No idea what you are going on about bud

>Results showed that these views are most often expressed by describing scientists as corruptible, poor communicators, and misleading. Commenters particularly negatively evaluated social sciences, especially psychology, calling it pseudoscientific

The irony...

You need to remember this is by capacity. Renewable energy has about half the capacity factor than fossil fuels in usa, so in reality it's more like 65-70%

I understand the limitations of the software unlike most people here, you cannot trust a chat ai to provide real advice or information

Sure but in this case OP wanted to use chatgpt as an adult adviser not as a resource to teach critical thinking

Yes of course but you have no way of knowing if are getting trash or not unless if are critical of anything you get out.

For a child to get unchecked advice from an ai is ridiculous

Try play a game of chess vs chatgpt and by move 10 it will make an illegal move because it has no concept of what the moves actually do

People need to stop thinking chatgpt and any other ai's have actual intelligence or can give proper information or adivce.. they can't.

Chatgpt has no idea what it's taking about, it just spews out sentences that sound human like. You cannot trust any information or advice it gives you, hell you can convince it that 1+1=3

Most countries have 3 year bachelor degrees btw, it's only really USA and a couple others that have 4 years.

>GPS satellites have to regularly reset their clocks to stay accurate to earth surface time due to the relativistic time difference between the satellite and the earth surface.

This is not accurate, they use clocks that run ever so slightly slower

Don't know the exact number but roughly the scale. We are talking about a millionths of time going faster, so over 25 years.. maybe a couple seconds or so younger than we give it credit for.

Not really.

​

But it is possible to have different forms of fission reactors that produce wastely less waste. It is even possible to recycle some of the waste we currently have and then reduce the time to decay

It's very important to understand that fission and nuclear decay is not the same thing. You cannot compare the two.

It's not hard or difficult. It's just that clean water is really really cheap under usual circumstances. So using electricity to make clean water usually ends up costing more than the water is worth.

>Floating microplastic is broken down into ever smaller, invisible nanoplastic particles that spread across the entire water column, but also to compounds that can then be completely broken down by bacteria.

Fuel cells don't exist? what are you on about?

You don't need a new truck you need a new engine.

Include the increased resources from still using gasoline, and the reduced effiency meaning more hydrogen needed, surely the environment and even economical aspect would favor fuel cells?

Seems like a strange concept to direct inejct hydrogen into a diesel motor when fuel cells will always have a higher efficiency without the need for diesel. Hydrogen isn't cheap, and it's made from either fossil fuels or from electrolysis. Even with electrolysis you are now losing so much energy that it's not very green(Even renewables emit co2).

Why not just replace with fuel cells?

Which in turn means you can buy less product for the same amount of money? Which is exactly what this is?

You know there's a word for the opposite of inflation.

Shrinkflation what the fuck is even that?

Yea I work in the field.

​

Look we need hydrogen in the use of steel manufacturing and for fertilizers. These aer very very important industries.

There's 2 ways to get hydrogen. One you take fossile fuels, typically natural gas, and you get rid of the carbon to leave hydrogen. This uses a limited fossil fuel and is very polluting as the carbon turned into co2. Additionally anything that uses natural gas runs the risk of spills, and natural gas is a even worse greenhouse gas than co2.

​

The second way is to use electricity to split water. That takes energy of course, the energy that would otherwise come from fossil fuels.

We don't need hydrogen 24-7 and it can be stored. When we produce hydrogen it's transported in tubes under pressure, the tubes themselves act as a storage site and there's many other ways to store hydrogen. So you produce as much hydrogen as you can while the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and save it for when it's needed.

Another problem we have is that we need low carbon electricity to live our current lives without causing further global warming. A problem with low carbon electricity is that it typically isn't adjustable or reliable. Say you have a ton of solar panels to provide energy for most of the day. Well during midday our energy needs aren't that great, but the solar power is peaking. During that time we could use some of the energy from solar cells to produce green hydrogen.

​

If we gonna go low carbon we will have leftover energy to use for hydrogen production, and there's a big need for green hydrogen to further the low carbon efforts.

Garbage article

​

Yes green hydrogen is more expensive than dirty hydrogen right now. That may not always be the case, and even if it is, it allows consumers to buy with their conscience and brand their product as green.

Yes some places has shitty regulation. So what? That's not a hydrogen problem, that's a shitty regulation problem.

Green hydrogen is mandatory if we wish to reduce emissions from steel and fertilizer production, and it has many other interesting applications to be used in the future.

Seeing as we are talking about GREEN hydrogen, then it has to come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Batteries can't make green fertilizers or steel.

>then we can say causality itself propagates at the speed-of-light.

You got it backwards lol. What we call speed of light or 3*10^8 m/s is actually the speed of causality. That's why it's denoted as "c". It's light that propagates at the speed of causality.