This is the stupid shit we get for letting Iowa always be first in the nominating contests.
Like, the solution has become very clear and apparent.
Solar panels and batteries on all homes. Wind energy wherever possible with gridscale backup. Electric vehicles for anything with an axle-weight below 10k. Hydrogen (if we must) for everything above 10k, until we have batteries with weight to performance ratios that can support trucking with electric.
Climate change and carbon reductions are only a technical issue if you insist that every one be working all of the time to justify their existence. Appreciating that most of almost everyones work is just ‘busy’ work in the exercise of justifying our existence, we could easily solve this issue.
Hydrogen (if we must) for everything above 10k, until we have batteries with weight to performance ratios that can support trucking with electric.
Hydrogen is even dumber than ethanol.
The better solution is to minimize the number of vehicles that need to be long-range and self-powered in the first place by aggressively improving rail infrastructure (including electrifying it), and then run the bit that’s left on biodiesel sourced from waste feedstocks.
I mean I only begrudgingly support hydrogen, because in theory, it can be produced by renewables and we do need something more energy dense for things that move heavy things.
The trouble is, hydrogen is really bad at being energy-dense, requiring either cryogenics or dangerously-high pressures to fit enough in an automotive-gas-tank-sized space.
Frankly, if you want to insist using hydrogen, the best thing to do with it would be to react it with CO2 to make synthetic gasoline and use it in the internal-combustion engines and gas stations we already have.
Actually, big rigs being all ev is fine for last mile / in-city delivery.
Germany’s electrified highway system looks very promising for longer distance truck transport too. It’s basically the same system that overhead electrified rail uses. That way the battery only needs to be able to get the truck to and from that highway, the distance covered on the highway is charging time.
Not all candidates. Just all democrat and republican candidates.
Economists believe is something called externalities. Its very important and it corrects the market. If something is good for the world then you government needs to make it cheaper by subsiding it. If it’s bad then their should be a tax on it. Economist gernally strongly support this but the public seem to be against this.
This here is giving money to farmers. It’s basically the opposite of externalities. It’s really stupid.
Compare this to gasoline. Same engine, right?
For cars older than a decade, is it or is it not marginally better than inefficient and toxic gasoline?
There’s a fair bit of evidence that the ethanol is worse:
the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher