Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DifferentAnon t1_iy8c8po wrote

Reply to comment by Spartanfred104 in Rolls-Royce successfully tests hydrogen-powered jet engine | Britain's Rolls-Royce said it has successfully run an aircraft engine on hydrogen, a world aviation first that marks a major step towards proving the gas could be key to decarbonising air travel. by yourSAS

What does this even mean? Over how long? Building the structures? Running it continuously? How does that energy equate to the amount it puts out?

7

Spartanfred104 t1_iy8d2sh wrote

In “moving on from oil” we would be walking away from a complex and often-violent and always critical supply and transport system, only to replace it with at least ten more. A world in which we “electrify everything” requires an order of magnitude more copper and lithium and nickel and cobalt and graphite and chromium and zinc and rare earths and silicon and more.

The future is darker, and less green, than you think.

https://imgur.com/W7MM7oN.jpg

−8

DifferentAnon t1_iy8dj20 wrote

What point are you arguing? I asked about energy amounts and you bring up rare earth metals.

Yes. I agreed that finite resource materials are required.

I suppose what your definition of "green" is required. I'm thinking of carbon emissions resulting in climate change.

5

Spartanfred104 t1_iy8dwam wrote

My point is it takes 7x as much energy/resources to produce renewable tech that has a shelf life of 10 years. How is that going to achieve cooling the planet if everything we use now takes 7x the resources and every middle class person wants it?

7x what we emit now is not better.

−2