We used Matlab back where I studied and the faculty did provide the software for free through a central license server. Since internet wasn’t as prevalent and stable back then, a good chunk of students did pirate it anyway… so there’s that…

I’ve been using and continue to use SciLab and Octave privately and even at my job. It’s great for calculations, simulations and for data analysis, if you’re not doing it in dedicated tools and don’t require a neatly designed graphic interface. Where we ran into trouble was with toolboxes, hardware integration (HiL) and safety. For a business it doesn’t make sense to spend all those resources (the workers’ time and skill) to build all those tools etc. when Mathworks already does it and you’ll always be trailing them. Also as soon as you try for ‘safe’ software and are restricted to specific hardware (which is being developed and updated regularly itself), the whole process becomes way too cumbersome, while Matlab has specific toolboxes for specific hardware. And as a last point: Matlab has made alot of progress in terms of the interface and automation in the last few years, so more people can easily use it.

So there are differences but it really depends on the specific circumstances, whether they merit the price.

Is the infrastructure relevant though? As I understand it, the battery is charged by splitting water (H2O) into Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms (instead of H2 molecules, hence the name proton battery) and instead of compressing and cooling it, having a solid structure in which to store the protons. When drawing energy from the battery the opposite process takes place. So basically it is both an electrolyser when charging and a classic fuel cell when discharging with the storage of hydrogen (protons) being integrated in the same battery through a porous solid (mainly carbon). To quote from the article: >It looks like more of a battery competitor than a fuel cell competitor, though.

Next to the advantages they cite (energy and power density, abundant and environmentally unproblematic materials, recyclability, not explosive) I do wonder about the density in terms of volume. If they are bigger in size, they could constitute a better solution for big energy storages within the grid or at home, where now many are using lithium ion batteries.

Well even if we take those nonsense extrapolations seriously and had the material capacities to build that infrastructure globally (remember it isn’t a local problem), what is also lacking in many countries are skilled workers who actually put that stuff together. I can’t seem to find enough political action to fulfill that part. And it’s not only the production side, but the transport of the energy (grids and storage) and then also the consumer side. Those heat-pumps aren’t gonna install themselves, you know.

I’d add that especially in developed countries, we have gotten used to the high energy-density of fossil fuels, which is the result of millions of years of pressure, temperature or in short: energy. And we are using up this energy within two centuries. This resulted in the unsustainable lifestyle (it’s everywhere we look), that would have to be curbed, if we were to get off this Jurassic Park Experiment completely.

Therefore a number of people see their very (unsustainable) way of life in jeopardy. This source of resistance is what gives that culture war BS its fuel in the first place. At least in my experience of talking with people it is this negative emotional place that leads them to embrace false information in order to keep their lifestyles. Which in turn makes cooperation impossible. To make it even worse, people in developing countries now aspire to the same lifestyle - and who can blame them? But I don’t trust their (or ours for that matter) politics enough to hope for scientifically sound action to get there.