Look out! Communists are coming for your toothbrush. Better vote for harsher penalties for modifying stuff you bought. The DMCA still allows throwing away or disconnecting the computer locking you out of your heated seats.

Yes, many much easier ways. A propane tank for one. Wet, high CO2 methane is really hard to make explode.

Do get a CO detector though.

You can buy gas from anyone. Even make your own in a digester.

Your gas stove is not cryptographically locked to one gas company.

Spain and china managed just fine. Rail costs way less than 20 lane highways.

Increase the fines (and scale by income) until they provide sufficient incentive to pay attention and have the tiniest bit of self control. Then the people holding a ticket can beg the engineers to fix the road to remove the need for not being lazy and impatient instead of the people whose kids were just killed.

This just in, millions of deaths a year and billions of tonnes of CO2 aren’t a problem. /s

This is also vastly undercounting car-related deaths and overcounting non-car deaths. They are a major cause of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory disease as well as chronic injuries that cause death later. Irate car drivers are also a significant category of homicides.

A lot of violent crime can also be traced to leaded gasolene.

If you want round trip efficiency higher than 30% you need prohibitive quantities of platinum and iridium (with some promising research to maybe replace the iridium with cobalt, making fuel cells about as sustainable as NMC batteries).

Storing it is also generally prohibitive. Small high pressure vessels have a hard expiry date shorter thna the expected life of a battery, take up more space and cost as much as LFP batteries. By the time you add a fuel cell stack and buffer battery there’s not really any weight saving either.

Geologic storage is an option, but use cases are limited. Large scale stationary tank storage is also a possibility for industrial chemical use.

Hydrogen hype is largely a greenwashing and delay tactic by the oil and gas industry.

PV energy in low cloud areas is <2c/kWh and dropping 7-10% p.a (a recent UAE ppa was 1.6c).

Crude oil is presently ~4c/kWh and frequently 6c. Distillates are often over $1/L before taxes or 10c/kWh.

20% one-way energy efficiency competes with oil. If the catalyst stack is significantly cheaper than water electrolysers it can use curtailed renewables and compete with oil at <10%.

Won’t replace batteries or electrification, but a solid choice for emergency storage or high capital, low-use assets (like a forklift that gets used twice a week or a bbq).

>50% efficiency would displace fossil gas with sufficiently cheap catalyst stack.

You’d have thought it was obvious, but everyone I’ve ever met IRL thought they’d be cheaper forever.

The correct analogy would be if the climate deniers working for Chevron were held up as field experts, and that the institution of climate science stood behind them, then anyone who pointed it out was just told we need to organise agriculture on more +4.5 degree compatible terms.

If air pollution policy was set based on assuming all humans are spherical cows in a vacuum, you might have a coherent point, but when the dominant controlling power in your field is based on the assertion that we should just remove the air to make reality more like the models then your field is a laughing stock.

If I posit for a moment that you actually come from a sub-field interested in describing reality rather than altering reality to suit the wealthy, then you should rename what you do or get rid of the ones giving you a bad name. Clean up your shit or call what you do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you get to be lumped in with the feckless ghouls your field holds up as experts.

If your argument is “we’d be describing the economy if the economy would be what we described” you’re just demanding reality change to fit the story.

Oh. You were serious with the “it doesn’t matter if it conflicts with reality if I thought a bit because it’s ‘rational’ and directly contradicting reality is the same as an approximation” schtick?

I don’t know if that sad or even funnier.

Lol.

Okay. You Poe’d me. Nice parody. Well done.

If weather prediction were based on the idea that eddies were produced by gnomes with wooden spoons, you’d have an argument.

The economist’s fundamental assumptions are wrong. The free market rational actor model is wholly incompatible with the ability of a finance or marketing industry to exist because marketing could never inform or convince anyone of anything and contracts can provide anything financialisation does without giving 10% of your income to someone who did nkthing. Given that both exist and together dominate the industry of the wealthiest countries, we know that none of it is real, and that the people pushing it also know this.

Psychology and physics are founded in empiricism, not post-hoc rationalisations of what the powerful wanted to do anyway.

“If reality was the thing we made up, the thing we made up would be science” isn’t a great defense. Neoclassical economics is not science, it’s barely even a semi-coherent fairy tale.

Worse than that. It’s more along the lines of asserting that they are happy with the financial arrangement and “jokes” as per the status quo, and that they stand by him and his decision to advertise their product for money on the “apoplogy” video. They’re making fun of the ones raising the issues, not linus. Even further they’re trying to milk to controversy for attention.

This is them condoning the behavior and showing their support for the channel in their weird cringey way. Not a condemnation.