Transit agencies are repeatedly lured by hydrogen buses despite their significant drawbacks compared to battery-electric buses. Hydrogen buses are far more expensive to operate, requiring costly hydrogen production and fueling infrastructure, while battery-electric buses leverage existing electrical grids. Hydrogen technology also suffers from lower efficiency, meaning more energy is wasted in producing and delivering hydrogen compared to simply charging batteries. While proponents tout hydrogen's faster refueling time, battery technology advancements are closing that gap, and improved route planning can minimize the impact of charging times. Ultimately, the article argues that the continued investment in hydrogen buses is driven by lobbying and a misguided belief in hydrogen's potential, rather than a sound economic or environmental assessment.
The blog post "AI Is Stifling Tech Adoption" argues that the current hype around AI, specifically large language models (LLMs), is hindering the adoption of other promising technologies. The author contends that the immense resources—financial, talent, and attention—being poured into AI are diverting from other areas like bioinformatics, robotics, and renewable energy, which could offer significant societal benefits. This overemphasis on LLMs creates a distorted perception of technological progress, leading to a neglect of potentially more impactful innovations. The author calls for a more balanced approach to tech development, advocating for diversification of resources and a more critical evaluation of AI's true potential versus its current hype.
Hacker News commenters largely disagree with the premise that AI is stifling tech adoption. Several argue the opposite, that AI is driving adoption by making complex tools easier to use and automating tedious tasks. Some believe the real culprit hindering adoption is poor UX, complex setup processes, and lack of clear value propositions. A few acknowledge the potential negative impact of AI hallucinations and misleading information but believe these are surmountable challenges. Others suggest the author is conflating AI with existing problematic trends in tech development. The overall sentiment leans towards viewing AI as a tool with the potential to enhance rather than hinder adoption, depending on its implementation.
Self-driving buses, operating in simpler, more controlled environments than robotaxis, are emerging as a potentially faster route to widespread autonomous vehicle adoption. These buses can navigate fixed routes with fewer unpredictable variables, making them easier to deploy and potentially build public trust in autonomous technology. While challenges like complex intersections and pedestrian interactions remain, successful pilot programs suggest that autonomous buses could not only improve public transit but also pave the way for wider acceptance and eventual expansion of self-driving technology to personal vehicles.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of the claims made in the article about the potential of autonomous buses. Several point out the limitations of current self-driving technology, particularly in complex environments and unpredictable weather. Some highlight the "last mile" problem and doubt that these buses offer a significant advantage over existing public transit. Others question the economic viability, suggesting the cost and maintenance of these specialized vehicles might outweigh the benefits. A few commenters bring up safety concerns and the potential for accidents, referencing previous incidents involving autonomous vehicles. There's also discussion of the regulatory hurdles and public acceptance challenges that need to be overcome. While some express a degree of optimism, the overall sentiment appears to be cautious pessimism about the near-term impact of autonomous buses.
Summary of Comments ( 375 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43363293
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that hydrogen buses are an inefficient and costly alternative to battery-electric buses. Several commenters point out the significantly lower lifecycle costs and superior efficiency of battery-electric technology, citing real-world examples and studies. Some discuss the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry as a driving force behind hydrogen adoption, framing it as a way to preserve existing gas infrastructure. A few offer counterpoints, suggesting niche applications where hydrogen might be viable, like very long routes or extreme climates, but these are generally met with skepticism, with other users arguing that even in these scenarios, battery-electric solutions are superior. The overall sentiment leans heavily towards battery-electric as the more practical and environmentally sound option for public transit.
The Hacker News post titled "Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with varied viewpoints. Several commenters echoed the article's sentiment, expressing skepticism towards hydrogen buses and highlighting the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, particularly when compared to electric buses. They pointed out the energy losses involved in converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity to power the bus, emphasizing the superior efficiency of directly using electricity to charge batteries. Some also raised concerns about the environmental impact of hydrogen production if it relies on fossil fuels.
A recurring theme in the comments was the influence of lobbying and vested interests in promoting hydrogen technology, potentially clouding the judgment of transit agencies. Commenters speculated that political pressure and the allure of "new" technology might be contributing factors to the adoption of hydrogen buses despite their drawbacks.
However, not all comments were against hydrogen buses. Some commenters acknowledged specific niche applications where hydrogen might be advantageous, such as long-distance routes or situations where fast refueling is critical. They suggested that hydrogen could potentially play a role in a diversified public transport system, complementing battery-electric buses rather than replacing them entirely. One commenter also brought up the potential for hydrogen to be produced through electrolysis using renewable energy sources, addressing the environmental concerns raised by others. However, this sparked a counter-argument about the greater efficiency of directly using that renewable energy for charging batteries.
Another point raised was the lack of existing hydrogen infrastructure, which poses a significant hurdle to widespread adoption. Building out hydrogen refueling stations requires substantial investment, and the absence of such infrastructure makes it more challenging for transit agencies to transition to hydrogen buses.
Overall, the comments section presented a mix of perspectives on the viability of hydrogen buses. While many commenters were critical of the technology, emphasizing its inefficiencies and questioning the motives behind its adoption, others offered more nuanced views, suggesting potential niche applications and highlighting the possibility of cleaner hydrogen production. The discussion revolved around efficiency, environmental impact, infrastructure challenges, and the potential influence of lobbying.