Comment on [deleted]

Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• HollandJim@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s not a binary choice. A Tesla sucks; plenty of other brands of BEVs are doing fine.

  Wasn’t sure if you know how logic works, or if you’re just a hydrogen-from-petroleum stooge.

  source

  • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    BEV fanatics are the stooges. They're basically projecting by accusing their biggest rival technology of being propped by stooges.

    Anyways, BEVs have a limited role to play in all of this. It will never be the main role. People should realize that. Tesla even more so.

    source

    • HollandJim@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Okay, that answers my question. Keep that foil hat on tight and good luck on the loony fringe!

      source

      • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You literally accused me of being a stooge. Are you sure you aren't the loony fringe?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• drdabbles@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Hydrogen cars still have batteries and you know that. At least tell me you’ve been getting pair for this work, or you’re heavily invested in hydrogen and need to pump this hard.

  source

  • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    About 1-2 kWh worth. So nearly nothing. But of course, you already knew that.

    So the question is what is your motivation for saying this?

    source

    • drdabbles@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      My motivation is pointing out the glaring hole in your attempt at an argument. WTF does hydrogen have to do with this article? Nothing.

      source

      • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You have nothing to say on this subject anymore. You've already revealed yourself and there's nothing left to talk about. You are just a BEV fanatic and you don't care if that ends up sabotaging the fight against climate change.

        source
• naeap@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Hydrogen is hard to handle without losses and in itself is a much worse greenhouse gas than co2

  I do like the approach to generate hydrogen and mix it with atmospheric co2 to produce methan

  source

  • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That's pretty much made-up. Hydrogen is not a big deal to handle. The "it's a GHG" seems to come from some special interest group funded by the fossil fuel industry. It's actually pretty suspect of a claim, and it was never a particularly big effect.

    source

    • AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • Hypx@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It's the battery with the lowest amount of raw material needs. Quite literally turning water into an energy storage system.

        Most of these studies are written by conservatives, or occasionally by wealthy liberal elites with significant conflicts of interest. No one should believe in them.

        Put it this way: Wind and solar are terribly inefficient. Why did they catch on despite those problems? Because cost is very low. The criticisms are usually just old people making up stories to rationalize why their outdated investments are still viable.

        source

        • -> View More Comments