you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 week ago (9 children)

so you are telling me that the energy to keep a car in the air is equivalent to move a car on wheels? hmmm interesting....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    no but I think the point was that the gas wasn't compressed in the car, the same way the electricity wasn't produced in the car, there's no direct carbon emissions just indirect ones primarily from however that country is generating its electricity (as the air compressor that was used to charge it probably runs on mains electric)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    No carbon footprint if it uses solar, wind or nuclear energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    That's just straight up not true, you need to build the dammed things and that leaves s big footprint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Okay so what do you want to do? Go back to the stone age? Get of your phone and follow the ways of Ted Kaczynski.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    How about just acknowledge the obvious downside and not making stuff up, dolt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    What downside? I really do not understand what you are talking about. Your only critique is that I said "no carbon footprint" instead of "a much smaller comparatively insignificant carbon footprint", which in my opinion is just dishonest nitpicking.

  • source
  • parent