The whole initial pitch from Tesla, that basicslly got EVs conceptually over the hump into being potentially practical… at a paradigmatic level…
… was Elon saying he was gonna build a whole network of infrastructure for that, charging networks.
… and then 90% of that never happened.
Remember when we were gonna have basically a carwash type thing but it would just do a battery swap on your car?
Remember when he was all giddy about the SOLID METAL SNAKE that was gonna basicslly just be a robot tentacle that would automagically plug in to your charging port?
Yeah, basically none of that shit happened, similar to all that money we gave to the ISPs and such to build out fiber networks, most of which just went into stock buybacks, not infrastructure.
So my point is, you run into the same fundamental problem with hydrogen, now you need to build a whole new set of infrastructure.
… Who is going to pay for that?
Oh and also power would not be free.
Not for a long long time, not untill you solve capitalism.
Even with the magical thinking of an over unity power generator, you have do another order of magnitude of magical thinking to think that that somehow just makes power, in general, free, in a capitalist system.
They’ll find a way, many ways, to make it cost money.
… so you’re saying to use i guess infinite amounts of energy to … do abiotic synthesis and just literally produce hydrocarbons?
… Like, just Fischer-Troph everything?
I suspect you are wildly oversimplifying the complexity of the chemical processes involved…
…for the general concept of what you are saying, to make actual sense…
Your abiotic hydrocarbon synthesis process would have to be less energy demanding than the constant surplus energy production rate of a theoretical over unity fusion generator.
Just getting any fusion generator than is any miniscule amount of truly over unity, thats not enough.
Thats infinite energy… if you have an infinite amount of time to wait, and an infinite amount of some kind of battery system to contain that energy in.
Synthetic fuel production is kind of notorious for being immensely energy intensive.
And for FT at least, you need a feedstock of either biomass, coal or natural gas.
If you want to just do some kind of variant of an FT like process, where your feedstock is ultimately ‘refined air’… you’re going to need even more energy, a fusion generator than is over unity by an even larger margin.
It is a little more complicated than just ‘heat up CO2’.
Unless you can point me to … somebody who has actually worked out the chemistry of how you can just synthesize hydrocarbons from… ambient CO2… that you’re scrubbing from the air… demonstrated this entire process at a tiny scale as proof of concept… and described the total amount of energy required to power this process…
Cool and hows all that coming along?
Hydrogen vehicles?
The whole initial pitch from Tesla, that basicslly got EVs conceptually over the hump into being potentially practical… at a paradigmatic level…
… was Elon saying he was gonna build a whole network of infrastructure for that, charging networks.
… and then 90% of that never happened.
Remember when we were gonna have basically a carwash type thing but it would just do a battery swap on your car?
Remember when he was all giddy about the SOLID METAL SNAKE that was gonna basicslly just be a robot tentacle that would automagically plug in to your charging port?
Yeah, basically none of that shit happened, similar to all that money we gave to the ISPs and such to build out fiber networks, most of which just went into stock buybacks, not infrastructure.
So my point is, you run into the same fundamental problem with hydrogen, now you need to build a whole new set of infrastructure.
… Who is going to pay for that?
Oh and also power would not be free.
Not for a long long time, not untill you solve capitalism.
Even with the magical thinking of an over unity power generator, you have do another order of magnitude of magical thinking to think that that somehow just makes power, in general, free, in a capitalist system.
They’ll find a way, many ways, to make it cost money.
Ok, so use the hydrogen to make heavier fuels, you just need heat and CO2.
America might not do anything, but China would be happy to sell USA’s emissions back to them for profit.
… so you’re saying to use i guess infinite amounts of energy to … do abiotic synthesis and just literally produce hydrocarbons?
… Like, just Fischer-Troph everything?
I suspect you are wildly oversimplifying the complexity of the chemical processes involved…
…for the general concept of what you are saying, to make actual sense…
Your abiotic hydrocarbon synthesis process would have to be less energy demanding than the constant surplus energy production rate of a theoretical over unity fusion generator.
Just getting any fusion generator than is any miniscule amount of truly over unity, thats not enough.
Thats infinite energy… if you have an infinite amount of time to wait, and an infinite amount of some kind of battery system to contain that energy in.
Synthetic fuel production is kind of notorious for being immensely energy intensive.
And for FT at least, you need a feedstock of either biomass, coal or natural gas.
If you want to just do some kind of variant of an FT like process, where your feedstock is ultimately ‘refined air’… you’re going to need even more energy, a fusion generator than is over unity by an even larger margin.
It is a little more complicated than just ‘heat up CO2’.
Unless you can point me to … somebody who has actually worked out the chemistry of how you can just synthesize hydrocarbons from… ambient CO2… that you’re scrubbing from the air… demonstrated this entire process at a tiny scale as proof of concept… and described the total amount of energy required to power this process…
Yeah I’m calling bullshit.
what if we abolish capitalism?