Will Fossile FREE fuels save the combustion engine from Extinction.

[Lake X Kid]

Combustion Engines versus the ...political environment.

[doug7488]

Interesting

[David - WI]

It's just crazy that people still believe the carbon hoax.

[NICE PAIR]

Interesting

Doesn't air + water + electricity = Hydrogen?


Nevermind! > https://phys.org/news/2019-10-air-el...-peroxide.html


part 2 >https://techxplore.com/news/2019-09-...-gas-pure.html

[JLanier571]

[FUJIMO]

[David - WI]

That's cute, but not real.

The foundation of the hypothesis that the Modern Warm Period is induced by humans is an assumption that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280ppm, i.e. about 100ppm lower than now. British engineer, G.S Callendar may be truly regarded as the father of this hypothesis, and of this assumption (Callendar, 1938; Callendar, 1940; Callendar, 1949; Callendar, 1958) . This assumption was made possible by the arbitrary rejection of more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia and Europe, during 149 years between 1812 and 1961. Some of these direct measurements were carried out by Nobel Prize winners. Callendar rejected more than 69% from a set of 19th century CO2 measurements ranging from 250 to 550ppm.

https://nov79.com/gbwm/fakery.html#:...r%20that%20the

[JLanier571]

The data from Nasa is as reputable as it gets, and your quote from an opinion piece in the New Zealand Center of Political Studies doesn't disprove anything, as if data from 1812-1961 would somehow counter ice core data that goes back hundreds of thousands of years. As if humans weren't already burning fuels in 1812...

If you want to disprove the nasa data, you have to actually provide better data first. I'd start with an actual scientific organization first or even one that at least calls themselves scientific and not political, and then maybe look for data that isn't a fraction of the amount data you are trying to counter, and only from the period after the variable starts changing.

The case you are making just makes it seem like you don't understand the data you are looking at. There is a reason we don't use atmospheric measurements of carbon. They are inconsistent even at their best and impossible to measure going back past human development. Even Nobel prize winners for their time can be behind by today's standards.

[NICE PAIR]

The scientist should go back to massaging their own parts instead of all the bs charts.

[David]

Back to the original post, about e fuels. E fuels are technically feasible, but far from the most efficient way of using electricity. Perhaps they will be used for airplanes or trains in the future. I will be surprised if e fuels become mainstream for cars. Although it would be nice if I could still fill up my boats and Lotus with e fuels in 30 years when gasoline becomes rare. I expect e fuels to remain crazy expensive.

[PanRonnie]

There are some improvements in electrolysers, will it be enough?
Everything slow is probably going to be battery
Everything fast or heavy will need someting else either fuel cell or combustion
Shipping on ammonia maybe but we are so far off from that if even railway is still diesel locomotive for the most part
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28953-x

[David - WI]

They are pushing synthetic fuels for exotic "virtue-signal" supercars... so the ultra-rich can still feel good about getting 9 mpg.

No one reading this website today will be alive when we run out of petroleum.

[David - WI]

It is honestly mind-boggling to me that any reasonably educated person could look at that chart and say, "Yeah, that's probably real."

I suppose they are the same people who fell for the (thoroughly debunked) "hockey-stick" temperature graphs... that were (or should have been) obvious fakes.

[PanRonnie]

It is honestly mind-boggling to me that any reasonably educated person could look at that chart and say, "Yeah, that's probably real."

I suppose they are the same people who fell for the (thoroughly debunked) "hockey-stick" temperature graphs... that were (or should have been) obvious fakes.

Still a long way to go till 4000ppm, i doubt very much were are going to get there
Feminisme and MGTOW are going to take care off that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...27s_atmosphere

[David - WI]

That is not real, ice cores are not a valid way to measure gas concentrations... no one could look at the chart and believe it's constructed from real data. Ice cores only retain a fraction of the CO2 that was present at the time the ice was deposited.

Glaciological CO2 records are strongly influenced by natural processes in the ice sheets and man-made artifacts in the ice cores, which lead to the depletion of CO2 by 30% to 50%, probably mostly in the upper layers of the ice sheets. These records are also beset with arbitrary selection of data, experimentally unfounded assumptions on gas age, one-sided interpretations ascribing the observed trends to human factors, and ignoring other explanations. A classic example of such manipulation of ice core data is the famous Siple curve, the mother of many other “CO2 hockey curves”.