You had me in the first half
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
Bill is going to be serving this on all his jets and yachts
Why not just make a fuel that can power cars if you're gonna go this far.
@MuskyMelon @Gsus4 hydrogen probably.. just need further development, I think we are in a technologic race, battery is still winning but it can change..
hydrogen probably.. just need further development
You can get a hydrogen car today. Just that if you're outside a few places like Japan and California, finding a fueling station might be a bit difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai
Sales in Japan began on 15 December 2014 at ¥6.7 million (~US$57,400) at Toyota Store and Toyopet Store locations. The Japanese government plans to support the commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles with a subsidy of ¥2 million (~US$19,600).[12] Retail sales in the U.S. began in August 2015 at a price of US$57,500 before any government incentives. Deliveries to retail customers began in California in October 2015.[13] Toyota scheduled to release the Mirai in the Northeastern United States in the first half of 2016.[14] As of June 2016, the Mirai was available for retail sales in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, and Norway.[15] Pricing in Germany started at €60,000 (~US$75,140) plus VAT (€78,540).[16]
2025 Mirai
Starting MSRP $ 51,795
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen-locations#%2Ffind%2Fnearest%3Ffuel=HY
They do fuel up a lot faster than BEVs do, but the fuel cost is considerably higher than for BEVs.
cost :/ and low energy conversion efficiency. Whereas expensive novelty edibles may have a high price, fuels, not so much.
We focus too much on efficiency and cost sometimes. Sometimes efficiency is only a "nice to have" while being outweighed by practicality, convenience, safety, and any of the other factors we choose to make a priority.
It is expensive and inefficient for an airplane to have two engines instead of just one. We do it anyway because it's required for safety and redundancy. We made that the priority, and that was an active choice. We need to start making more active choices about what the priority is when it comes to our energy futures. All priorities have tradeoffs. Cost and efficiency have their own tradeoffs. Question it when people tell you that things can't be done because of "cost" or "efficiency". When they do that they're presupposing what the priority is, but often it's billionaires trying to cut corners to make themselves richer at our expense, our safety, our futures. We can do inefficient things. Sometimes it's even the right choice.
I think you're missing that there are better ways to produce fuels for cars than to chemically synthesize petroleum. It's all about cost and efficiency if you're just looking for portable energy. Or we could burn more coal so we can generate the energy needed for synthetic gasoline....
Or we could burn more coal so we can generate the energy needed for synthetic gasoline…
The problem is, people can, do, and will use that exact same argument to say we don't need any more solar panels or wind turbines, because we don't need and can't use or store the excess power for anything and that's why we need to keep thermal plants as backup for base load generation. Look, when we produce too much electricity, the electricity cost goes to zero and negative! It's "wasteful and inefficient"! But these two problems can solve each other. Synthetic fuels (doesn't have to be gasoline, hydrogen is step 1, methane/LNG is a bit more manageable as a chemical fuel. As long as the carbon source is atmospheric, then it and other synthetic hydrocarbons are carbon neutral to burn) provide an on-demand energy sink/storage method that can support and drive more electrification and renewable power, it just has to be part of a consistent and systemic approach with strict regulation and a clear view of the big picture (something sorely lacking these days).
Nailed it.
We need a solar grid that can meet our demand during a 9-hour, overcast, low-angle winter day. That same grid will be producing more than 4 times as much power as we need during a 15-hour, high-angle summer day, even after we include air conditioning loads.
We need massive, seasonal loads to soak up that excess power and keep solar profitable.
Fake butter isn't going to do it, but things like desalination, hydrogen electrolysis, and Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbon production are all likely candidates.
I'm glad someone understands.
I must be losing my mind because I thought I saw this post 2 days ago except it said beer.
Butter backed by Bill Gates? Is that the same Bill Gates who became wealthy and famous for his commanding knowledge of butter?
Cyberpunk shit getting real
but does it actually taste like the real thing? because I can already buy something that, supposedly, I should be unable to believe isn't real butter, but after doing so I remain suspicious
The first time I had "I can't believe it's not butter," I said "I can believe it's not butter."
I've heard that people made from carbon taste like the real thing too, you all should try it!
Mmmmm. Nom nom!