Was about to say. This is pretty well known science. A dash of salt in coffee will de-bitter it. I would only assume the same goes for tea. Being a tea drinker I have yet to try it, but next time I have a bad cuppa, I'll have a go at it.
I was fortunate enough to get an older HP color laser MFD that can use 3rd party toner carts. I've never bought a first line HP cartridge for it and I never will. My next printer will be some other brand that plays nice with customers.
The only reason I even have this printer now is because I got it crazy cheap off of craigslist about 10 years ago, with extra supplies. When it dies, I'll get a brother or something better. I've bought 3 sets of toner carts for it in 10 years or so for a grand total of maybe 150$, and I use it a lot.
Hydrogen is not currently a green energy. Green means the energy is produced in a manner which causes no harm to the environment. About 4% of all current hydrogen is "green". Global supplies are manufactured with natrual gas (47%), coal (27%), oil (22%), and electrolysis (4%). According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, at least.. Huh.
I guess I'm not really attacking a green energy, am I? I mean, I wasn't before, but still. Discussing the difficulties of hydrogen at industrial scale isn't attacking it, no matter how bad it hurts your feelings. It's simply fact we cannot ignore.
I've never heard a single naysayer claim solar or wind were impossible. Like, ever. This is pure unsupported, anecdotal nonsense.
Unless you have factual support for your rebuttal that is relevant to the topic, you have lost my attention.
No point has been missed. I'm not mocking anybody. Look at the tech required. It's easy to see why this fuel source has not come to fruition, yet we have fields upon fields of wind and solar tech. None of which I ever riduculed, personally.
This isn't a personal attack. Again. Ridicule has nothing to do with discussing facts. On that note, have a great day.
I am a big proponent of solar and wind. Both need to be taken more seriously. Both are far better long term energy options than hydrogen no matter how you look at it. So no, this is not more BS from the fossil fuel industry, regardless your take.
I seriously doubt hydrogen will be a viable long term fuel source outside of very specific applications.
Even with the best production methods, we still can't store it well long term. It causes embrittlement and corrosion to metals, and since the atoms are about as small as atoms get, it's very hard to contain in a pressure vessel without leaks or metal impregnation. Making it and using it aren't the big issue. Storage is.
BRING ME BUTTER AND SOME MILK