While he alienates Tesla because Elon ain't his lapdog in favour of electric cars made by companies like GM that are inferior if I'm going by customer reviews.
Personal note, I think electric cars are the wrong path and It'd be better if we examined Hydrogen more if we're genuinely trying the 'clean energy's route. The battery isn't enough and the nuclear power infrastructure certainly isn't enough to power them all. This is just another tactic to try and alienate people by restricting movement.
Liberals hate nuclear because it’s clean and effective. The regulation war on nuclear and fear mongering leftists and Hollywood did to push “renewable” energy was an eye opener for a lot of normies. The Simpsons was intentional propaganda that was wildly effective in poisoning perception of nuclear energy, same as a lot of 90s era shows.
I was rewatching the 2003 Ninja Turtles recently and was struck by Donatello dissing nuclear power in one episode. It was so heavy handed and uncompromising. Gave me real "the science is settled" vibes.
Electric cars suffer from an extreme weakness: exceptionally volatile batteries. Until that is fixed, EVs shouldn't ever become a mainstay, because they are simply more dangerous to drive than normal combustion engines.
You get in a car wreck with an EV, you genuinely risk the damn thing exploding, especially if its raining.
Even if they fix that, there is still the problem of batteries having a short usable life and cost more than the rest of the car. EVs are five to six figure disposable items because of it. An ICE car will run for a century if you maintain it.
Well, a car made a decade ago, yes. Most American cars made today have serious issues. Hell, Chevy has a engine whose average mileage between catastrophic failures is less than 10k miles.
I mean, that’s not a complete impossibility but is not very likely given our current understanding and usage of nuclear power. Ideally there is a future where you could have self-sustaining cars fueled by nuclear energy given the right advancements.
An article just came out that adding caffeine to hydrogen fuel cells makes them more energetic. Sounds like a joke but apparently it's real and helps with the cost of platinum.
The carbon fiber tanks are a little bit bigger and heavier than gasoline tank, is that what you mean?
They put them under the rear seat now because it's the safest place and they really don't want the PR from a car exploding after a crash, but it's not so big there aren't other places it can go.
There are so many practical issues with hydrogen. It’s very unlikely the major problems will be solved to an acceptable level for mainstream public. It’s probably on the same timeline as having everyone in a flying car.
It’s naturally leaky and requires very high storage pressures poses a problem for infrastructure. At present, it does not seem worth incurring all the risk just to “be green”.
However Ive got no problem with continuing to pursue and develop the tech like Toyota is doing with the Mirai.
What's cool about hydrogen is actually the storage because for a lot of uses you don't need very high pressure. For example if you wanted an off-grid power supply for your house there's no reason you couldn't get a fuel cell and a week's worth of lower pressure storage tanks for a few thousand or maybe less even.
It's a whole different tradeoff from batteries. Hydrogen is cheap hardware and expensive energy, battery is expensive hardware and cheap energy.
I suppose eventually we'll have cheap batteries made from graphene or whatever, but that might be a long way off.
You mean there are issues with something that is violently explosive at concentrations between 18% and 60%? I never would have guessed. It would be nice if the advocates of its use would remember things like the Hindenburg and Chernobyl and think ahead to the inevitable result of storing it in large concentrations all over the country.
Gasoline also explodes. The problem with handling hydrogen isn't its volatility, AFAIK. It is its tendency to escape any container you try to put it in.
This is just another tactic to try and alienate people by restricting movement.
I hadn't considered this angle to it. Is there really no upside for the power brokers to having healthy people make up the peasantry? Must everything truly be an effort to create miserable broken lonely people?
They're materialists who are never satisfied, and projecting their own hedonistic desires onto the rest of the population, they correctly project that it is not sustainable for every human on earth to pursue the same decadent lifestyle that they do. So to keep enough resources to themselves and their friends, they preach a godless version of minimalist spirituality (you will own nothing and be happy) to convince everyone else to be happy with less. They don't intend to pursue that philosophy of course.
While he alienates Tesla because Elon ain't his lapdog in favour of electric cars made by companies like GM that are inferior if I'm going by customer reviews.
Personal note, I think electric cars are the wrong path and It'd be better if we examined Hydrogen more if we're genuinely trying the 'clean energy's route. The battery isn't enough and the nuclear power infrastructure certainly isn't enough to power them all. This is just another tactic to try and alienate people by restricting movement.
We should be looking into nuclear by now. Electric cars are a little more sensible when you’re actually producing cleaner energy to keep them charged
Liberals hate nuclear because it’s clean and effective. The regulation war on nuclear and fear mongering leftists and Hollywood did to push “renewable” energy was an eye opener for a lot of normies. The Simpsons was intentional propaganda that was wildly effective in poisoning perception of nuclear energy, same as a lot of 90s era shows.
I was rewatching the 2003 Ninja Turtles recently and was struck by Donatello dissing nuclear power in one episode. It was so heavy handed and uncompromising. Gave me real "the science is settled" vibes.
Electric cars suffer from an extreme weakness: exceptionally volatile batteries. Until that is fixed, EVs shouldn't ever become a mainstay, because they are simply more dangerous to drive than normal combustion engines.
You get in a car wreck with an EV, you genuinely risk the damn thing exploding, especially if its raining.
Even if they fix that, there is still the problem of batteries having a short usable life and cost more than the rest of the car. EVs are five to six figure disposable items because of it. An ICE car will run for a century if you maintain it.
Well, a car made a decade ago, yes. Most American cars made today have serious issues. Hell, Chevy has a engine whose average mileage between catastrophic failures is less than 10k miles.
For a moment I thought you meant the nuclear cars like in Fallout.
I mean, that’s not a complete impossibility but is not very likely given our current understanding and usage of nuclear power. Ideally there is a future where you could have self-sustaining cars fueled by nuclear energy given the right advancements.
We're way past 2015. Where's my Mr. Fusion?
The Ford Nucleon needs to make a comeback.
An article just came out that adding caffeine to hydrogen fuel cells makes them more energetic. Sounds like a joke but apparently it's real and helps with the cost of platinum.
Missed opportunity to use "I shit you not" while explaining this ☕💩
If it's true, coffee once again the true fuel source of the West lol.
Shit now my car is going to have a coffee addiction?
Modern car fuel cells use less platinum than a catalytic converter.
At scale they could build the entire fuel system for a hydrogen car for sure in $1k-$2k range.
At this point it's probably a market failure that's keeping it from taking off (the invisible hand sometimes makes mistakes).
What hydrogen system are you talking about? The ones I've seen all involve bulky tanks still, with really poor options for placement.
The carbon fiber tanks are a little bit bigger and heavier than gasoline tank, is that what you mean?
They put them under the rear seat now because it's the safest place and they really don't want the PR from a car exploding after a crash, but it's not so big there aren't other places it can go.
There are so many practical issues with hydrogen. It’s very unlikely the major problems will be solved to an acceptable level for mainstream public. It’s probably on the same timeline as having everyone in a flying car.
There's hardly any unsolved problems with hydrogen. Basically just fuel cost, infrastructure, and exploding.
Fuel cost and infrastructure might could happen if it were given the same subsidies as EVs.
The exploding is a real problem, but it's hard to say for sure if it's overall worse than EV problems.
It’s naturally leaky and requires very high storage pressures poses a problem for infrastructure. At present, it does not seem worth incurring all the risk just to “be green”. However Ive got no problem with continuing to pursue and develop the tech like Toyota is doing with the Mirai.
What's cool about hydrogen is actually the storage because for a lot of uses you don't need very high pressure. For example if you wanted an off-grid power supply for your house there's no reason you couldn't get a fuel cell and a week's worth of lower pressure storage tanks for a few thousand or maybe less even.
It's a whole different tradeoff from batteries. Hydrogen is cheap hardware and expensive energy, battery is expensive hardware and cheap energy.
I suppose eventually we'll have cheap batteries made from graphene or whatever, but that might be a long way off.
You mean there are issues with something that is violently explosive at concentrations between 18% and 60%? I never would have guessed. It would be nice if the advocates of its use would remember things like the Hindenburg and Chernobyl and think ahead to the inevitable result of storing it in large concentrations all over the country.
Gasoline also explodes. The problem with handling hydrogen isn't its volatility, AFAIK. It is its tendency to escape any container you try to put it in.
And then once enough has escaped, it explodes.
I hadn't considered this angle to it. Is there really no upside for the power brokers to having healthy people make up the peasantry? Must everything truly be an effort to create miserable broken lonely people?
Yes, because they are all miserable broken lonely people and they can't allow the "peasantry" to be happier than their "betters".
They're materialists who are never satisfied, and projecting their own hedonistic desires onto the rest of the population, they correctly project that it is not sustainable for every human on earth to pursue the same decadent lifestyle that they do. So to keep enough resources to themselves and their friends, they preach a godless version of minimalist spirituality (you will own nothing and be happy) to convince everyone else to be happy with less. They don't intend to pursue that philosophy of course.
That's OK. He's also mandating that we cover half the country with solar panels.