3 ms·

The issue still stands why are governments subsidizing this dead end research? 5.6 trillion dollars of taxpayer money went to Fossil Fuel subsidies. That's alm

The issue still stands why are governments subsidizing this dead end research? 5.6 trillion dollars of taxpayer money went to Fossil Fuel subsidies. That's almost 7% of the world's gdp, or about 11 million dollars per minute just in 2020 [0] Oil companies continue to capture trillions in subsidies while deflecting blame and misleading the public along the way. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...

_Nat_ 5y ago
The main argument for technology like this is that it's relatively quick to develop-and-deploy in existing infrastructure. It's basically an emergency-bandage, meant to provide first-aid, to help reduce emissions in the short-term. Traditionally, the expert-consensus has been that solving climate-change'll require a multi-pronged strategy. Stuff like this would be intended to reduce some of the emissions now, reducing the build-up before greener technologies come online.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  This is PR talk, there is no band aid. The price drop of EV batteries has killed the use case for hydrogen, which was mostly city buses. Now that charging networks have been deployed and widespread, the argument of Hydrogen at gas stations is dead. It was a good idea but let's stop spending money on this.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    unfortunately we need lots and lots of band aids. the problem is that EVs are a tiny solution to a small problem. the rest of the problems don’t go away by using EVs. food production, mining, chemical engineering, shipping, aviation and many other high CO2 industries still have no solutions. so we’ll need band aids. some industries might never be possible to have zero CO2. for those we’ll need permanent band aids. and the best band aid is CCS. we could get rid of all CO2 right now if we use CCS everywhere. but no one wants to spend trillions on this. so we’re left arguing…

_Nat_ 5y ago

The main argument for technology like this is that it's relatively quick to develop-and-deploy in existing infrastructure. It's basically an emergency-bandage, meant to provide first-aid, to help reduce emissions in the short-term. Traditionally, the expert-consensus has been that solving climate-change'll require a multi-pronged strategy. Stuff like this would be intended to reduce some of the emissions now, reducing the build-up before greener technologies come online.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
This is PR talk, there is no band aid. The price drop of EV batteries has killed the use case for hydrogen, which was mostly city buses. Now that charging networks have been deployed and widespread, the argument of Hydrogen at gas stations is dead. It was a good idea but let's stop spending money on this.
- kmlx 5y ago
  unfortunately we need lots and lots of band aids. the problem is that EVs are a tiny solution to a small problem. the rest of the problems don’t go away by using EVs. food production, mining, chemical engineering, shipping, aviation and many other high CO2 industries still have no solutions. so we’ll need band aids. some industries might never be possible to have zero CO2. for those we’ll need permanent band aids. and the best band aid is CCS. we could get rid of all CO2 right now if we use CCS everywhere. but no one wants to spend trillions on this. so we’re left arguing…