The issue isn’t emissions, it’s costs. Sadly we don’t live in a dream world, and everything has a cost.

Even running excess production into hydrogen production has costs (transport, storage, infrastructure…).

The current (not taking in consideration the new tech currently in testing) beeing highly ineficient creates many cost issues.

Less effieicnt means that more power needs to be used to get that amount of hydrogen, reducing the gains on electricity surplus.

The storage beeing ineficient means a higher running cost, more space used, less of that space…

The transport beeing ineficient also increases the running costs, but also the emissions if the transport uses fossil fuel. Of it uses hydrogen, well it increases the running cost even more. That expensive produced hydrogen is used for transport…

The electricity production from hydrogen being ineficient increases the used hydrogen to get the same energy amount, which then increases the costs because more of that expensive hydrogen has to be used.

So taking all this into account, being “clean” doesn’t necessarily make it is viable compared to other storage or energy production tech.

The costs have to be taken in account because resources don’t appear magically.

Mining Uranium has a cost. Buying it from abroad has a cost, paying people to maintain all that has a cost…

It’s another solution, now there is also issues with costs. However with time the costs can be reduced.

For hydrogen based on this video : https://youtu.be/M0fnEsz4Ks0 there could be some hope for large hydrogen storage for a smaller cost (not used in cars tho, due to the weight).

Hydrogen production however is/was very ineficient. However there is also some hope for this https://youtu.be/m0d6iljzzEI

So with this, maybe it could be an interesting solution to store energy.

Tho I’m not sure how efficient it would be to produce energy from that stored hydrogen, and how efficient it could be for the entire hydrogen production/storing/electricity production chain.

Well the issue with renewable power like wind and solar, is that they are not stable.

Having a battery in order to store the energy and release it when the demand is higher than production is one part of the solution.

But what happens when there wasn’t enough solar and wind to replenish the batteries if those batteries aren’t enough for the demand? Power shortages, which are pretty bad to get.

One of the solutions to this is natural gas for a simple reason : it’s very fast to start generating power or to stop. It’s also not very expensive, at least when there isn’t a war… The co2 equivalent emissions aren’t as high as coal either.

Nuclear power on the other hand is very hard to stop. Having a surplus of power on the grid is also very bad. Some of it could be used to recharge the batteries, but there would be some loss at some point.

There is a difference. Not sure how they ar made, but the chemical composition and possibly the design is different.

Trying to recharge a non rechargeable battery can risky and there is the possibility of leaking or explosion.

It is, but only if you go on the main website, and not the android sub category https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

Consent-O-Matic (has to be downloaded from the main website, and not the android sub category)

And what you wish to have other than that depends on your needs.

I myself have an extension to unlock Bing AI on Firefox android.

Google Search Fixer (for when I need a Google service)

TWP - Translate Web Pages

And more.

It’s something else. Here it’s US antitrust monopoly.

Google made deals with games and special contracts with other apps in order to kill competition.

Another article, much better and presents in more detail that Olvid was audited on an older version and chosen because it was French and they applied for it (French) https://www.numerama.com/tech/1575168-pourquoi-les-ministres-vont-devoir-renoncer-a-whatsapp-signal-et-telegram.html

Well let’s give some counter examples in the softwares I mentioned :

• WhatsApp closed : Owned by Facebook. Well Facebook had multiple data leaks, privacy violations and nothing substantial was done about it. Definitely not trustable (also zero days are getting sold on the black market for WhatsApp (https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/05/zero-days-for-hacking-whatsapp-are-now-worth-millions-of-dollars/ ).

• Telegram closed : not end to end encrypted. Russian app. Not trustable.

• Signal open : well this one is e to e encrypted. Open source, maybe could be trusted. Seems to have passed some security audits (https://community.signalusers.org/t/overview-of-third-party-security-audits/13243), tho it’s based in the US and uses servers, maybe the US may have super computers capable of decrypting such communications. However is signal has switched their encryption to quantum computer resistance it may be too hard even for a state actor. However they also “debunked”/ignored zero-day reports which were not reported through their own tool, and by asking the US for confirmation. I am not sure if the US can be trusted to give confirmation about the existance or not of vulnerabilities when they are very likely to use them (https://thehackernews.com/2023/10/signal-debunks-zero-day-vulnerability.html?m=1).

• Olvid open (servers closed) : is French, e to e, and backed up by an encryption PhD. And why not use a local messaging app witch also is very secure and open source.

Notice how closed source is untrusted here. The economic activity of the tool changes how trustable it is. Military équipement has a huge and strict budget, it has to be secure.

Communication apps are user first. So they do what they can get away with, and that is very true for Facebook.

That is an European proposition, and not French at all. France can stand for or against that.