bad_alloc

I looked it up, hydrogen fuel cells can attain about 60% efficiency from the energy potential in hydrogen, when converting to electricity. So I’m not wrong, we’re talking about different numbers.

If you are looking at the pure engine efficiency, we are now looking at >97% for most EV motors (class IE4). However, the point of the entire transition away from fossil fuels is preventing or delaying climate collapse. For this purpose lowering emissions and reducing energy use go hand in hand, hence the overall efficiency is critical.

But we can usually also do natural gas reclamation, which is the process of removing the carbon from CH4, and producing pure hydrogen, which, I believe is a much more energy efficient process.

Hydrogen is less strongly bound to Carbon than Oxygen, however in this process we produce more CO2 again.

AFAIK, no real progress has gone into electrolysis for decades.

There is a theoretical upper bound for the efficency of water electrolysis, depending on the temperature. While current electrolyzers can surely be improved, since we are already making electricity, we might as well use it directly. Some applications (aircraft, rockets, ...) need the higher energy density of chemical fuels. But: Working with liquid or gaseous hydrogen is terrible: Cyrogenic liquids are not easy to handle, let alone store. Hydrogen will embrittle any metal exposed to it and when inadvertenly mixed with air forms a highly explosive gas. Even the rocket people try to avoid using hydrogen unless they really need the ISP.

The fact is that the batteries will cause the cars life to end long before anything else wears out that could potentially cause the car to get scrapped.

So far we have seen EV batteries not degrade a lot due to good BMS. For most cars the battery will last at least 10 years before performance is seriously impacted and even then the battery can be reused for storage (home or grid scale). Most EVs have >40kWh batteries, homes usually need 5-10kWh storage. So one chewed up EV battery could be reused for multiple stationary battery systems.

Cycle life is the core of the battery problem.

I do agree that current battery tech is... not great. Having less spicy cells that are easier to recycle or recondition would be a massive gain and more research needs to be a core focus. However Li-Ion and LiFePo are already good enough to work for most people most of the time. Pair this with a lot of wind and solar energy generation and you have mostly sustainable traffic. This can be done right now and it has to be done right now. I argue a lot against hydrogen because it seems like a technology that is not there yet and allows many old players in the energy market to delay a transition which is not beneficial to them.

One alternative is hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell technology isn’t perfect, with a loss of about 20-30% IIRC

You don't recall correctly: The efficiency of Hydrogen, from solar cell to the wheels is 26%. Electrolysis is highly inefficient and compression and chilling of hydrogen is very energy intensive. Meanwhile, EVs are at 70%.

You are right that batteries kinda suck due to their energy density. However with EVs you can buy today you can still commute every day without noticing any major difference to an ICE car. You can also do long road trips, even in a small car, albeit slower. (Source: did both)

Xiran Jay Zhao is posting about this on their Instagram a lot, which gives an insight into this from the POV of a Chinese person.

Welcome to the real world Neo. Don't take the pill with 777 permissions btw.

Change to Linux on main PC when?

They are a lot more efficient in their class and might convince some ICE drivers to switch. Their range tends to be quite good. Unfortunately they have drawbacks:

• They require a very large battery. If you don't find >150kW chargers, you'll be waiting a long time
• More batteries per car = worse environmental impact from production
• Road degradation grows by the fourth power w.r.t. vehicle weight. The big batteries make electric SUVs very heavy
• SUVs are more dangerous for pedestrians due to their size
• In a crash SUVs deliver much more energy, killing more people.

I second this. Drove my Zoe through rain, snow and ice, never had any problem or even thought about with water ingress.

I don't get it. People are working for free to add a feature to your product which might move more people to buy said product. Make users who use external features acknowledge some waiver that your company is not responsible for damage. If it turns out to be really good, you can fork it, hire the original inventor and turn it into a paid product. Isn't that a risk-free win? Am I missing something?

You can't tell me what to do!!!

...but it kinda makes sense, so I won't hit it with a hammer 😐

I bought the FP3, then upgraded it to an FP3+ when the camera broke. Never had as much fun with a phone before or since. It has been my daily driver for years and it did everything well enough, if a bit slow. My friends either get new phones or use them despite visible damage because they can't fix them. Now I ordered the FP5 to have the 3+ as a backup and test setup and I am confident I will use the FP5 for 3-6 years again :)

Fairphones are like an odd car: There are sleeker, faster, cheaper and maybe just better alternatives around. However you still like it and just learn where to hit it with a hammer when it starts making funny noises. If you can afford it and like odd devices, it's for you.

... uh, why?

I'm doing my part!