So, once again you are incapable of explaining how it’s not carbon neutral, though you think you are. Carbon neutrality has nothing to do with development costs and construction costs are almost always dwarfed by running costs (which I literally mentioned if you would bother reading).
You’re just angry it’s not a miracle machine.
I’m not the one getting angry. You are making a bunch of bullshit claims and then getting mad that people don’t believe your lies.
We switched to symmetrical gigabit the moment it was available, in fact we were one of the first in the state. I’m never going back. In 5 years we’ve only had to call for help once and they didn’t need to come out to do anything. They were able to fix the issue over the phone in about 5-10 minutes. The rest of the time the internet just fucking works.
Amazing how offering a working product gets you customers.
There are lots of claims going around, but the physics just isn’t there. Battery storage density isn’t high enough currently (and doesn’t look to be close) to support large planes. It’s the same problem as with 18 wheelers. The larger the vehicle, the battery size increases superlinearly, not linearly. Because adding in battery storage increases the weight required to carry the vehicle, thus increasing the battery storage needs, thus … and so on. With liquid fuel, the weight is variable based on the passengers, and the weight drops as the flight continues, thus increasing fuel efficiency the more weight is lost.
No I’m asking you to explain how it’s not carbon neutral. I do not give one shit about the cost, I do not give one shit about how much the gas it produces costs (for reference the Porsche plant is at over $40 a LITER). You have stated it’s not carbon neutral. Explain how. If the machine does what it says then it is carbon neutral.
I have an electric car, I do not care about this machine. But I do care when people claim something and have zero evidence to back it up.
Please do explain how it’s wrong. Go on, I’ll wait.
If you could link that it would be great. As far as I understand it, a commercial passenger plane (which holds several hundred people) is no where close to being possible. If you are talking about small planes that hold maximum ten-15 people then sure.
The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.
Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.
The particulate matter won’t occur in a hydrocarbon that is generated, that comes from imperfect processing of crude. If you pull the carbon directly out of the air there are no particulates.
But yes it will still be carbon neutral. No additional carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.
No they do exist! But most scientists agree that we are unlikely to ever see commercial airliners using it, nor will freight liners use it. We would have to see ENORMOUS scientific improvements and many many many things that seem incredibly far fetched invented to get to that point.
How about you go argue with the scientists calling it carbon neutral. My wife literally works in the field. It’s called carbon neutral.
It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral (as long as the energy source is renewable like the sun). Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was. It’s a much much better option than digging up oil.
On top of that, there are currently no likely possibilities of replacing gasoline for things like planes. So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.
Now put a newline in your comment, to make it readable. Clearly you can see the problem here right? “comment2” isn’t a comment. It’s a key with a value. Numbering them doesn’t actually fix anything, in fact it makes it much much harder to maintain.
You are clearly one of those people that never had to deal with xml in a production system. Even with proper syntax highlighting, dealing with xml is a nightmare, whether it’s for configuration or data transmission. People switched to JSON because it’s better. Period. And that’s an incredibly low bar to set, because I don’t think JSON is that good either.
Like another person said, all of these features of XML doesn’t make it nicer, it makes it worse, because it means you have to be ready for any of those features even if they’re never used.
You do? jsonAta and JSONPath both exist and are very good.
That’s JSON5 or JSONC
Now do a second comment.
God, fucking camel and hibernate xml were the worst. And I was working with that not even 15 years ago!
No shit
Tell him to leave the bathroom door open anytime he’s taking a shit in public then.