• argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back.

      Non sequitur. Nobody said we had to turn atmospheric carbon back into the same fuel it originally came out of.

      Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight.

      This is only an issue for long-haul trucks, so, obvious solution: electric trains. No battery required.

      Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.

      There are plenty of EVs on the road already. If that was as likely as you’re trying to make it sound, it would have happened many times already.

      Yeah, lithium-ion batteries are volatile, but they aren’t that volatile. Solid-state batteries are even less so.

      retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it)

      I won’t comment on whether it’s acceptable, but it definitely isn’t correct. The R word refers to people whose brains are impaired, not merely underused.

      Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that!

      That’s the real problem, not the technology. We can solve this problem. We don’t even have to sacrifice our modern civilization and creature comforts to do it. But we won’t, because some very lucrative businesses would become obsolete in the process, and their owners would sooner burn down the world and rule over the ashes than tolerate the loss of their wealth.