placeholder

I apologize for my misunderstanding. Apparently, you are globally in error.

Well, as Gweiloman pointed out, since the solar system will pay for itself and more even without the car, it is perfectly legitimate to regard that as a freebie. But what's so pathetic is that you persist in trying to wring a petty victory out of the far more important fact that it's far cheaper for him to fuel his EV than it would be for him to fuel an ICE. Do you understand what "cheaper" means?

Well, for one thing, you're not taking into account the greater efficiency of an electric motor and the restorative effects of regenerative braking.

I've looked more into it. It does have limitations. For instance, the amount of hydrogen per gram of the alloy is used is far less than the weight of the alloy. 0.544% to be precise. Then the alloy has to be recycled. Which takes energy. I'm guessing less than the energy the hydrogen it produces can create otherwise what would be the point? Still it has some interesting features. It doesn't need pure water to function. It can work with seawater or contaminated water.

I forgive you but I don't know if hydrogen ever will.

It does sound promising. I had read that gallium might be in short supply but that's more because of the lack of demand. Apparently, it can be processed from aluminium tailings: “An enterprising French company came to Australia to build a side-stream gallium extraction plant at Pinjarra, next to one of the bauxite processing plants, and produced the world’s supply of gallium in a few months,” said Vernon. “And then they had to turn it off, because gallium hadn’t taken off the way they thought it would, and if they kept it going it would kill the price of gallium. “Gallium is on the critical list today – but you can still get your hands on some if you want it.” https://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/977273/are-we-really-running-out-of-critical-minerals-977273.html

Not so.. Like Oxygen, Hydrogen naturally occurs in weakly-bonded pairs in the atmosphere. EDIT: I just recalled that what binds the hydrogen atoms together is called a "covalent bond".

Let's hope that's correct. Because there is also good news about hydrogen. Lots actually, but here's one that is exceptionally good: World's cheapest green hydrogen' | Start-up with ultra-efficient electrolyser to develop pilot factory after securing $29m https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/worlds-cheapest-green-hydrogen-start-up-with-ultra-efficient-electrolyser-to-develop-pilot-factory-after-securing-29m/2-1-1270403

Right. They have no chance to succeed in any western nation where standards are higher...oh wait a minute... MG Motor UK Breaks More Sales Records in Q1 2022 Building on a record-breaking 2021, the marque’s success continued into the new year with registrations in January and February (4,471 units) totaling more than those for the whole of 2017 (4,471 units). March registrations of 9,367 were greater than the whole of 2018 and the total volume of cars registered by the brand in Q1 2022 (13,838 units) is up 124.6 percent on the first quarter of 2021. According to the latest figures published by SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) yesterday, this gives the brand a market share of 3.31 percent year-to-date, up from 1.45 percent in 2021. https://justbritish.com/mg-motor-uk-sales-records/ Reflexive China-bashing much? ..

Well, for one thing, the NHS will have lower costs than they otherwise would be.. Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels Costs $8 Billion Per Day, New Research Finds https://e360.yale.edu/digest/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels-costs-8-billion-per-day-new-research-finds

There is a big problem with hydrogen that is rarely acknowledged: hydrogen use will extend the life methane in the atmosphere. Right now, methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, has a life of about 12 years before it gets oxidized. The thing is, hydrogen outcompetes methane for oxygen. It's inevitable that some hydrogen will leak into the atmosphere because it's the smallest of all molecules. It contributes in other ways, too. Scientists warn against global warming effect of hydrogen leaks Scientists have warned that hydrogen could be a significant “indirect” contributor to the greenhouse effect when it leaks through infrastructure and interacts with methane in the atmosphere. “Hydrogen reacts to form tropospheric ozone, which also contributes to the greenhouse effect. And hydrogen also breaks down into water vapour in the stratosphere, which also contributes to the greenhouse effect,” he added. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/scientists-warn-against-global-warming-effect-of-hydrogen-leaks/

I guess to your way of thinking it's trivial that it's bound to save Gweiloman lots of money.

Thank you for showing what the opposite of a rigorous analysis like the one provided by Gweiloman looks like.

In fact, EV's are far more environmentally friendly. YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional As for costs of solar and wind...Even before the current and massive increase in fossil fuel prices, when gas and coal prices were low, solar and wind had put coal use to generate power on the road to extinction and thanks to battery storage were endangering gas peaker plants. Now, of course, they're far cheaper.

Of course electric rates are rising at EV stations. Haven't you heard that there's been a stratospheric rise in the cost of the fossil fuels used to generate electricity?

Yes, Electric Cars Are Cleaner, Even When The Power Comes From Coal Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds. The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/?sh=1bca7ab2320b

Actually, they are beginning to put advanced sails on ships to cut fuel consumption.

Except consumers in the developed world obviously consume a lot more than those in the developing world. Sub Saharan Africa's share of world GDP is 3.13%

You're not going to play Credibility Bingo? Like you've got an expert opinion on the science? There are thousands of fact-checkers called reviewers. And the leading scientific journals uphold what the IPCC reports say.

But what you wrote was: So no, he wasn't living in the house and there's no reason to believe that the sign and the flag represent his opinions

What are you on about? That Japanese scientist who got the Nobel Prize for his climate change research created an algorith that predicts the rise in global temperatures very accurately. In fact, climate models, even early ones, have mostly been very accurate in predicting the level of global warming. A few that weren't only got it wrong because they overestimated the quantity of greenhouse gases would be emitted into the atmosphere. They didn't foresee environmental laws requiring greater fuel efficiency and similar effects Even 50 Years Ago, Climate Models Were Way More Accurate Than Deniers Claim t's a common refrain from those who question mainstream climate science findings: The computer models scientists use to project future global warming are inaccurate and shouldn't be trusted to help policymakers decide whether to take potentially expensive steps to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. A new study effectively snuffs out that argument by looking at how climate models published between 1970 - before such models were the supercomputer-dependent behemoths of physical equations covering glaciers, ocean pH and vegetation, as they are today - and 2007. https://www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions As for prescribing suitable modes of action, again, you are just dead dead wrong. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Why does a question being broad make it meaningless? The rise in greenhouse gases due to human activity is warming the oceans and atmosphere at a far faster and increasingly fast pace than before the Industrial Revolution. What exactly is meaningless about that?

So you have say, 50,000 climatologists who are not doing research because they are motivated to do actual science but because of the big bucks that everyone knows climatologists earn? And instead of challenging others' false research they contrive their results to support it? Do you have any idea of how bonkers your claim is? How much lockstep would be required for the scientific review process to function as you claim?

Is "mess" really an adequate term? Maybe if you're trying to mitigate the horror of it and treat it as though the onus for it doesn't lie on one side or the other.

So the wealthy and influential are responsible for this but are acting individually? And you don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy even though 99.9% of climatological research supports human caused global warming? So those 99.9% have independently arrived at their false conclusions? Really?