greengnu

completely fair perspective, if you are required to travel large distances outside of cities then liquid fuels would be the superior option.

But if cities are linked by high speed rail and effective bus coverage; there would be no need for a car to visit someone. #fuckcars

I do agree that batteries are not a good solution for planes but I believe plane use should be only for special cases that are extremely time sensitive (like organ transplant transportation) and are of high social benefit (which could justify carbon fuel usage)

One doesn't need batteries or combustion in heavy transport as fixed lines can just use electric wires which saves on moving weight and would make such transport more efficient that any carried fuel source.

quick refueling only matters if your travel distance exceeds your battery's range (which for 95% of driving is less than 100 miles) I would agree on the weight issue only if you don't engineer the hydrogen storage to properly survive car crashes. Range is of no practical use if it vastly exceeds your needs.

I find trains better for heavy transport and fixed route power lines would cover that problem in a more efficient manner.

Hydrogen would take double conversion loses if used like a battery and a flywheel would be more efficient at storing renewable energy at a grid level.

Off-grid energy storage can be done in heavy weight battery chemistries which can last forever without the maintenance cost that must occur with combustion. (heck even Nickel–iron batteries from 1901 would work)

I will grant you that hydrogen has many useful and wonderful applications.

Home energy storage and transportation are not one of them.

You forgot to read the section on hydrogen storage, infrastructure and safety problems.

But I guess you are correct that we are from an engineering perspective able to make hydrogen powered cars but I would argue that combustion is not a good solution to transportation when proper infrastructure would be able to do without those risks.

Actually you would never want hydrogen powered cars from an engineering perspective.

Ideally this would only be producing hydrogen for chemical processes which require a hydrogen feed stock.

I guess a discussion on shared meaning of what it means to die would be needed to understand if not dying as possible future/current/previous state in the universe and directly address your request to change your mind.

foolish of you to think that is a bad thing.

There is no greater hell than immortality.

Energy in the technical sense has always been a human right as we would literally die without it (ATP production kind of requires it and sunlight tends to power food production too)

If by energy you mean electricity or chemical energy in convenient containers (like butane canisters) then no but improving access would extend lives and reduce the total environmental pollution if done properly. As there is not an upper bound on how much every one could claim they need and lack of access to energy efficient options would make the lower bound insufficient for most people to live off.

Really looking forward to seeing this packaged in Guix

Doom stops when people have hope. Teaching people how to climb to a solar punk future is the solution.

We need solar punk political candidates.

in every sense of the word.

Full source code control, nothing included that you don't ask for, substitutes for those wanting to reduce energy requirements as a collective group.

Oh and can be productively used on a system powered exclusively by a $5 solar panel.

So cut the amount of energy going to the life that produces the oxygen we need to survive....

Short version:

No, but we probably can feed more people if we eat less meat.