3 ms·
You just refuse to get it, don't you? We way more experience eunning everything from gas turbines to ship engines than we have running civilian nuclear powered
by hef19898 3y ago
You just refuse to get it, don't you? We way more experience eunning everything from gas turbines to ship engines than we have running civilian nuclear powered ships, I hope I don't have to explain how many non-nuclear powered ahip we have, do I?
We also have more experience using biogas to be burned in combustion engines and turbines of any sort, as we do creating said biogas.
We also way more experience in creating sythetic fuels, and using electrolysis to create hydrogen out of sea water (green hydrogen).
Those are all solved problems, and thisbis not my opinion, as opossed to you, but facts confirmed by the very industries involved in ship building and shipping.
Really pointless to discuss with ignorant tech illiterates like you.
- Manuel_D 3y ago> I hope I don't have to explain how many non-nuclear powered ahip [sic] we have, do I? And again, how many of those are using hydrogen, ammonia, or synthetic methane? > We also way more experience in creating sythetic fuels, and using electrolysis to create hydrogen out of sea water (green hydrogen). Absolutely not. Almost all synthetic fuels is using biomass as an input, which does not scale. And only tiny, tiny fraction of hydrogen is produced in a carbon neutral manner. Less than 0.05%: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen Again, if these are solved problem, show me the fleet of ships powered by hydrogen, ammonia, or synthetic methane.
- mpweiher 3y agoI love the double standard! Nuclear technology: if it isn't exactly the same thing we need, no matter how close, it doesn't exist. Hydrogen etc.: we have a rough analogy and no real way of getting from there to here, therefore it is proven technology.