I’m not sure what you mean. Natural fresh water supplies are stressed in many regions. We need hydrogen to fuel vehicles and for the production GHG-free steel and fertilizer. Oxygen of course is necessary for medical and industrial applications. Safely handling hydrogen and oxygen is a solved problem and these gases are not polluting if you have to vent to atmosphere. It only makes sense from a wasteful, financially extractive perspective to store extra electricity by environmentally questionable means instead of actually using that energy right away.

If we build out our GHG-free power capacity beyond our electricity demand, efficiency isn’t an issue. We need fresh water. We need hydrogen and oxygen. I’m sure there are other convenient things to produce whenever electricity demand falls off. These energy storage and reselling schemes are just destroying value.

None. Use demand shaping instead. I like electrolysis of water, but desalination might make more sense in some regions. I suppose you could even redirect excess electricity to certain computational work.

I don’t think we should be storing and reselling electricity at all.

Oh, that’s me. I wrote that.

Who’s they?

Thank you for sharing these links. I was a proponent of IRV, but it’s clear to me now that it doesn’t offer a significant improvement over FPTP. Quinn’s 3-2-1 scoring method is a lot more attractive to me now.

I just found this article that I think explains what happened. In a previous RCV election, the Republicans got 60% of the first round vote, but still lost. That was because it was split between more than one Republican as a result of their unusual primary election system that sends the top four candidates to the general election. Basically, they spoiled the election for themselves. The tight result of this referendum is probably more of an indictment of Alaska’s top four primary system than RCV.

I don’t think that makes sense. In both RCV and FPTP, if a candidate gets over 50% in the first round then they’re the winner. In FPTP if no candidate gets over 50% then there’s usually a runoff. I believe that’s why rank choice voting is also known as instant runoff voting.

Why such a close margin? What don’t Alaskans like about RCV?

Compress it to 10,000psi and it gets portable enough.

I don’t understand this suspicion. It’s easier to burn fossil fuels for electricity than to reform them into hydrogen.

If hydrogen is so difficult to bottle then how are there self-serve refuelling stations in operation?

Yes, there is a volumetric penalty, but it’s not that bad. At 10,000psi a 1 gallon hydrogen bottle has roughly the same energy as a 1lb bottle of liquid propane for camping.

Yes, but imagine a world where propane and other fossil fuels are no longer available. You’re going to lug a big battery around for an electric grill instead?

For what it’s worth hydrogen stations currently dispense at 10,000psi, which is considered “medium” pressure in the field. “Ultra high” pressure is considered an order of magnitude greater.

I’d much rather transport a bottle of hydrogen to a cookout than an electrolyzer. What if a power outlet isn’t available?

As Toyota has demonstrated (and speaking from my own experience), it’s not that tricky. As for cooking with the stuff, sometimes you just need portability and/or a flame. Electric is a poor choice in those cases.

It’s kind of malpractice for Biden not to immediately take advantage of his newly confirmed Presidential immunity. Embarrassing really.

Okay sure.

That’s not such a bargain considering that it takes so long to charge a BEV. More fast chargers are needed to match the capacity of a hydrogen dispenser. I think the uneven subsidies and hype over the years have just lead to more BEV customers.

You’re correct. Maybe someone who does can explain the special appeal of a personal vehicle that requires 20+ minutes for a partial refill if you drive it too much.