Zone1 Biden Administration Awards $7 Billion for 7 Hydrogen Hubs Across the U.S. : would certainly solve the refueling problem.

[Markle]

i meant 'scientific concensus' alright.
and i believe in that concensus being real.
winters in the 1980s, when i grew up, were a LOT colder (about 10C to 15C colder in the mornings) than what we get now.

 

[Markle]

that's for the beancounters to decide, it's beyond my set of expertises.
they should get taxed only so much as to pay for necessary expenses.

Who decides what constitutes "necessary expenses"?

You're making no sense other than the fact that you demand that someone else pay your way.

 

[peacefan]

Who decides what constitutes "necessary expenses"?

You're making no sense other than the fact that you demand that someone else pay your way.

oh, i bet you think it's OK to tax the middle class to the brim, but God-FORBID The Rich get the same treatment!

 

[Markle]

oh, i bet you think it's OK to tax the middle class to the brim, but God-FORBID The Rich get the same treatment!

Why do you avoid answering simple questions that I pose to you?

How is the "rich" not getting the shaft in taxes?

 

[peacefan]

Why do you avoid answering simple questions that I pose to you?

'necessary expenses' are all those expenses that the state must expend to

• provide security and food and fuel for it's citizens.
• harden the economy against what's on the horizon

How is the "rich" not getting the shaft in taxes?

the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
i can pull up graphs by Red Front if you like..

 

[sparky]

The problem with hydrogen | Global Witness

Hydrogen could be an important part of the renewable energy transition, but not if the fossil fuel industry has its way

www.globalwitness.org

Hydrogen colour codes​

Different methods of producing hydrogen are often referred to by certain colours:

Grey hydrogen – Produced by mixing fossil gas with steam. Releases large quantities of CO2.

Blue hydrogen – Produced using the same method as grey hydrogen, but with carbon emissions supposedly captured and stored underground. Yet to be proven at any significant scale. Both grey and blue hydrogen are more accurately called ‘fossil hydrogen’.

Green hydrogen – Produced by passing electricity generated from renewable sources through water. Results in very low carbon emissions.

~S~

 

[jotathought]

every new branch of science turned to production technology has it's failures.
that doesn't mean you should give up on tech that according to science is needed to
save us from environmental catastrophe?

do you want to arrive in Heaven and tell st Peter at The Gates how you
"didn't know climate change could be so dangerous", when half the planet and possibly
you too starves to death?!

What science says we are going to have an environmental catastrophe, and what type of catastrophe? Methinks you watch too much Hollywood.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Biden Administration Awards $7 Billion for 7 Hydrogen Hubs Across the U.S.
Clean hydrogen could help fight climate change, but it barely exists today. Now the administration wants to build an entire industry from scratch.

Remote : Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:03:22 +0000
Local : 2023-10-13(Friday) 11 : 03 : 22
Found via NicerApp WebOS

i support this.
even though it's gonna cost a lot of money, it's a vital example to the rest of the world.

If we’re spending this kind of money on unproven means.. it’s mere foolish ideologues risking money that isn’t theirs to feel better about themselves, void of wisdom.

Here’s a shocker: find out if it’s a viable option that’s economically affordable to the private sector so it can be administered. Many alternatives that were the most recent fads turned out to be completely ineffective and a waste of time/resources.

And then there’s Solyndra.. let’s not do that again. That’s the shining example of why government should never be relied on for innovation. A bunch of aristocrats in a room plan it out on paper, and assume the world will just work as they perceive it. Foolish people do that, ones that have lots of knowledge but no wisdom.

 

[Markle]

'necessary expenses' are all those expenses that the state must expend to

• provide security and food and fuel for it's citizens.
• harden the economy against what's on the horizon

the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
i can pull up graphs by Red Front if you like..

As I have shown, and you refuse to acknowledge, the poor were getting richer under the Trump administration and much poorer under President Biden's heel.

Pull up graphs? From an Italian Pizza restaurant? Go for it!

 

[Seymour Flops]

i meant 'scientific concensus' alright.
and i believe in that concensus being real.
winters in the 1980s, when i grew up, were a LOT colder (about 10C to 15C colder in the mornings) than what we get now.

I suppose it is real as a consensus, but by definition seeking a consensus is not science. It is practically the opposite. Science adds to what we know. It often does that by proving what has already been widely accepted, but the big advances come from challenging what we previously "knew." More about that here:

Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

Wait, you can't possibly be saying that every single one of that majority of the AGW guys saying "yeah whatever" are "treasonous liars" are u? The "climate scientists" who support the Co2 FRAUD are all 100% pure traitors and have known all along Co2 does nothing. Most of the media "experts"...

www.usmessageboard.com

you can't see how this would solve the emissions problem and the refueling-time problem at the same time?

No.

First of all you would have to get past the problem that we don't have 7 billion dollars laying around waiting for someone to spend it.

Then you have to find people willing to buy the limited selection of hydrogen cars, so they can pay $16 a gallon for the fuel, if they can find a place that sells the fuel outside of California, which has not nearly enough.

Buying such expensive fuel, instead of sitting at a charging station may save time. Or it may not. None of the EV cheerleaders ever told us about the wait times, did they? What are they not telling us about hydrogen refueling stations? Will they tend to blow up, will the fumes from the hydrogen fuel prove toxic, will China find a way to dominate the hydrogen fuel manufacturing, such as a compliant president who allows them to do it, as they have the minerals for EV batteries?

I predict that such a program will have numerous such problems with the proponents insisting that no one could have predicted them, even though I and many others are predicting them right now.

the future is inherintly unpredictable. even to the Gods, i think.
what i'm saying is that based on climate research and science,
the risks of catastrophe are well advertised now,
and should not be shoved aside.

"Advertised" is the right word.

Here is what it would take for me to go along with a plan to reduce carbon emissions:

1) Actual scientific evidence that global warming caused by carbon emissions is harming humanity.

2) A plan with evidence to support that it will reduce carbon emissions, in ways that will reduce global warming.

3) A cost-benefit analysis that shows that the plan makes sense.

The best I've seen for number 3) is answers like this one:



He's a senior Biden admin official in charge of planning for reducing carbon emissions.

He doesn't know how much it will cost to get the U.S. to be "carbon neutral," and he doesn't know how many degrees that would lower the temperature of the Earth. So, we cannot do a cost-benefit analysis because the cost is unknown and so it the benefit. Instead the idea seems to be to slow down U.S. industry for the sake of slowing down U.S. industry. Meanwhile, the far worse polluters are given carte blanche.

How on Earth (no pun intended) does it help to shift carbon production from the U.S. to China, Russia, and India?

 

[peacefan]

What science says we are going to have an environmental catastrophe, and what type of catastrophe? Methinks you watch too much Hollywood.

climate science says so.
and increased forest fires, drought (which is very bad for farming as you might know), and much-wetter winters are among the risks, as far as i can tell.

 

[peacefan]

If we’re spending this kind of money on unproven means.. it’s mere foolish ideologues risking money that isn’t theirs to feel better about themselves, void of wisdom.

i think sometimes it IS up to government to prove the viability of new industries.
and that it can be quite necessary to spend millions of tax dollars on it.

 

[peacefan]

First of all you would have to get past the problem that we don't have 7 billion dollars laying around waiting for someone to spend it.

sure we do. we have hundreds of billions waiting around for wars, which are often less of an existential threat to humanity than climate change has become...

Then you have to find people willing to buy the limited selection of hydrogen cars, so they can pay $16 a gallon for the fuel, if they can find a place that sells the fuel outside of California, which has not nearly enough.

from that link you just posted :

Hydrogen fuel is much more efficient than gasoline, but it’s also four times more expensive, roughly equivalent to about $16 a gallon.

Buying such expensive fuel, instead of sitting at a charging station may save time. Or it may not. None of the EV cheerleaders ever told us about the wait times, did they? What are they not telling us about hydrogen refueling stations? Will they tend to blow up, will the fumes from the hydrogen fuel prove toxic, will China find a way to dominate the hydrogen fuel manufacturing, such as a compliant president who allows them to do it, as they have the minerals for EV batteries?

these are all market risks alright, but no show-stoppers, according to me.

I predict that such a program will have numerous such problems with the proponents insisting that no one could have predicted them, even though I and many others are predicting them right now.

"Advertised" is the right word.

Here is what it would take for me to go along with a plan to reduce carbon emissions:

1) Actual scientific evidence that global warming caused by carbon emissions is harming humanity.

2) A plan with evidence to support that it will reduce carbon emissions, in ways that will reduce global warming.

3) A cost-benefit analysis that shows that the plan makes sense.

The best I've seen for number 3) is answers like this one:



He's a senior Biden admin official in charge of planning for reducing carbon emissions.

He doesn't know how much it will cost to get the U.S. to be "carbon neutral," and he doesn't know how many degrees that would lower the temperature of the Earth. So, we cannot do a cost-benefit analysis because the cost is unknown and so it the benefit. Instead the idea seems to be to slow down U.S. industry for the sake of slowing down U.S. industry. Meanwhile, the far worse polluters are given carte blanche.

How on Earth (no pun intended) does it help to shift carbon production from the U.S. to China, Russia, and India?

i'll relay these remarks of yours to whitehouse.gov/contact

 

[skews13]

How is it going to be paid for? Is the "rich" going to pay their fair share to fund it?

The same way oil company subsidies are. Maybe we can even give them public land for leases the way we do oil companies.

 

[Markle]

The same way oil company subsidies are. Maybe we can even give them public land for leases the way we do oil companies.

What subsidies are available to oil companies that are not available to others?

 

[jotathought]

climate science says so.
and increased forest fires, drought (which is very bad for farming as you might know), and much-wetter winters are among the risks, as far as i can tell.

Okay .. what climate science says the earth will be a catastrophe? How about opposing opinions from the climate science community? Who is right? What about the cyclical process of heating and cooling throughout the millions of years?

 

[peacefan]

Okay .. what climate science says the earth will be a catastrophe? How about opposing opinions from the climate science community? Who is right? What about the cyclical process of heating and cooling throughout the millions of years?

look, there's no denying climate change (this time around) is man-made, and has deadly consequences for humans, considering the sheer number we have to feed.

so it's up to humans, world-leading countries first, shining cities on the hill first, to do something about it.

that it's going to increase the national debt; so what..
if we don't act now/soon, we're in for much worse weather and farming problems.

 

[Seymour Flops]

One question at a time for peacefan:

How does it help for the the U.S. to reduce its use of fossil fuels, only to incentivize Russia and China to use more to take advantage of the vacuum?

 

[jotathought]

look, there's no denying climate change (this time around) is man-made, and has deadly consequences for humans, considering the sheer number we have to feed.

so it's up to humans, world-leading countries first, shining cities on the hill first, to do something about it.

that it's going to increase the national debt; so what..
if we don't act now/soon, we're in for much worse weather and farming problems.

This has been the story for 50+ years now .. politicians, advocates and enthusiasts continue to forecast incorrectly and this is the problem .. all forecasts are wrong and / or different. How soon is soon? When is the point of no return? Why did the earth temperature rise and fall between 15 - 20K years ago? Did cave men burn too much wood?

Generalized and repeated statements are getting old ..

 

[peacefan]

This has been the story for 50+ years now .. politicians, advocates and enthusiasts continue to forecast incorrectly and this is the problem .. all forecasts are wrong and / or different. How soon is soon? When is the point of no return? Why did the earth temperature rise and fall between 15 - 20K years ago? Did cave men burn too much wood?

Generalized and repeated statements are getting old ..

go stick your head in the sand if you want, mr ostrich.