Why does it matter why they were built? Low carbon energy is low carbon energy, while some countries may have an natural advantage it typically tends to be in places with lower options for solar.
Separation of Congress from budgeting beyond a government wide yay/nay vote might help. As it stands, much like most of the military Nasa is a congressional district jobs program that occasionally outputs something useful more than an actual public service.
You get the output of what you incentivize, and Nasa’s funding incentivizes jobs in key districts no matter how much more efficient it would be to put all their buildings in the small town they own in Florida.
To be fair, i think it may have some use for fleet vehicles like taxis and long range buses because these are applications where being able to refill in minutes at a fuel depo you already run actually matters as compared to the stress you would put on a large battery fast charging day in day out. I also believe that Japan has a nuclear plant that is being built with the capacity to efficacy generate hydrogen directly. That being said, for personal vehicles I can’t really see the market of people who need that fast of a refil being large enough to reach the economies of scale necessary to be practical.
I like how it mentions how scary dilute radioactive tritium is and how much damage this preticular discharge might do to the entire ocean, dispit from my understanding anyway, China discharging more of the stuff every year than this. Besides, not like we have any larger environmental problems to deal with than a ‘we can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt this is safe to it must be dangerous’ maybe.
Sonori @ sonori @beehaw.org Posts 12Comments 424Joined 2 yr. ago
Why does it matter why they were built? Low carbon energy is low carbon energy, while some countries may have an natural advantage it typically tends to be in places with lower options for solar.