HerrBeter @ HerrBeter @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

358

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think it would end well for workers, but I could be wrong. The powers against Unions have such a long stretch of influence

To the moon!

Water too is a powerful greenhouse gas and burning hydrogen in cars isn't a perfect combustion.

I feel it's lying to call it carbon negative but I can see companies trying to portrait it as lucratively as possible

I disagree. But then you're not arguing against crypto

If you tire out an argument or discussion by bullying, using fallacies, you can never be sure you were right.

The fossil fuel industry is arguing for hydrogen because to keep costs down it will be made by natural gas reforming. Otherwise cost wise, putting 1 kWh of hydrogen into cars will be maybe 40% efficiency, then using fuel cells. So just multiply whatever your cost per electric kWh by 2,5. Hydrogen usable for stationary things like steel production though. Maybe methanol fuel cells are more viable idk

Albeit this is just off the top of my head so it's not necessarily 100% correct. It is much more efficient to put electricity into batteries.

There's no skipping thermodynamics, maybe there will be a technology for an arbitrary molecule to hydrogen gas reformation but it doesn't exist to my knowledge. Electrolysis of water means breaking the bonds and that takes a lot of electrical energy.

While hydrogen is common, free H2 molecules are not

Cable hell

Hydrogen is a horribly volatile compound, inherently unsafe. Regarding costs, I'll believe it when I see it.

Besides there isn't enough of vital rare earths for the fuel cells. Currently it's a dead end.

But do indulge me with links if you will

[citation needed]

They're not backed by reality

Because hydrogen is primarily made from natural gas (fossil fuel). Hydrogen is not a viable solution since efficiency is crap

The LLM worked better than the Indian service agent I got to talk to, however after I got an agent speaking my language things resolved

Where's the summarybot?

No

No it's "incense and porcupines"

Problem is the total accumulated CO2 already there. We would need to be net zero yesterday to mitigate imo.

Capitalistic institutions haven't been serious or motivated enough to make any real effort. They'll make up their next cop-out like carbon credits or whatever

Exactly, it's pointless to stay for the sake of defending rubble. If the position is indefensible, move and set up a new line, ground can be reconquered however lives can't be resurrected.

50 000 people used to live here, now, it's a ghost town