up for it in volume!!!!!
Sorry, just about all of them are shit and while some aren’t, we have completely destroyed the economic mechanisms that would have eased the workable to the forefront.

[Anonymous No.2237754]

>>2237727
protip, /sci/fags are largely autistic neckbeards (not asburgers)

[Anonymous No.2237765]

>>2237748
well shit, son.

do you disagree that something expensive NOW that will give us cheaper power WONT pay for itself?

Ask yourself - why do people who call a lot use different cell phone contracts then those who dont?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.2237972]

>>2237713

>>Where does electricity come from, again?

Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, coal and natural gas. Only 45% of the energy mixture is coal.

That's already superior to a gasoline vehicle that gets 100% of its power from fossil fuels, even before you factor in the dramatically superior efficiency of electric motors compared to gas engines.

[Anonymous No.2238532]

Here is the classic article on this subject:

WARNING: Contains actual science.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

[Anonymous No.2238549]

>>2237765
only if there's a competitive market, if the early cell phone market had been regulated and/or selective subsidized to "protect the consumer" they would still be expensive and low quality.

[Anonymous No.2238574]

>>2238549
cell phones are a matter of national security more than anything. The establisement had an important interest in everyone having one, because it serves as a way to know where everyone is at all times.

[Anonymous No.2238579]

>>2238574
I luled.

[Anonymous No.2238588]

>>2238579
you underestimate how important security is.
Protip: it more important than progress

[Anonymous No.2240369]

>>2238532
"These would also be complicated by the 2.5-year Jupiter-to-Earth flight transit time (during which any liquid hydrogen launched would probably boil away),"

...what? because we are utterly incapable of building tanks to store shit in?

"and the fact that upon re-entry at Earth, the imagined hydrogen shipping capsule would face heat loads about eight times higher than those withstood by a space shuttle returning from orbit."

...why? there's nothing intrinsic about a "hydrogen shipping capsule" that would cause it to experience a higher heat load. There's either a lot unspoken here or the author is a tard.

I'm still reading this, I just wanted to comment on what caught me up already

[Anonymous No.2240387]

what I never bought about the "hydrogen fuel economy" is that are they really expecting fucking mouthbreathers to stop at a H2 station and fill up their pickup trucks and NOT blow themselves up as they light a cigarette

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2240399]

They both need a new abundant source of power. As for hydrogen, many of the problems outlined in OP's pic could be minimized/fixed by the use of home-based electrolyzers on a new design that is more energy efficient. Perhaps partially powered by photovoltaics?

[снайпер No.2240404]

>>2240369
>...what? because we are utterly incapable of building tanks to store shit in?

Hydrogen seeps through pretty much everything.

>...why? there's nothing intrinsic about a "hydrogen shipping capsule" that would cause it to experience a higher heat load.

There is. A capsule making a return trip from Jupiter has a much higher velocity than something in Earth orbit. So if you just slam said capsule into the atmosphere trying to aerobrake, you'll experience much more heating than a re-entry from LEO.

[Anonymous No.2240422]

>>2240404

re: heating - I thought maybe that's what he meant but in such a futuristic scenario, why wouldn't we just brake with engines and reduce the orbit and speed and then we could reenter the atmosphere at a more decent velocity.

(everything I know about orbital dynamics I learned from Orbiter)

of course, if we have the fuel to dick around like that then we might not need to fly to jupiter to catch hydrogen...

[Anonymous No.2240921]

>>2238532
>Hydrogen, therefore, is not a *source* of energy. It simply is a *carrier* of energy.

Truth. As a carrier, electricity is far more convenient, especially with battery tech advancing by leaps and bounds.

*All* energy we use comes from the sun (solar, wind, hydro, fossil fuels) or radioactive elements (nuclear, geothermal).