Wrong. The average person barely knows who he is now. He used to be praised as this great individual.

We will only remember Ford as being a racist anti-semite in due time. Edison got the same treatment. So will Musk.

We will eventually remember Ford for being a fascist and stop caring about everything else he did. Something similar already happened to Edison.

Hydrogen is not a GHG.

They should just post-pone the PS6.

It’s far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.

It needs to run on non-AMD hardware too.

Africans will learn whichever languages gives them the best economic opportunities. That is still going to be English and will likely be so for a long time. The only realistic challenger will be Mandarin, but not for a long time.

It’s far cheaper to distribute energy via hydrogen than it is to distribute energy via electricity, especially over long-distance: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81662.pdf

We will likely make hydrogen where it is cheap, and then distribute via pipelines or other methods to where it is needed.

It is almost certainly greener than using more fossil fuel. This is an idea that should be explored.

They are failing at basic editorial controls. This is not a “pretty good fucking job.” It is a sign of real decline.

It’s one of the stages of enshittification. Unless we see hard changes to avoid further decay, Ars will inevitably get worse and and worse until it does become an “internet rot site.”

Those are outright lies. For one thing, you can use fuel cells instead of gas turbines, getting rid of NOx emissions entirely (not to mention you can filter out NOx even with gas turbines).

Sorry, but this conversation cannot continue if you proceed with dishonest arguments.

If you adopt hydrogen for energy storage, you no longer have to worry about “where.” You have a solution that is nearly geographically independent.

The more renewable energy you have, the more you need long-duration energy storage. You cannot reach 100% renewable energy without huge amounts of it.

For a few hours, yes, but that will make up a small percentage of total energy stored. To really solve the intermittency problem, you will need large scale energy storage.

just use excess electricity to make hydrogen. This actually solves the intermittency problem, among many other things that will require hydrogen in order to reach zero emissions.

I hope people here are realizing that our current strategies are not working. They are mostly just “feel-good” solutions like paper straws, and will not eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Which is why I keep pushing for green hydrogen, because I already knew this and want real solutions to be pursued.

Believe it or not, sails! Obviously you’re not going to get a 100% reduction because modern shipping companies wouldn’t tolerate being becalmed (and I’m not falling for that article’s “up to 90%” claim either, BTW – I only picked that one to link because it has a decent overview of multiple different technologies), but it can still make a big dent in the fuel requirements.

No. Absolutely not. Sorry, but I cannot this claim seriously at all. We are not going to switch to sail ships again. I don’t think you grasp just how big modern shipping actually is, and how impossible such an idea really is.

I doubt you have any grasp of how massive the problem really is, and how tiny your proposed solutions are in comparison. For instance, you keep citing the possibility of using waste cooking oil for biofuels. Well, the world only makes 3.7 billion gallons of that per year: https://oilandenergyonline.com/articles/all/supply-and-demand-report-used-cooking-oil/

Converted to barrels of oil equivalence, that’s around 100 million barrels. The problem? That’s literally one day’s worth of petroleum consumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption

So you are about 0.3% of the way of solving the problem with that idea. Even if we could radically reduce petroleum use in the way you are imagining, that’s still going to be a negligible impact. And the world’s GDP is still growing. There’s still multiple billions of people that will want to live like the first world. So demand for energy will skyrocket in the coming decades, not decrease. The problem will only get exponentially larger and harder to solve.

Ultimately, this is eco-Ludditism, and is more about wishing away the problem than actually solving it. Worse, you enabling the worse stereotypes about environmentalists. Namely that they are crazy wackos who aren’t willing to engage with reality. Any solution must take seriously the idea that there >8 billion people on Earth now, and they all want to live in convenience.

(Speaking of which, once you reduce the demand for vehicle fuel that much, stuff like biodiesel made from waste veggie oil starts to look plentiful enough to make a decent dent in the market. That, at least, has been a solved problem for decades, and I’ve got the ‘90s VW and B100 fuel receipts to prove it.)

Not even close. Even if all cars were eliminated, there will still be enormous commercial need for fuels, such as commercial trucking, shipping, aviation, mining, construction, etc. Not to mention that growing crops for biodiesel require massive energy inputs in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, farm equipment, etc. And of course, the farmland needed will displace food production, which is its own major problem.

Which is why biofuels can never really be taken seriously as part of a green economy.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

Sure, same here.