Warmists do more to endanger the climate and environment than anyone else on the planet
- Thread starter GhostOfMatchesMalone
- Start date
@Uniformed_ReRe @BSC911 @urtren don't give a damn about the environment. But they do love their politics.
Petey Buttgigged. @gator1776 's favorite subject. America circling the drain with Brandon's policies. Congrats!!
One other thing I’ve learned this week is that American oil is apparently much dirtier than crude oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela. Biden wants these countries to pump more oil but American oil? No thanks.
They keep this up and maybe the senate gets to 67+ GOP and Speaker Trump becoming pres in 2023 and getting another 6 total years could actually happen.
Who the hell takes the Butt Plug seriously when he tries to sneak a 24" female bicycle out of a Chevy Suburban then riding less than a half mile to his workplace?
I put the health of the planet above my politics, unlike some here.
“GhostOfMatchesMalone places politics above all else.”
The entire warmist/green/sustainability cult is about changing consumer behavior. We are told we need to stop depending on fossil fuels and 'dirty' energy sources. We have to start buying electric cars and solar panels.
But these electric cars and solar panels destroy the planet. Both in creation and destruction. You can see the pictures above for yourself, this is nothing new. The environment literally has to be gutted in order to obtain the materials needed to create those batteries that go in your electric cars and to get the materials necessary to make those solar panels.
And that's just the creation. What happens when they are no longer useful? They go straight into a landfill, where those materials seep out and into the ground, poisoning the soil and water sources.
If your goal was to destroy the planet and kill people in the process, you should be a warmist. I honestly don't know how you internally rationalize it to yourself.
What is wrong with trying to take care of gods planet? Oil, gas and coal are far dirtier. Hydrogen is likely gonna replace the big 3 and create many jobs.
...because its hip and cool to be a warmist...
Well then................go flip the switch. Make it happen tomorrow. Oh, that's right. A solution to a problem whose technology doesn't even exist. There's a saying about quitting your job without a new one IN PLACE or backup plan. We could even call it Build Back Broke.
They were talking about it on the radio today. China is basically destroying island after island in the Philippines mining the rare earth materials that is used to make solar panels and electric vehicle batteries.
You should definitely educate yourself on what happens to your 'green' technologies when they have outlived their usefulness.
Enjoy:
All of those are going straight in a landfill.
What happens to the soil when the chemicals in those panels seep into the ground?
If you want to destroy the planet and kill plants, animals and humans, then absolutely be a warmist.
What about the impact on the environment of creating and disposing of these cars?
We can look above and see how the environment has to literally be destroyed to build your electric cars and solar panels.
Are you saying there is no impact to the environment in the creation or destruction of your hydrogen vehicles?
If so, you've got a good (albeit very costly) alternative to gas-powered and electric engines.
If not, then you've got another 'clean' energy boondoggle.
Hydrogen is a non-starter at the moment. It doesn't work now...not even for commercial vehicles much less private.
Do warmists like @Kingseve1 and @Uniformed_ReRe just not know this, or do they just not care?
Your planet or your politics. Pick one.
Need to get the climate change crowd back to banning plastic straws and other virtue signally, non impactful actions. Of course this backfired with the singal use plastic bag ban in some markets. They determined the resuable cloth bags that libs carry while wearing their masks with plastic shields for extra protection, were covid carryers. So back came plastic bags in the screw ball markets they'd been removed from.
We've gone full circle. Remember the "save the trees" hysteria? Paper grocery bags to plastic ones, then back to paper and cardboard boxes.
"The Science is Settled" 😂 😂 😂 😂
hydrogen cars and trucks are in production.
Hydrogen also currently runs power stations. See FCEL for power stations. Toyota and Hyundai make hydrogen powered cars.
this technology has been around for a long time. Just no money behind it
Last edited:
This guy has the perfect solution for high gas prices..... Oh, that we should all love our planet and our neighbor the way Grant Botma does....
And you should also stop driving so my truck will get better gas mileage.
I can see this narrative starting soon from the Covid Mania types, we're not done yet.. What will they think of next?😂
If there's no money behind it, that means there's no market for it.
Show me that hydrogen cars are more efficient than what we have now, and don't destroy the planet like current 'green' offerings, and I'll listen.
Anyone that puts the planet above their politics wants to see that we protect the environment. What I've seen from warmists harms the planet Not what I want to do, not sure why anyone does.
I no longer know if he is being sarcastic or serious.
It means there is no market for something that is currently impractical. We can also extract gold from seawater. Maybe Kingseve should look into that, gold is soaring.
Election campaign promises made, biblical prophecies being fulfilled.
That's my point. Hydrogen vehicles are inefficient and are ONLY viable with heavy subsidies. Also...
https://policies.google.com/privacy
However, the safety concerns are not the main reason why hydrogen is a far inferior option for personal transportation than BEVs. If one of your main goals is to save the planet, BEVs are considerably more energy efficient than FCVs, when you take into account the whole series of steps between power generation and propulsion. With a BEV, once the electricity is generated – hopefully from a renewable source – the supply of this to your vehicle charging location loses about 5%. The charging and discharging of the battery then lose another 10%. Finally, the motor wastes another 5% driving the vehicle. That makes for a total loss of 20%.
With a hydrogen fuel cell, however, you first have to convert the electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, which is only 75% efficient. Then the gas has to be compressed, chilled and transported, which loses another 10%. The fuel cell process of converting hydrogen back to electricity is only 60% efficient, after which you have the same 5% loss from driving the vehicle motor as for a BEV. The grand total is a 62% loss – more than three times as much. Or, to put it another way, for every kW of electricity supply, you get 800W for a BEV, but only 380W for an FCV – less than half as much. That’s a huge inefficiency if you’re hoping for a greener future, and doesn’t even take into account the fact that 95% of hydrogen is currently generated from fossil fuel sources.
Why Hydrogen Will Never Be The Future Of Electric Cars
A decade ago, it seemed like there were two potential contenders to replace fossil fuel for personal transportation – electricity and hydrogen. So why haven’t hydrogen fuel cell vehicles taken off in the same way as battery electric ones, considering their refuelling convenience?
www.forbes.com
Just as I said, but with better citation and documentation. Currently impractical. Markets left alone from governmental regulation always pick the best, most efficient path. The only thing worse than scientists suckling the teet of federal grants is an uninformed armchair greenie.That's my point. Hydrogen vehicles are inefficient and are ONLY viable with heavy subsidies. Also...
https://policies.google.com/privacy
However, the safety concerns are not the main reason why hydrogen is a far inferior option for personal transportation than BEVs. If one of your main goals is to save the planet, BEVs are considerably more energy efficient than FCVs, when you take into account the whole series of steps between power generation and propulsion. With a BEV, once the electricity is generated – hopefully from a renewable source – the supply of this to your vehicle charging location loses about 5%. The charging and discharging of the battery then lose another 10%. Finally, the motor wastes another 5% driving the vehicle. That makes for a total loss of 20%.
With a hydrogen fuel cell, however, you first have to convert the electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, which is only 75% efficient. Then the gas has to be compressed, chilled and transported, which loses another 10%. The fuel cell process of converting hydrogen back to electricity is only 60% efficient, after which you have the same 5% loss from driving the vehicle motor as for a BEV. The grand total is a 62% loss – more than three times as much. Or, to put it another way, for every kW of electricity supply, you get 800W for a BEV, but only 380W for an FCV – less than half as much. That’s a huge inefficiency if you’re hoping for a greener future, and doesn’t even take into account the fact that 95% of hydrogen is currently generated from fossil fuel sources.
Why Hydrogen Will Never Be The Future Of Electric Cars
A decade ago, it seemed like there were two potential contenders to replace fossil fuel for personal transportation – electricity and hydrogen. So why haven’t hydrogen fuel cell vehicles taken off in the same way as battery electric ones, considering their refuelling convenience?
Just a small detail the snowflakes leave out. Secondly....electric vehicles are NOT the fix. Many people will NEVER buy one because they do not work for their needs, and the government trying to FORCE us to buy them will just make it worse
I’d love to see a 747 or Airbus 380, completely loaded with passengers and cargo, lift off the ground being powered by electric batteries, solar panels and wind turbines.
When that actually happens, and I see the proof, then you can count me in.
Until then, I’ll just buckle down and go put about $90 worth of regular unleaded gas into the tank of my 400 horsepower V8 powered pick up truck.
When that actually happens, and I see the proof, then you can count me in.
Until then, I’ll just buckle down and go put about $90 worth of regular unleaded gas into the tank of my 400 horsepower V8 powered pick up truck.
