>. imo hydrogen enables heavy haulage Um, yes, but so does diesel and we already have a whole bunch of infrastructure in place for that. The supply chain efficiency of getting hydrogen into fuel cells is quite wasteful of energy.
Even using nuclear, it is still an energy wasteful process. I 100% guarantee you we cannot build enough windmills and solar panels to produce hydrogen for transport use and have sufficient energy to replace the windmill and solar panel infrastructure in addition to our existing industrial and personal energy requirements.
Not to mention the requirement for.. you know... entirely replacing the entire transport infrastructure. That costs energy and resources too, you know.
I think a better solution, especially for heavy haulage, is going back to a rail network. Considerably more energy efficient overall.
>sources DM... some sources of information are producers of spin and anti-AGW, anti-renewable energy, anti-science that threatens their belief systems
"these sites are heretic sites and we shouldn't be interested in what heretics say". These sites threaten your belief systems and therefore you are not doing science, but closer to religion.
Fair enough, you don't agree with Infowars argument that are against AGW. They're not scientists. The heresy problem is that because Infowars is "bad" and "disagrees with AGW", if someone makes a reasoned argument that has the same conclusion, the dogmatist says "This person is saying the same as Infowars therefore they are also "right wingtippers", or whatever.
There's a difference between "It's a conspiracy theory and I'm against it on principle" (not science) and "When these data are considered in this way we can come to his conclusion" (science)
>certainly is correct to question authority.... which is why I question 9 years of LibNat Gov But you are fine to accept pro-agw scientists and pharmaceutical companies authority and knowledge as absolute?
