If you look back three comments you'll see that I wasn't comparing to any of those.

>There is no choice with lower impact.

For many applications there are. For instance, it's better to run my blender off the grid than to use solar hydrogen.

>But that misses the point.

Does it? 75% is already much better than iron-air batteries, so that's pretty good before even considering this other stuff.

A) deserts have important ecology

B) we're not just talking about this one site

You also have efficiency gains from not having to carry a heavy battery through the air though lift induced drag is way worse than rolling resistance. And that could potentially be the best way to do it indefinitely as long as we get carbon neutral, especially for military applications.

Cars aren't the only possible application for hydrogen fuel. Aircraft are going to have a very difficult time using batteries.

May I see some of these studies?

Regardless, when it comes to load-following power plants or airplanes, the balance does shift.

Solar power is land-intensive.

Hence why a trade study is needed.

It would certainly affect whether it's preferable to biofuels

How much of energy that it took to make the hydrogen is recovered when it's used in a fuel cell?

What does this have to do with overselling?

Candidate platforms have a lot of internal room that could be used for such purposes. In other roles it gets used for applications like ammunition or infantry transport.

Military vehicles and most aircraft are not going to be happy with batteries.

How was the plagiarism measured though? And how does it compare to human-written articles?

It does if you hold the lever down

>and do I recall that helicopters do some slow rotator spin to make landings more survivable?

Aurorotation. The airflow through the rotor reverses and the spinning creates a ton of drag.

I was wondering about emergency landings, not gliding as plan A

How small are we talking here? Also, can that thing glide?

I think that's oversimplifying some things but not entirely wrong. Still doesn't make nuclear the problem. Stupid is the problem.

The Korean nuclear industry isn't really nationalized, but I take your point. Yes, many Americans are stupid about such things. No, this doesn't make me wrong.

Yeah, that's what happens when you allow funding

Kinda? It's complicated. Anyway, that's more of an argument for changing regulation than against nuclear reactors.

Funny how this doesn't hsppen in South Korea

If the air density wasn't around 1% that of earth I might agree

What were the professions of the people who answered yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

A more likely scenario

lorem ipsum