Their claim on easy storage and transportation of Hydrogen is BS. Go and research it, hydrogen is extremely difficult to store and handle and is not the magic bullet they make you think it is.
@bihlbo yeah, we are the master of universe, we are able to create energy from fusion, but we prefer using old-fashioned fossil fuels, because of the vintage things... stupid boy.
The actual fact is we already have access to fusion energy and we just aren't using it because of the very real possibility that the Earth would loose mass and break out of its orbit, killing us all. If we don't offset this mass loss by burning fossil fuels, fusion will never be viable. FACT
That's a fine point - centralized large scale energy production is more efficient - I've also made that point many times in support of all electric.
But i don't understand how that translates to your support of H? If you are all electric, you are open to powering it from any electricity producing method on earth including clean ones.
If you're using H, you MUST use H and are perpetuating the centralized energy monopolies. Hydrogen defeats energy diversity and therefore I'm against it.
I agree. There are many people who are up in arms about nuclear power, but I think it is the way to go for now, as long as we are careful so as to avoid meltdowns, etc. Nuclear plants have no pollution whatsoever, as the "smokestacks" are purely for water vapor. Not to say that you didn't know this, as you stated how clean it is, I'm just letting everyone know.
You seem to be missing my point, however. My point was that electric cars still use power that comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels, as do combustion engine cars. So gas cars AND electric cars both use fossil fuels (which pollute) as their source of energy, however, power plants obviously can generate the energy more efficiently, which equates to less pollution.
It was physically painful for me to come answer this because your thinking was so muddy. I'll try to help you understand:
Your logic error is in comparing with an ICE "normal car": almost ANYTHING is an improvement over ICE so that says nothing.
I am comparing ALL electric to H-electric, and hydrogen as an electricity carrier fails. You'll get more electricity to your wheels if you just make electricity with the coal - not hydrogen. More electricity to your wheels = higher net efficiency.
there is also a lot nuclear power plants which doesn't produce pollution like SO2 or SO3 or NO and together with efficient nuclear waste storing it is pretty clean way of crating power for making pure H
@bihlbo I don't think you understand the physics involved.
mrspacee 1 year ago
Their claim on easy storage and transportation of Hydrogen is BS. Go and research it, hydrogen is extremely difficult to store and handle and is not the magic bullet they make you think it is.
ViperWK 1 year ago
@bihlbo yeah, we are the master of universe, we are able to create energy from fusion, but we prefer using old-fashioned fossil fuels, because of the vintage things... stupid boy.
appelermoidieu 1 year ago
The actual fact is we already have access to fusion energy and we just aren't using it because of the very real possibility that the Earth would loose mass and break out of its orbit, killing us all. If we don't offset this mass loss by burning fossil fuels, fusion will never be viable. FACT
bihlbo 1 year ago
I think electric is the way to go.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
That's a fine point - centralized large scale energy production is more efficient - I've also made that point many times in support of all electric.
But i don't understand how that translates to your support of H? If you are all electric, you are open to powering it from any electricity producing method on earth including clean ones.
If you're using H, you MUST use H and are perpetuating the centralized energy monopolies. Hydrogen defeats energy diversity and therefore I'm against it.
TimTrimT 2 years ago
I agree. There are many people who are up in arms about nuclear power, but I think it is the way to go for now, as long as we are careful so as to avoid meltdowns, etc. Nuclear plants have no pollution whatsoever, as the "smokestacks" are purely for water vapor. Not to say that you didn't know this, as you stated how clean it is, I'm just letting everyone know.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
You seem to be missing my point, however. My point was that electric cars still use power that comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels, as do combustion engine cars. So gas cars AND electric cars both use fossil fuels (which pollute) as their source of energy, however, power plants obviously can generate the energy more efficiently, which equates to less pollution.
anselmo666666 2 years ago
It was physically painful for me to come answer this because your thinking was so muddy. I'll try to help you understand:
Your logic error is in comparing with an ICE "normal car": almost ANYTHING is an improvement over ICE so that says nothing.
I am comparing ALL electric to H-electric, and hydrogen as an electricity carrier fails. You'll get more electricity to your wheels if you just make electricity with the coal - not hydrogen. More electricity to your wheels = higher net efficiency.
TimTrimT 2 years ago
there is also a lot nuclear power plants which doesn't produce pollution like SO2 or SO3 or NO and together with efficient nuclear waste storing it is pretty clean way of crating power for making pure H
zawor500 2 years ago