Quote from: RE on Jan 03, 2024, 02:02 PMWhy are you getting your knickers in such a twist?  You made the argument why hydrogen isn't being used.

No knickers involved. And I used hydrogen as an example, sure.

Quote from: REIt's not as profitable as sticking with crude, as long as it holds out.  Personally, I could care less which technology replaces ffs as long as it meets the goals of reducing carbon emissions, not creating a sewer of environmental damage, is sufficiently energy dense to handle the  applications, is affordable for the end consumer and there's enough supply that can be brought online to keep the various systems we have that are energy dependent running.

"goals of reducing carbon emissions" is an interesting phrase. Do you believe that there are goals, i.e. plans to do something about carbon emissions that aren't hopium? It would seem reasonable to require that anyone setting such goals would require the action to be effective, and work at the appropriate scale. Within the constraints of the goals anyway.

Do you believe there is any effective action operating at scale based on all the plans that, say, the COP folks have been discussing over the years?

Quote from: RECan any of the possible alternatives out there meet all these goals right now?  No, all of them have some weakness, including the fact energy companies have already invested a lot of capital in one or another of them and have a vested interest in seeing the one they picked most widely accepted and distributed.  The same folks also have a lot of debt they have to service, so they need to see a return on these investments relatively quickly.

So...if this were an answer to my prior question, would this be a yes...a no...or a maybe?