We were easy marks.

  • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But it isn’t just steel pipe. It’s steel pipe precision welded and leak checked, buried under ground, with lots of continual maintenance, pump stations to increase pressure, control systems, etc. More expensive even than natural gas piping, which is already difficult to get installed with municipalities frequently rejecting it for safety reasons.

    We’ve been back and forth on this countless times over the years, you and I, but you keep coming back to these same points. None of which are correct. BEVs use existing infrastructure, and while they are NOT the best solution, they are the best solution people are going to choose. You’re flat out not going to get someone to pay more for hydrogen than they would for any any other fuel, producing the hydrogen isn’t as energy efficient as charging a battery, and installing an H2 station is significantly more expensive than installing even a DCFC station with four or six stalls and all the complimentary transformers necessary.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet that’s the same idea as natural gas pipes. It is not any more expensive than natural gas pipes. In fact, natural gas pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires. This whole line of reasoning is just BEV propaganda. Wires are not magic and have huge costs associated with them.

      In the end, an FCEV will be cheaper to own and by a huge margin. Hydrogen will be nearly free since it can be made from excess and unused electricity. The infrastructure will be cheaper by a huge margin too. People are just stuck in the past and are refusing to accept change. It is the same rhetoric as anti-wind and anti-solar. It is a doomed argument and its ridiculous to keep on repeating it.

      • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is not any more expensive than natural gas pipes.

        It is, because hydrogen will leak more easily than methane.

        In fact, natural gas pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires.

        Well now I damand you cite your sources, because natural gas pipelines are 5x the price per installed mile compared to high voltage transmission lines. I mean, the amount of material alone should be sounding alarms in your head. And that’s from EIA. Even PG&E is citing $2M per mile to bury their high voltage transmission lines in California of all markets. Several markets in the US have absurdly low costs of under $300k per mile installed. So, yeah, I’m going to need to see a source that isn’t hydrogenhype.org or something.

        In the end, an FCEV will be cheaper to own and by a huge margin.

        My guess is in 20 years time, the cost of buying an FCEV and a BEV will be equivalent. The cost of fueling the two vehicles will still strongly favor BEVs, and the only advantage that FCEV will have is refuel time (5 instead of 30 minutes) and range per kg. Batteries are going to be heavy no matter what the futurism weirdos claim and hydrogen gas is more energy dense per kg no matter what we do.

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Here is the source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221014668

          You are simply regurgitating BEV propaganda by denying this. It’s just all made-up bullshit from those people. Pipelines are radically cheaper than wires and that is undeniable.

          Hell, if wires were really cheaper, why do natural gas pipelines exist at all? Just run gas turbines at a centralized locations and send the electricity to where it needs to go.

          In the long-run, BEVs will end up being too expensive to be competitive. In fact, they’re not competitive at all even now, and rely entirely on subsidies to be viable. The pathway to zero emissions will reveal these inconvenient facts and likely drive BEVs to a marginal niche. And if the future is not FCEVs, then it will be something like synfuel powered cars.

          • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let’s take a couple things you’ve said and compare them to the link you just provided me. You said that the cost of hydrogen pipelines was equally inexpensive as methane / natural gas. Yet in the abstract of your link,

            The results indicate that the cost of electrical transmission per delivered MWh can be up to eight times higher than for hydrogen pipelines, about eleven times higher than for natural gas pipelines, and twenty to fifty times higher than for liquid fuels pipelines

            Now how could nat gas be 11x cheaper than electricity but hydrogen is only 8x if they cost the same? That sounds like it’s 37.5% more expensive per MWh delivered. Interestingly, to deliver 1 MWh of hydrogen, you only need to deliver 30kg. Of course, the LCOE of that 30kg of hydrogen is hilarious compared to methane gas power plant.

            And, of course, the very next paragraph dives into that.

            The higher cost of electrical transmission is primarily because of lower carrying capacity (MW per line) of electrical transmission lines compared to the energy carrying capacity of the pipelines for gaseous and liquid fuels

            That’s only true for DC, not for AC transmission lines which regularly move 900 - 2200 MW of power. Not that it’s even a point that matters much, since most power plants don’t produce 2200 MW of power at one location. We tend to distribute the generation for reliability reasons at the very least.

            Now, are you ready for the kicker? I mean, are you really ready for me to just put the final nail in this coffin for you? What kind of electricity transmission are they comparing pipelines to in this link?

            HVDC

            And there it is. The cost of HVDC is overwhelmingly dominated by AC to DC and DC to AC conversion hardware, as noted by EIA in their reports. But, of course, if you compare to AC transmission as I mentioned above, this entire report is so upside down that it’s laughable. And that is why we have electric transmission lines rather than natural gas generators at every home and business in the entirety of the US. You should read the whole report, it’s really full of a lot of fun tidbits like this.

            Here’s a fun EIA link talking about HVDC transmission line cost per mile https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36393 and the report linked to from that page, which EIA commissioned. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmission/

            You basically picked the highest cost method of electricity transmission with the least adoption, and wondered why piping natural gas was cheaper. The fact that the into to the research said that electricity was hard to move at such high MW levels was the first clue that something was wrong here. That’s a rookie mistake for you.

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re just engaging in more obfuscation. 8x and 11x are pretty close to being 10x cheaper. It is sufficient for physicists or engineers to just say it is 10x as a first-order approximation.

              AC suffers from more losses at long distances. It is also quite expensive. Both HVAC and HVDC are more expensive than pipelines: https://www.apga.org.au/sites/default/files/uploaded-content/field_f_content_file/pipelines_vs_powerlines_-_a_summary.pdf

              You cannot fudge your way around the facts. If HVAC was really that much cheaper, there would never be HVDC connections in the first place.

              • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re just engaging in more obfuscation.

                No, I was building a case. And you very clearly do not understand what’s being talked about in that research. Claiming that AC transmission lines are as expensive to build as HVDC is absurd in every way. https://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/grady/_13_EE392J_2_Spring11_AEP_Transmission_Facts.pdf

                Even the EIA link I supplied shows that the conversion electronics are 60% of the cost of HVDC. Now you respond with Australia Pipeline & Gas Association? lmfao Dude. Come on.

                If HVAC was really that much cheaper, there would never be HVDC connections in the first place.

                Ok, now I know for a fact you don’t understand what you’re talking about. The only reason HVDC is a thing is to reduce transmission losses on very long runs. Something that we don’t really do in the US, and the most popular installations are in Europe where nations sell energy among EU members. The increased cost serves multiple purposes in that case- It reduces transmission losses as I said, but it also allows you to build more compact systems, and you get less capacitance issues in under ground and under water installations. It’s honestly crazy you’d even say that.

                • Hypx@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How about you actually read my link? I clearly stated that at long-distances, HVAC become inefficient and therefore costly. Your link is not comparing them to pipelines.