...if SUVs were not an obsession.

Hey, people want what they want and it's a free country.

I personally can't stand SUVs or big pickup trucks , but Im free not to buy them and others can if they like.

With any luck, once Trump is out of office, all of those people involved in the illegal activities by ICE will be charged with crimes, found guilty of breaking the law, and thrown in prison.

Since when did enforcing immigrations laws ON THE BOOKS become something illegal to do?

We're not having to clean up the mess left by former administrations that basically just opened the borders to anyone wanting to cross over illegally .....

Now we finally had an admin and will to enforce the laws on the books and kick people here illegally the fuck outta here.

Since when did enforcing immigrations laws and your borders become something illegal to prosecute?

You might want to talk to some South Koreans who have vowed never to go back to the US after ICE arrested them, held them for a week in those detention centers, then deported them back to South Korea.

If they were here illegally WTF did you expect would happen to them....?

[*] well really they also need less car dependence but that's another topic entirely.

Seriously...why not just drop this trope.

Unless you force US citizens to selll their homes and all move to extreme urban cities....it just ain't gonna happen.

Peroid.

Do you folks from EU ever stop to think that we LIKE the way we live over here?

The rest of the world needs to understand something.

We are crazy.

Who is this "We" you keep speaking of?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something?

You're not an American and not from the US, nor do you live here.....

Didn't you hear -- only the USA matters...! (... to US people, at least)

Well....err....YES.

US topics matter primarily to US citizens....why would we be concerned with EV sales in Germany for instance?

Why would Germans give a flying fuck what EV sales in the US were...?

And pile on top of that that Slashdot is primarily a US centric site...well, there you go,

You forgot that this is about gas turbines. They're going to BURN the hydrogen. Divide that 68% number by two, and that's still probably wildly optimistic. More realistic numbers are probably more like 20%.

Not really, no.

If you're rolling it around on wheels, maybe. For a fixed installation, weight has exactly zero relevance. You're putting it on top of a concrete slab on top of dirt. Who cares how much it weighs?

Volumetric density might matter sometimes. Typical density for hydrogen peaks at about 40 kg per cubic meter (assuming Google search isn't lying to me). With a fuel cell, this will maybe give you 1320 kWh. But then you need additional space for the fuel cell itself, plus compressors to compress the hydrogen on the way in.

Batteries give you half the energy density, but that's all you have to have. Electricity in, electricity out.

Which one is more dense depends entirely on A. how quickly you need to store the incoming hydrogen (size/number of compressors) and B. how quickly you need to be able to turn the hydrogen in your tanks into electricity. Because the batteries will be instant. The power is just there. Whereas with fuel cells you need more/bigger fuel cells depending on how high your kW output needs to be. So storing huge amounts of power is more dense with hydrogen if you only need to dribble it out, but massively less dense if you need to dump all of the stored energy in an hour or two.

And realistically, for grid-tied energy storage, that second case is more common than the first. You aren't going to store energy for a year unless you're in Alaska had have all-day twilight for several months. No, you're going to store the energy during the day and use the vast majority of it between the middle of the afternoon to the early evening. It's probably a three or four hour window in which you will be dumping all the energy that you stored, give or take.

But to make matters worse for hydrogen, they're talking about burning it, not using it in a fuel cell. The efficiency there is maybe half the efficiency of a fuel cell. So when used in that way, batteries are more efficient in terms of volumetric density than hydrogen even BEFORE you factor in all the space for the turbines to burn it and turn it into electricity! This is absolutely *insanely* space-inefficient.

Add to that the problem of hydrogen embrittlement, where you have to keep replacing those storage tanks every few years, not to mention the pipes, turbines, etc., and it quickly becomes obvious that this project is a giant money pit in which Southern California will burn dollars and turn them into a negligible amount of temporary power storage.

There's no way in this world that burning hydrogen from electrolysis at somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% round-trip efficiency makes sense. This is quite possibly the single most clueless idea ever to come out of California's government in the history of California's government. The only people this makes sense for are the ones who are bilking the taxpayers by building out this infrastructure. Because it will never be useful. It will always be more efficient to use the incoming energy to charge batteries, or to do something else. Even when you're talking about things like nuclear power and using waste heat to crack water into hydrogen, you'd still be more efficient with any number of other thermoelectric energy capture systems going straight to electricity and storing it in a battery.

Hydrogen is not the answer. Hydrogen is the question. No is the answer. Always. For literally any purpose you could possibly come up with other than fusion.

Fuel cell efficiency sucks, too. Sure, maybe it's half again more efficient or even twice as efficient, but a battery would be more like 5x as efficient.

> If it glows, it's not dark.

Okay, but "Very very very very dim matter" is not very catchy.

My fortune cookie said it did, dammit, and cookies have only been wrong once!

I hope everyone spoofs his shit, waters it down, changes the lyrics with AI, etc. eKarma!

Me: you know, many businesses already change between summer and winter schedules; many retail stores, many services, many public transit operators.....

how the hell could they make the "just one administrator" mistake?

It's not a mistake, because it's not a 'permissions/who can be administrator' 'mistake.' It's the account owner. It's the person who's credit card is on file.

Why would Apple 'comply with a court order' that has nothing to do with them?

If the court ordered the father to disband the account, and he didn't disband the account, he needs to be taken back to court to force compliance.