Does anybody remember the Hindenburg Disaster? That's what will happen if vehicles actually store free Hydrogen on-board, as opposed to keeping it locked in a safer form. (LiH) Take a look here: Of course, there's a risk of turning the Hydrogen fuel into radioactive material. This gives terrorists / Anarchists lots of 'dirty' bomb materials to play with.
The Hindenburg used hydrogen gas whereas hydrogen vehicles would use liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen boils at minus 252 degrees Celsius already. If you fuel it gaseous you would not even get out of the gas station before your gas tank is empty again. The issues are fueling hydrogen and storing it themselves already... The risk at accidents regarding liquid hydrogen are not comparable to hydrogen gas itself, though. The low temperature lowers the risks of ignition but comes along with other dangers. But generally it is not as dangerous as people might think.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/11/business/renewable-energy-coal-capacity/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-06-17T01:30:04&utm_term=link New York (CNN Business) America's coal industry has already been left in the dust by natural gas. Now it's under immense pressure from the renewable energy boom. The renewable energy sector had slightly more installed capacity than coal in April, according to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report. SUN DAY Campaign, a nonprofit research group supporting sustainable energy. The breakthrough reflects the plunging cost of solar and wind as well as heightened environmental concern about coal. "Coal has no technology path," said Jeff McDermott, managing partner at Greentech Capital Advisors, a boutique investment bank focused on clean energy. "It's got nowhere to go but extinction." The clean energy revolution is on the verge of a tipping point. Also in April, the renewable energy sector was projected to have generated more electricity than coal, according to a separate report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That transition was partially driven by seasonal issues. At the same time, America has drastically cut back on its appetite for coal. Since peaking in 2008, US coal consumption has plunged 39% to the lowest level in 40 years, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The milestones come despite President Donald Trump's promise to prop up the coal industry by cutting environmental rules. Analysts say that's because the shift toward renewables is being driven more by economics than regulation.
Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamese...t-option-even-without-subsidies/#56590c325a6b "In recent years, the world has marched towards renewable energy. According to a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), unsubsidized renewable energy is now most frequently the cheapest source of energy generation . The report finds that the cost of installation and maintenance of renewables, which was an important stumbling block to mass adoption, continues on a downward trajectory. Adding to existing efforts made by governments and businesses, these lower costs are expected to propel the mass adoption of renewables even further. The report further touches on the importance of renewables in sustainable development and the need for governments to help achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, coming just months before the United Nations’ Climate Action Summit being held in Abu Dhabi in September this year." So, come again, who is interested in status quo and why?!? Where are the vested interests most "embedded" into the political sphere of USofA? What exactly is a "ruse"?!? Whose conservative propaganda is actually working towards subverting whom and whatever for?!? Well, well, well... look-a-here: unsubsidized renewable energy is now most frequently the cheapest source of energy generation These new statistics demonstrate that using renewable energy is increasingly cost-effective compared to other sources, even when renewables must compete with the heavily-subsidized fossil fuel industry
We have had global warming and global ice ages in the past (before the Industrial Revolution) . This planet is not static as we (mankind) would like to think and it's not from humans alone. Them Martians are experiencing the same problems too! https://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html (we ought to teach them to stop burning Venusian's as fuel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venusians
one of the biggest problem is us i dont think this planet was design to hold 7 Plus billion people....population growth is huge problem more resources is taken from our planet pushing it to the edge.
I agree, 100%. Now tell that to these stupid Mexicans who reproduce at a rate of cockroaches. Perhaps that's why they jump fences to the US to contaminate your country.
Then we should encourage those North Koreans and Iranians to ramp their nukes! (reduce the human populations)
My "therory" of global warming is something like that: In a not so faraway galaxy exploded a powerful supernova like these : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/found-the-most-powerful-supernova-ever-seen/ etc...
How can anyone conclude that Global Warming is man made when scientific data has shown that climate change occurred even prior to man's existence? I must conclude that the poster responded tongue in cheek.
The original poster should have offered at least one other choice. 4) Yes and No. Primarily external forces such as the Sun, Nature, earths composition, etc., minimal impact by mankind. Now cows expelling gas, that's another matter. LOL
Climate change is the least of our problems. We're polluting the water,ground, and the ocean at an astonishing rate. If we don't do something about that, a little bit of excess CO2 will be minimal in the grand scheme of things.