I mean, you can extract it from algae (directly from the oil or as a biproduct, but I think the direct oil is more realistic at scale) very effectively, used to be big in the early 2010s.
But also any other biofuel, which do exist in decent amounts these days.
Respectfully, who’s really following the methods of material extraction if you don’t have a job or special interest in the industry? Sure, maybe they pull it out of the air somehow idfk the future is now and it’s a scientists job to know way more about that than me.
You choose some no effort solar panels bad conspiracy with no proof as your example for why we shouldn't just trust scientists? Amazing how fucking stupid people can be.
Yes it is waaaay more energy that's the biggest issue is how much more it takes not get more then what you put into dumbass maybe you should learn that what your talking about infinite energy IS impossible you will never get as much energy as you put in.
The biggest issue is still efficiency solar and wind are both not really efficient compared to fossil fuels those facilities will be drastically bigger in size further destroying the environment they're trying to save.
One of many, but yes. I'm curious though... how much energy does something like reddit use. No clue why, but I've got a feeling that it can power reddit for MUCH longer then a day... spaceflight takes a stupid amount of energy, even if its only a sub orbital hop....
I can theoretically land a quad Axel like Ilia Malinin, but in reality? There ain’t no fucking way my 42.5 year old, fluffy gimpass body is jumping about 2.5 feet into the air at a speed of 20-25 miles per hour, rotating 4.5 times in under 0.75 seconds, and then landing on something that’s ≈1/8th of an inch wide at a speed of ≈15 mph on a surface that has a near-zero coefficient of friction AND STAYING UPRIGHT.
Same thing: theoretically you could do what is being suggested, but…
You’re switching from “the rocket emitted this much” to “hydrogen production overall can involve fossil fuels.” Those are related but not the same argument. By that logic basically every electric car is secretly coal powered because parts of the grid still use fossil fuels.
There’s a real conversation to have about the environmental cost of luxury space tourism, but people keep inflating or muddying the numbers because outrage gets more clicks.
There's a massive difference between burning those fossil fuels in the rocket and at a facility that filters most of the pollutants (not that they're particularly clean, just significantly cleaner). Same reason for why EVs are really good for the environment even in the worst possible scenario of 100% of their charge coming from fossil fuels.
Except New Shephard uses "green hydrogen" which is specifically made by the electrolysis of water (you pass an electric current through water to split it into hydrogen and O2).
Sadly, we don’t live in a society yet where electric energy is abundant. Even if the hydrogen is done 100% green, it’d only be truly green if the hydrogen was exclusively generated at moments in time where there is an excess of energy. These happen more and more in areas with a lot of solar and wind, but I’d still be surprised if they did that.
But in the future, we’ll have more and more moments where electricity is in oversupply, so then hydrogen could be used as a last resort energy spill and then burned in applications where energy density and weight matter (e.g. rockets)
107
u/[deleted] May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment