Nope
https://www.theguardian.com/football...-electric-cars

TL,DR version below :

 

Liquid hydrogen would be just fine, it's commonly used for space launch applications systems requiring absolute maximum specific energy... it's specific energy is about three times better than kerosene.

There are just several practical/economic problems with liquid H2...

It's corrosive as heck, if you understand chemistry well it will happily function as a reducing OR an oxidizing agent.

It's explosive as heck (google "challenger").

It needs to be kept cryogenic as heck.

Also it's not very dense, so would take up a lot of volume compared to kerosene. Would need a custom-designed plane for the volume and cryogenic fuel storage, and might have to give up belly cargo for fuel volume. Just a SWAG but I think the fantastic specific energy would offset the weight of additional structure for fuel volume.

 

True about carbon but they don’t address the additional strip mining, chemical refining, all around dirtiness involved with rare earth battery production.
Maybe they’ll develop cleaner batteries but each leap in technology features increasingly dirtier elements. China has admitted real environmental catastrophe associated with these activities.

Kind of like quitting smoking then shooting yourself in the foot. Are you really better off? Maybe...I don’t know.

 

She can barely string a sentence together when she's not reading a script. Like most alarmists she spouts predictions that are extremes.

Her trans Atlantic crossing and the facts behind it turned off the now rational people.

 

She hasn't said anything factual. She just reads what's put in front of her and it's usually just an emotional speech of fear mongering. It's not surprising People like yourself eat it up.

 

Yeah seriously what “facts” has she actually brought up. When someone can explain to me why the ice glaciers melted to become the Great Lakes and how Holland has water rising thousands of years ago just as Miami continues today, before there were humans sala long the earth, than I’ll listen. Until then, I’m chalking it up to the earth changes when it wants to and our CO2 emisiones have very little effect. If anything, more CO2 is helping the trees anyways


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And CO2 is good for sodas too !

I find it so ironic that pilots make fun of those chemtrail/flat earth idiots (and rightfully so!) and yet a good portion of said pilots, usually well educated and emotionnally balanced people, brush off 99% of the scientific community with the same thought process than conspiracy people mentionned above...

Actually, I dont know if it's ironic or really depressing.

Also, there is no so-called "Lift" on a wing, it's only invisible elves that push on the bottom of the wing with a broomstick.

 

I don't think most people here brush off the scientific community but people with a political stake in climate change have been fear mongering and crying wolf for decades and it grows tiresome. It's especially transparent when sensible people who propose nuclear energy as a way of reducing carbon emissions are shunned by the same group of people who claim to support science. It's a political issue, that's why you have differing opinions and not consensus.

 

This. The apparent carbon problem can be solved with a phased-in shift of *most* industry and transport to nuclear (grid or batteries charged from the grid), and some technical fixes to a few other sectors (ie bio/synth fuel for jets and likely some trucks and ships). That has the fringe benefit of not requiring the complete destruction of the global economy and the forced re-engineering of society into a socialist worker's paradise.

Nuclear fission can be considered a stop-gap measure, within 20-200 years it's essentially inevitable that fusion and/or large scale space-based solar will be viable. The former sooner, the later not-so-soon.

If carbon is really THAT big of an issue, it should be worth dealing with some fission waste for a few decades. We've been doing it for about 70 years anyway, in many nations.

Greta and OAC can get back to me when they get onboard with that, and stop talking about shutting down airlines (and the entire economy) by 2030.

We do have to be fair, hard-core lefties are not the only impediment to paradigm shifts in the energy sector, I'm sure the petroleum lobby is paddling furiously to protect their interests. Hopefully they're smart enough to start working on synth/bio fuel soon, they are best suited infrastructure-wise to doing the heavy lifting on alternative liquid fuels.

Also have to recognize that ending the petroleum production industry will have far-reaching economic consequences as well, but probably not as bad as grounding all the jets. A lot of folks are employed in oil production, and some regionas (including Alaska, Canada, and several US states) would be destitute. Some of that will be mitigated by alt liquid fuels but most pax cars will end up on batteries, or with part-time hybrid and a fuel tank that only gets used on long road trips. Liquid fuel would probably be reserved for applications where the energy density of batteries won't cut: Jets, large trucks, ships, some heavy equipment, and weapons systems.

 

Yet the other side considers "Gretta" and AOC their saviors so what are you calling ironic and depressing again?