Cars are already the most recycled thing on Earth, and batteries full of valuable minerals are no exception.

The damage to the environment resulting from extraction of REE isn’t an existential issue in the way that greenhouse gasses are.

The pipelines already largely exist. Again, you would save us both a lot of time and trouble if you’d read the damned link.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/combined-cycle-turbines

You’re not the first to raise that concern, here it is answered by a researcher in the specific field in question.

> Dr. Langston responds: You are correct that taking useful electrical power to electrolyze water in order to produce hydrogen—which in turn would produce more electrical power—would result in a fairly great loss of available energy. However, the key words in my explanation (on page 82) are “created from a surplus of renewable energy.“ One problem with wind- and solar-generated electricity is what to do with those electrons when there is no market for them, because there is no economical means of storing them.

> For instance, Denmark has on occasion resorted to paying neighboring countries to take surpluses of its extensive wind power electricity rather than shut down whole arrays of wind turbines. Germany has had a similar problem with surplus solar power generated in its southern states.

> Wheeling electrical power from one electrical grid to another certainly leads to electrical losses. And some grids don’t talk to one another. That problem was made evident last year in Texas when millions of people lost power following an ice storm, and neighboring states could not supply energy to Texas’s isolated grids.

Those lines still have to be maintained, built, constantly inspected, and you’d need a staggering volume of them to achieve what Dr. Langston was describing.

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article/141/03/52/366557/Hydrogen-Fueled-Gas-Turbines

I should have known better than to expect people in the technology sub to have a working understanding of the relevant technology, silly me.

I already gave you the short explanation, the article contains the details which you’re welcome to read or ignore. As far as paywalls yeah, real work takes money, it isn’t free.

I can however link you to a non-paywalled Q and A with the author which addresses your and some others concerns.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/combined-cycle-turbines

Edit: And another paper from the same author, Dr, Langston. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article/141/03/52/366557/Hydrogen-Fueled-Gas-Turbines

Hydrogen in a car makes zero sense, and never did. At that point using renewables to make growth medium for algae diesel would make more sense, but all of that was before the modern electric car proved itself. Now the only question is how we want to power our grid, and accepting that the greener we make it, the better off we’ll be. The grid is going to be the source of power for consumer and some commercial vehicles, not tanks of fuel on board.

Lets just go full Arsenal Bird, I looooove the Ace Combat series.

You’re behind the times, here’s a good read https://www.americanscientist.org/article/generating-a-greener-future

Edit: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article/141/03/52/366557/Hydrogen-Fueled-Gas-Turbines

What is your better storage medium for energy than hydrogen, which can work at the scale renewable-generated Hydrogen can in existing pipeline infrastructure?

Yes. Make electricity in places like deserts where people don’t live, where the sunlight is plentiful and year-round. Convert it to hydrogen and pipe it to combined cycle power plants to make electricity.

There’s so much wrong there, Jesus Christ.

First of all 75% efficiency from solar -> hydrogen is absolutely incredible, yet you say that likes it’s a bad thing.

Second compression and refrigeration on site using solar power, and once it’s in a pipeline that’s that.

Third What are you talking about? I’m not suggesting that hydrogen be used for fuel cells, I’ve already stated “power plant” more than once, specifically combined cycle plants.

Use renewables such as solar and wind where they’re most abundant to generate the hydrogen, which is a nicely portable fuel not subject to transmission losses. There are already pipeline conversion and power plant conversion tests underway for just this sort of scheme.

Edit re your edit: Energy is often needed far from ideal locations for solar energy harvesting.

Hydrogen burned in highly efficient power plants, which is then used to charge car batteries, makes more sense.

Edit: Please read this before replying, unless you’re already familiar with the tech described https://www.americanscientist.org/article/generating-a-greener-future

Edit 2: For people unable to get past the paywall: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article/141/03/52/366557/Hydrogen-Fueled-Gas-Turbines

Edit 3: “But it’s inefficient!”

> Dr. Langston responds:

> You are correct that taking useful electrical power to electrolyze water in order to produce hydrogen—which in turn would produce more electrical power—would result in a fairly great loss of available energy. However, the key words in my explanation (on page 82) are “created from a surplus of renewable energy.“ One problem with wind- and solar-generated electricity is what to do with those electrons when there is no market for them, because there is no economical means of storing them.

> For instance, Denmark has on occasion resorted to paying neighboring countries to take surpluses of its extensive wind power electricity rather than shut down whole arrays of wind turbines. Germany has had a similar problem with surplus solar power generated in its southern states.

> Wheeling electrical power from one electrical grid to another certainly leads to electrical losses. And some grids don’t talk to one another. That problem was made evident last year in Texas when millions of people lost power following an ice storm, and neighboring states could not supply energy to Texas’s isolated grids.

Plus if you go to sleep drunk and wake up with a drink… you won’t be fully hungover, just perpetually drunk. You will as you say, feel like utter crap, but being drunk and feeling like crap is a little foggy.

Think of how pretty you’d be under black light though!

What health issues do they cause exactly?

Texas doesn’t want it, Ukraine does.

Yeah, “popular like a Sunni cleric in Iran” is not a phrase anyone has uttered.

Even by the standards of online echo chambers, they live in their own little world.

Probably not, unless you stretch the definition of “slave” to the point of breaking, but thanks for being that guy from the comic.

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Do you know why the US felt that the German language was somehow dangerous to them? It wasn’t like countries bordering Russia, a country that has used language as a pretext for invasion. Here’s a great article on the subject, and it has this to say:

> Legal historian Paul Finkelman says in 1915 about 25 percent of all high school students in America studied German. But by the end of the World War I that had changed dramatically. German had become so stigmatized that only 1 percent of high schools even taught it.

> "During the war, there is an argument that if you learn German, you will become the 'Hun,' " Finkelman says, using the pejorative term for anyone from Germany. "And there was this notion that language was somehow organic to your soul. So if you spoke German, you would think like a German, you would become a totalitarian in favor of the kaiser."

> When members of minority groups spoke against entering the war in support of Britain, including some, but not all German-Americans, their patriotism was questioned. They were disparaged as "hyphenated Americans."

> After President Woodrow Wilson took the country into war he said, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready."

> Schade says this anti-German sentiment extended to internment.

Let’s be real, it was bigotry and nothing more.

Not exactly a national security argument, and not a rational argument based on precedent either.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/07/523044253/during-world-war-i-u-s-government-propaganda-erased-german-culture

The US didn’t share a border with the belligerent in question, I think that comparison is more or less worthless. The US didn’t have a plausible national security concern, Lithuania certainly does, and in fact has history of being annexed by said belligerent.

This has little to do with ethnic animus and everything to do with recognizing Russia’s playbook, which involves claiming all Russian-speaking people as theirs… sometimes with military force. Often with military force.