Thanks!
Thanks!
That's a good explainer :)
But there can be two shades of brown in the same context
We can put two different browns in the same context and they will be different though
How is saturation different from brightness?
Is saturation representing the share of pure color (i.e. only reflecting a certain wavelength), and brightness representing the intensity of color light coming/reflecting to the eye?
In other words, brown differs from orange in brightness (i.e. the amount of light reflected), and light brown differs from dark brown by saturation (i.e. the share of that paint vs., say, white)?
So it's actually light/dark orange, but the paint is made so that it only partially reflects orange, and we see it as brown?
But isn't it the same as adding black? And if we do add black to orange and then white, we do not come back to original orange (since now it's kinda orange+grey), but arrive at light brown?
Sorry for so many questions, trying to build intuitive understanding of the matter
Something like this:
True, but that would require building expensive infrastructure that would sit idle for most of the time while we wait for the surplus - assuming we talk intermittent renewables.
Sure enough, hydrogen fuel cell is cleaner than ICE, my objection was to the form of transportation that might require so much power an ICE car would be a better alternative (but not an ICE air taxi, to be clear)
Cars would be better, but both can coexist
From an ecological perspective, they can not, and that's what this "invention" pretends to be about. Also, cars too are far from perfect, but at least better than this monstrosity
Believe it or not, I came to ask this right after this very video and confirming elsewhere.
The video, however, does not address this matter
Could you please elaborate?
Does it have something to do with brightness vs saturation?
Nah, not very fine. I wonder if it could be less eco-friendly to run something like this over an ICE car simply due to the massive energy demands of such a vehicle and the losses on energy to hydrogen to energy conversion.
Flying transportation is only reasonable at a large scale and high speeds, which is not a characteristic of an air taxi.
Also, better use hydrogen-powered car then.
It's always important to remember that hydrogen is not harmless.
First, it normally comes from natural gas since it's less energy-intensive to produce it that way.
Second, even if we were to produce hydrogen from water, the cycle of electrolyzing, transporting and using hydrogen is associated with enormous energy losses, and we still have to get that extra energy from somewhere.
Third, even if renewables will fully cover the demands of such production, they are not completely harmless, either. They need to be manufactured and then discarded; they require intermittent energy storage, which either relies on batteries which are not eco-friendly, or again something like hydrogen which would necessitate a much more powerful source and commonly requires rare metals. Also, even in use, solar farms and windmills affect local ecosystems by the construction process, shadows, and, in case of windmills, noise pollution.
That's not to say renewables are bad - they are the best we've got - but any extra energy always comes at a cost, both financially and environmentally.
An air taxi is normally not a wise use of said energy.
Thank you, will try!