Imagine when water becomes a high commodity. Please someone stop this greed.

... and what is the efficiency of electrolysis process?  What is the carbon footprint of just that part of this ruse?  There are several groups in this global game of deception, each selling their own deceptive brand of snake oil.  Each concealing major flaws in their product.  E-fuels that are supposedly greener than gasoline and diesel.  Corn based ethanol being, probably, the worst.  Never mention the soil nutrients irrevocably consumed, or fertilizer that ends up in the Gulf.  Hydrogen fuels, even when sourced from deep mines.  Hydrogen that escapes creates atmospheric acids that are harmful.  Obtained by hydrolysis are worse.  Atmospheric capture of CO2 is a joke unless you're within 10 feet of a smokestack.  Whether, or not, the proponents of these technologies are truly unaware of the flaws, or just leading the population down known dead-end trails is to be determined, but they seem to be intentionally trying to head off BEV adoption to keep it from killing the ICErs.  Who wins with this?  Those that produce the carbon fuels, and the legacy ICE manufactures who got into the BEV game too late and see death coming.

Quote from: Fierce.XT on April 11, 2024, 14:39:48This is extremely inefficient,

Maybe from your view... but not from the view of the people who control that system, who know today about things that the general public will only know tomorrow.

Bill Gates: purchase of Biontech shares, Event 201, "Corona" fairy tale, sell of the shares at the peak... Do you remember that stories?

By the way: Bill Gates is just a puppet, an agent of even richer people who prefer to act in the background.

This is all bullshit. The cost per mile for a truck would  be over $10.00 per mile which this fuel Bill Gates is full of s***. Beware of Bill Gates.

This is extremely inefficient,

Oh, CO2... there was something there: the "97%" "consensus" lie.

QuoteCook and his colleagues collected almost 12,000 contributions from 1991 to 2011. They should be divided into different categories based on what "stance" they take on climate change. Because 12,000 papers mean a lot of reading effort, "citizens" did this in a "citizen science project". Who exactly, how and according to what criteria is not known.

Then they throw those posts in the trash that don't see any human influence. That's around 66 percent of those 12,000 posts. They then divide the randomly remaining 4,014 posts into a pro and con category. You will only find 118 works in the contra category. Makes that famous 97.06 percent.

"Trust the science"... and you get stupid!