Comments by "The Esseboy" (@TheEsseboy) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

Yes, but none of it is green hydrogen.
5
And use electric batteries for ships, cars, semi trucks etc.
3
@mikeshafer Yes for aircraft where weight is a concern, shipping vessles are not that weight sensitive.
3
We are not in an ice age, the CO2 levels are about 50% higher than the average for the past 10 thousand years. The lowest they have been have actually been 25% lower than they where before we started to burn it (200 ppm vs 270 ppm). China is not ignoring it, Russia is in a war, Africa is developing still.
2
@marcus.H If you have looked into it, how come water vapor forms clouds ☁️ that then rain down 🌧️ any excess water? That means if you burn hydrogen you will not significantly increase the atmospheric water content. CO2 however increases the atmospheric temperature through absorbtion of infrared light in the 9-10 micometer wavelength, which is in the band of earths heat radiation....meaning it traps heat in the atmosphere. This leads to another consequence....warmer air can hold more water! Which is why a little increase of CO2 from 0.027% to 0.042% can have such a large impact. Please write a detailed response, or you have not looked into it.
2
@mikeshafer The problem is cost, those reactors are not cheap, and having so many vessles with nuclear weapons grade fuel, that would be a nightmare to regulate and control safety vise...it is not only a nuclear incident with radioactive release which would be dangerous, but also the spread of nuclear weapons grade Uranium and plutonium.
1
@mikeshafer Sure, that is an option if we get enough people on board, fix the issue with spread of weapons material, able to effectively recycle and reuse the fuel etc. All this is a very similar process to what is used for extracting plutonium when making nuclear weapons...hence why a commercial fleet of nuclear powered vessles would be so hard to deal with, not to mention expensive due to all the engineers, security personel etc. If there where a miniature sized thorium salt reactor maybe, but we are far from that point at the moment, I would not bet on this in the comming 30 years.
1
@mikeshafer I believe the opposite, we need to come together, not for profit, but as nations coming together and doing things together...corporations are the reason we are in this mess to begin with, all they care about is profits...governments care about the future, if we only can focus on long term benefits, by focusing on stopping disinformation, radicalism and infighting.
1
@gregorymalchuk272 Yes we need solar and wind, also nuclear, tidal, hydro and all the energy storage we can create!
1
We don't need to lower our quality of life, just adjust it and reconfigure.
1
The atmosphere cannot hold any more water vapor than the equalibrium, burning hydrogen will not make the climate hotter, it will simply rain down again, just so we can collect it and make more hydrogen. CO2 does not condense and fall as rain, hence why it is a problematic substance in regards to climate change.
1
@marcus.H He is not, he is missled
1
80 gallons of oil is nothing compared to how much an equivalent coal or methane fueled powerplant would use... even the most modern Coal plants uses ~100-200 gallons of oil every hour to produce the same energy as a Windturbine....over a whole winter that is 200,000 to 400,000 gallons of oil during a winter season... or 2500-5000 times more oil than a Wind Turbine. Don't flap your lips if you can't even grasp the basic numbers of the things you talk about...
1