Hydrogen is not currently a green energy. Green means the energy is produced in a manner which causes no harm to the environment. About 4% of all current hydrogen is "green". Global supplies are manufactured with natrual gas (47%), coal (27%), oil (22%), and electrolysis (4%). According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, at least.. Huh.

I guess I'm not really attacking a green energy, am I? I mean, I wasn't before, but still. Discussing the difficulties of hydrogen at industrial scale isn't attacking it, no matter how bad it hurts your feelings. It's simply fact we cannot ignore.

I've never heard a single naysayer claim solar or wind were impossible. Like, ever. This is pure unsupported, anecdotal nonsense.

Unless you have factual support for your rebuttal that is relevant to the topic, you have lost my attention.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Neither was electricity until after we started to build wind and solar. People accused electrification plans of just enabling more coal. This style of argument is intentionally ignoring current and near-future developments. You're implying that nothing is changing or can ever change.

Again, you are perfectly recreating the same anti-wind and anti-solar arguments of the past. This is the same story, just with different names and dates. You really are attacking green energy. It's just via the "both sides are equally bad" style of attack.

Yes, people outright claimed that large scale deployment of wind or solar were impossible forever. There were even books written entirely about explaining how it was impossible forever. Entire energy research groups made annual predictions of imminent collapse of wind and solar power deployments, because it was assumed that it was just impossible forever. It's pretty obvious you had no memory or are too young to know about all of that.