CrimeDad

Okay, but this application only requires 1.9MWh on board. That would be about 57kg of hydrogen. The required capacity would actually be less since the hydrogen refuel time should be significantly less than recharging a battery. Anyway, I just doubt very much that 11,900kg storage vessels and fuel cell would be required. There's simply less dead weight in a hydrogen vehicle as well as better performance and less externalities associated with battery production and disposal/recycling.

As for the efficiency of hydrogen production and delivery, it shouldn't matter. We need to produce it anyway for emissions free steel and fertilizer production. The real problem is that we don't have enough emissions free energy production, which isn't one that battery vehicles or storage facilities solve. The current paradigm is one of deficit in order to create a market and I think battery storage unfortunately facilitates that. Instead, we need to build out capacity so that there's almost always a surplus of electricity with the extra getting diverted to hydrogen production. It should be rare that the process is reversed to turn hydrogen back into electricity for the grid. That hydrogen is currently too expensive is the result of bad policy, which BEVs just reinforce.

Lol wow.

Locking my account helped me cut down my Twitter usage a lot by making it pointless to reply in most cases.

I meant apart from the hydrogen fuel costs. It's not obvious to me why the labor and maintenance costs of hydrogen powered mining vehicles wouldn't be greater than that of the battery powered versions and the attendant charging/battery swapping equipment.

Why would the operating costs be higher?

Ah you're right. Assuming an energy density of 160 Wh/kg that's still almost 12,000kg. That much hydrogen contains about 400MWh.

A 240 tonne battery? That's almost 240 tonnes less payload. They should make one that runs on hydrogen or ammonia.

I understand how having a higher income and tax rate in retirement makes a Roth attractive. However, the comparisons I've seen don't fully account for the opportunity cost of paying the taxes up front in the case of a Roth, since a traditional IRA lowers your taxable income by the amount you contribute. This tax break allows for a greater contribution. In other words, I think a fairer comparison would show a greater initial contribution for a traditional IRA.

That is a helpful comparison, but it assumes the same initial contribution. I think a better comparison would assume a higher initial contribution with a traditional IRA in order to account for the money being paid in taxes with Roth as being a missed opportunity. The money that went to taxes in the case of a Roth could have been additional investment in the the case of a traditional.

I used to not have any doubts about a Roth, but I've been considering that maybe it's a little too much like giving the government a free loan. Do you know if there's a thorough comparison anywhere between a traditional and Roth IRA that takes into consideration the opportunity cost of paying tax on the contributions?

I'm not saying that talent, preference, or experience aren't real or that people won't naturally focus their efforts on certain activities. I'm saying that people shouldn't have to effectively blackmailed into certain activities, whether they align with their preferences or not. I like being a mechanical engineer. I do not like that I have to do it for forty plus hours a week, 49 weeks out of the year. Getting rid of occupations means that I would not be penalized if I decided to cut back on engineering and devote some real time to things that actually matter to me, my family, and my neighbors.

A tenuous argument could be made that Israel and the US are the same country. Is that what you are getting at?