Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Sure I can, because it's not happening. Arguing against something that isn't a reality is simple.
|
What in the world are you arguing against? It's not only possible, it's already been done. Solar panels, wind mills and hydro exist. Electrolysis exists. Hydrogen fuel cells exist. Which of those components isn't a reality? And if they are a reality, how on earth could using them together not be possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Arguments that we should stop doing something now because something in the future might be better aren't reasonable. I could say we should shut down all fossil fuel power generation now because we might have cheap and abundant fusion electricity in the future, but it wouldn't be rational.
|
Maybe I don't understand you or you don't understand me. But I never said that we should stop doing anything. On the other hand, you sound like you're saying we should stop trying anything new.
But that's the beauty of choice. If you want to burn gasoline, go ahead, have at it. If I want to drive an EV, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, or a bike should I be banned from doing so? Should I be banned from putting solar panels on the top of my house or banned from installing a battery bank or a (safely built) hydrogen fuel electrolysis generator and compressor for my hydrogen fuel cell vehicle?
The other day someone told me I shouldn't have the right to ride my bicycle and should drive to work in a car like everyone else... Is that really the case?
Why can't we let people use what they want to use? What's so wrong with that (as long as it's not malicious).
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
A country could go 95% wind and solar and they would be broke, which is why none do it. I could have my lawn mowed with fingernail clippers, and it would consume no fossil fuels, hypothetically.
|
Doesn't Norway get 95% or more of it's energy from renewables?
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
That's a relatively simple question to solve mathematically. Even more simple is Energy Return On Investment (EROI). It's the amount of energy invested divided by the amount of energy returned expressed as a ratio. If it takes 1 unit of energy to harvest 10 units of energy, that is cheaper than if it takes 1 unit of energy to harvest only 3 in return.
The nature of competition is those who spend the least to extract the most have the market advantage. Those who have to spend more or extract less have to increase the price of their product, and people largely aren't willing to pay more for commodities.
 |
True. But spending more and having a more exepnsive product or service can build an image others may still be willing to buy. A couple examples are organic foods and companies like Apple and Tesla.
On the other hand, nonacceptance can also kill cheaper products and services. For an example, it should technically be cheaper to build a station wagon over a crossover SUV. But nobody want's a station wagon, so station wagons are no longer available brand new in the USA anymore.
The same can be said of gasoline, vs. electric, vs. hydrogen vs. coal. vs. solar. vs. wind. vs natural gas, and so on. If you can build up enogh of a good image of something that it gets enough people to buy into it, it will take off.
Kind of like this thread about a hydrogen fuel cell car going over 800 miles on a tank. That will catch people's attention. It will contribute to their interest in the technology. It doesn't prove it's better in every way shape or form. But maybe they're be a group tha benefits from it some day. Or we could just ignore innovation and dictate that everyone needs to stop riding their bikes and all drive gasoline power car,s because that's what's proven to work and there's no point in reinventing the wheel.