It could be a little carbon negative, in the way planting trees is a little carbon negative.
Sourcing carbon from atmosphere and hydrogen from water to make liquid fuel would pull carbon out of the air and put it into your gas tank.
Methane is easier to work with than hydrogen, but it still needs to be kept colder than what’s practical. If it turns out that propane is much cheaper to make from (renewable energy + atmosphere + water), relative to the cost of making liquids like diesel, kerosene, or gasoline, then propane might be a winning choice for renewable transportation fuel.
If there’s enough excess capacity of clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, that it can be converted into portable fuel . . . why hydrogen?
Its hard to contain, embrittles everything it touches, in gaseous form its density is low so its tanks need to be huge but in liquid form it needs to be kept unreasonably cold and is still low density and requires oversize fuel tanks, and its explosive when it mixes with air - not just flammable, but explosive.
Why not use that clean energy to pull CO2 out of the air and use it to build new hydrocarbon liquid fuels that are compatible with existing infrastructure?
Interesting, didn’t realize they had a geothermal loop in the concrete floors. I wonder if condensation will be an issue?
That extra weight will also mean that more force is required to accelerate and change directions.
The nimbleness of a vehicle can be expressed as the ratio:
(Tire Contact Area * Tire Stickiness) / Vehicle Mass
Increasing the vehicle’s mass while making the tires harder will lead to longer breaking distances and will cause a vehicle to understeer at lower speeds.
In a world with too many humans already, can you imagine painting a drop in the birth rate as somehow a bad thing?
lol
So this big breakthrough in tire technology is . . . making them harder and reducing their grip?
There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever
That’s a bit of a stretch, unfortunately. The energy density of batteries is nowhere close to that of gasoline - joule for joule, gasoline weighs about 100 times less than batteries. Also, a fuel tank big enough to give its vehicle a 400 mile range will get lighter over the course of the trip, as the liquid fuel gets converted into polluting gas and exhausted into the atmosphere - batteries don’t get appreciably lighter as you discharge them.
Agree that 400 miles range with charging stations as ubiquitous as today’s gas stations would help EV adoption. I do worry about the rollout of charging stations being slowed down by competition with expensive and fragile hydrogen tech (keep the hydrogen on boats and trains pls).
plot twist, cleaning up the source of that contamination would mean a local business endures lower profit margins. the bureaucrat who’s job it was to push the Approved! button got chased away from their terminal by a guy in a rubber mask who brought a fog machine and a projector
You gotta wonder WTF the French were thinking when they decided to force people into the sweltering insomnia of 80 degrees indoors at night just for the sake of creating the appearance that climate change is the fault of the dispossessed proletariat running air conditioners to survive global heating, and pretending like the owners of the means of production aren’t actually in a position to change how the economy functions.
run on “government bad”
get elected
govern poorly
“told you so”
you mean the patriarchy?
This legit sounds like bioweapons testing on the public.
096 has breached containment
The value of stocks has no direct impact on the volume of currency that exists, and printing literal paper money is only a tiny fraction of the new currency generated by the banking system. The person you replied to is correct. Most new money is created by banks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
As banks hold in reserve less than the amount of their deposit liabilities, and because the deposit liabilities are considered money in their own right (see commercial bank money), fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank.
For example, if banking regulators set the ‘reserve ratio’ at 1:10, and you deposit $1,000 at your bank, then your bank would be able to give out loans worth $10,000. The effect on the volume of currency that exists is the same as if the US Mint printed an additional $9,000.
One of the problems with that system is that all that money is owed back to the bank + interest. However, there’s not actually enough currency in existence to pay back all the loans + interest, so the banks inevitably get to confiscate people’s property when they default on loans. Remember that the banks invented that money from thin air via fractional reserve lending - now they’ve turned that thin air into physical, tangible wealth at no cost to them.
Another problem with that system is that big loans - i.e. new currency entering the system - take time for their full inflationary effects to be felt. The “people” who get the big loans can spend the new currency at its full value, but by doing so they put enough new currency into circulation to devalue it via inflation.
One of the consequences of the fractional reserve lending system is that increasing the ‘reserve ratio’ will decrease the rate of inflation. Less new loans are issued, so less new currency enters the system. The banking lobby does not want this to become common knowledge, for obvious reasons. Federal taxes can be eliminated entirely, and the regulatory effect those taxes would have had on inflation can be substituted by taking it out of the banker’s profits by reducing the amount of new currency the banks are adding to the economy via fractional reserve lending.
a thin layer of positive mass tucked inside an outer layer of negative mass
If the universe provides negative mass, maybe we could use it to build an FTL warp drive.
Maybe they’re looking at SLS numbers and ignoring reusable rockets like Starship? Perhaps it would not be feasible to move a sufficient mass of shielding into orbit using the $2 billion per flight, one time use SLS.
why the hell would Mozilla be obliged to acknowledge this request?
That’s what I’ve been scratching my head about too. What leverage does Russia have to force them to do this? What consequences could they impose for non-compliance?
Does Mozilla own property in Russia? Sell it or write it off, then ignore the censorship request.
Do they have employees who live or have family in Russia? Either fire them or help them move, then ignore the censorship request.
None of the above? Perhaps it is we who need to fire Mozilla then.
Ironic. We could afford more flags and guns if we had a single payer healthcare system and stopped overpaying for terrible insurance that doesn’t actually cover you when you need it.
Maybe cleanup costs should be baked into the price of a building permit…