It could mirror the economic stagnation of Japan that begun in the 1990s. Very similar set of circumstances.

IOW, this is right-wing propaganda. And given her skin-color, you can add racism to that mix too.

I just provided you a source. You’re creating your own alternate reality here.

That’s the OP. You didn’t provide any sources yourself.

The issue of leakage is just a potential risk, as your own link mentions. In practice, it’s a non-issue. We don’t worry about gasoline begin too dangerous or EVs being too quiet. It is just fearmongering. Like I pointed out in my study, they are looking at hydrogen for long term energy storage, because it is good at it. Your claim that we can’t store for long periods is simply wrong.

People have looked at hydrogen for long term storage. There is real science to back this up. Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X21011580

We can it store it long term. It is one of the major strengths of hydrogen. Your claim is near 180 of reality.

No he didn’t. It’s just a bunch of random talking points and myths. He could’ve copy and pasted that answer from any of thousands of social media posts and it would’ve been nearly identical.

Neither was electricity until after we started to build wind and solar. People accused electrification plans of just enabling more coal. This style of argument is intentionally ignoring current and near-future developments. You’re implying that nothing is changing or can ever change.

Again, you are perfectly recreating the same anti-wind and anti-solar arguments of the past. This is the same story, just with different names and dates. You really are attacking green energy. It’s just via the “both sides are equally bad” style of attack.

Yes, people outright claimed that large scale deployment of wind or solar were impossible forever. There were even books written entirely about explaining how it was impossible forever. Entire energy research groups made annual predictions of imminent collapse of wind and solar power deployments, because it was assumed that it was just impossible forever. It’s pretty obvious you had no memory or are too young to know about all of that.

Again, that is the same thing people said about wind and solar. The naysayers also claimed that they were impossible for similar reasons.

It doesn’t matter that you personally didn’t attack wind and solar. You are attacking green energy now, and doing the same thing as those that did attack wind and solar.

Then you’re missing the point: Wind and solar were heavily dismissed or ridiculed when they were getting started. People mocked them just like what you’re doing now.

Critics of hydrogen are just repeating BS from either the fossil fuel industry or the battery industry. It is just a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric back when they were just getting started.

No. This is just a return to the days of the IE-only web. It will be problematic but it won’t be the end of the web.

This. People are basically in denial over how poorly Mozilla is handling Firefox. They are genuinely going to drive their product to zero marketshare pretty soon.

That argument applies to Biden too.

The main issue is that no one can generate random samples anymore. Not via landlines anyways. The problem is that scientific polling is nearly impossible now.

One problem is cost. It takes millions of dollars to do a truly scientific poll these days. Robocalls don’t work anymore due to cell phone penetration. The phonebook is dead, and along with it any credible listings of numbers that represent real people. Plus very low response rates and spam filters blocking much of polling calls even then. You pretty much have to go door-to-door in order to get a truly good poll, which is something few organizations can do.

As a result, most cheaply done polls use non-random samples and add a giant “fudge factor” to make it look random. It’s not clear how there models really work and there’s no way to audit them.

That’s actually a dubious claim, given how much fossil fuels are needed in the mining and production of battery related materials. Same is true of battery recycling. It also needs significant amounts of fossil fuels.

But the main point is that the alternatives, such as e-fuels or hydrogen, require nearly zero fossil fuels or problematic raw materials. Even steel can be made from hydrogen-based reduction instead of needing fossil fuels. So it is a massive improvement over BEVs, in a way that BEVs probably can never hope to match.

The ideal solution will always be getting rid of the car entirely. We should always be pushing all alternatives. But we should not be trapped in the “EV now!” mentality for the car itself. It is not really solving any problem except for a minor reduction in oil consumption.

Saying we “cannot wait” just means we have to move faster with better alternatives. We cannot just settle on a impractical and ultimately doomed idea. The oil industry is the ultimate winner if we are stuck with BEVs. It just means millions of people will have zero options for transportation, eventually leading to a political situation where governments around the world will have allow the continued existence of fossil fuel cars.

The fundamental problem is that battery powered EVs, or BEVs, need vast amounts of raw material when manufactured. That basically guarantees that BEVs are never going to be cost effective once you get past small and short-ranged cars. That ensures that BEVs are simply not going to be the main type of cars. They are really ideal for things like e-bikes or golf carts, not larger vehicles like SUVs or commercial vehicles.

In reality, society needs to focus on non-BEV forms of zero emissions transportation. Ideally, that means more mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. But for situations where the car is unavoidable, it is almost certain that we have to find a true replacement for conventional ICE cars. If not e-fuels, then something like hydrogen cars.

Without delving into the question over how good the game is, this sounds like a company that simply has the wrong processes in place. A case of “working hard” instead of “working smart.” As a result, they waste a lot of time and resources on things that ultimately don’t matter. I’m sure the person in question worked really really hard on the game, but it’s mostly pointless and ineffectively effort.