Have you seen the steam stats? Very few people played this game.

GM had record sales figures, just before they filed for bankruptcy. The problem with the car industry is that if you’re willing to sell at a loss, any level of sales can be achieved. But that is not a viable business. In reality, too many car companies are selling BEVs at a loss. This will have consequences soon.

Tesla is a massive stock pumping Ponzi scheme that just happens to have a poorly ran car company attached to it. People need to realize what the goal of Tesla marketing is really about. It will be remembered as one of the great investment scams of our time.

An even smarter decision is to just build a bunch of tall cell towers. You don’t even need rockets at all!

The solution is to eliminate self-driving cars and instead invest more in mass transit and walkable neighborhoods.

deleted by creator

No one has ever explained how the energy is suppose to come back to Earth in a non-crazy fashion. Until then, this will always come off as an impossible idea.

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

You’re better off spending it on stuff like mass transit and the like. It won’t just all disappear at some point in the future.

You won’t be saying that once the market crashes. You’ll realize that there are much better ways of spending that money. Like far more practical emissions reducing solutions.

Not really. It’s mainly about gaining market dominance on a technology they think is the future. They’ll build them right next to the massive coal plant alongside a million other things they’re subsidizing.

It’s the result of massive subsidies. When they stop, this market will crash like a house of cards.

Blogs are a good idea. We should go back to them instead of being dependent on social media.

That’s just BS. The longevity of everything is comparable to that of natural gas related equipment. It will be much cheaper than massively expanding the grid and build batteries for everything. Not to mention that you can reuse much of the natural gas infrastructure.

Green hydrogen is growing exponentially in the same way wind and solar grew. The upside of something that isn’t dependent on finite fossil fuels. It will eventually be available in vast quantities and at a very low price.

At the end of the day, you are just turning sunlight/wind and water into a fuel. The marginal cost is nearly zero. Which is why the development trajectory will be the same as the rise of wind and solar energy. Both of those ideas also had nearly zero marginal cost. As a result, you can expect hydrogen fuel to be extreme cheap and basically inexhaustible. That is a major advantage and there is nothing batteries can ever do to match that.

I wonder if you are projecting here: Hydrogen, not batteries, have many more applications. You can’t even make the steel used to make a car without a reducing agent like hydrogen. Same is true of the metals in the battery itself. So if we want to hit zero emissions for real, hydrogen is mandatory, but batteries are not. In fact, BEVs are totally dependent on green hydrogen to real reach zero emissions. Everything from industry to long-duration energy storage all requires hydrogen. You can skip BEVs altogether but you cannot avoid hydrogen.

Those are wildly exaggerated. The main limitation is that society hasn’t invested enough in hydrogen infrastructure. At least not yet. The problems would quickly go away if we did.

You also forget that we’ve poured many billions of dollars into electrification and battery production. That amount of investment would have solved a lot of those limitations.

As green hydrogen is made from water, there is basically no battery chemistry that can rival it in terms of availability. It is basically the best energy storage mechanism of this type already. Saying that batteries can get better is just misdirection. Also, you can have plug-in hydrogen cars too. The natural path is probably hybrids -> PHEVs -> plug-in FCEVs. Pure BEVs are in many ways a side-trip.

You mean from 20% to 80% charge? Which is realistically only 150 miles of gained range, and that’s assuming everything is working at full power. The alternative gives you 0-100% in 5 minutes consistently. And best of all, it can be scaled up to trucks and above without suddenly realizing you need megawatts of power per station.

In reality, the charging solution is much harder. We’ve just normalized the idea of using electricity to charge things when it is actually a bigger challenge than dealing with fuels.

One refueling station can serve thousands of customers, but a charging station needs multiple hours to charge each car. So you need far fewer gas stations. This is why the economics of gas stations worked out in the first place. Before, people bought tanks of gasoline and refueled at home. The gas station model was cheaper.

Not everyone can recharge at home. Hydrogen have all of the same advantages except recharging at home (and even this is a “kinda”, because home refueling is possible, and plug-in cars exist).

The problem is that we are hitting the limits of the BEV, and no amount of handwaving is going to make the problems go away. This mirrors the push for ethanol powered cars, and sudden realization that we cannot grow enough corn to make it happen. And fantasies about how China or whatever solving the problems is just a repeat of cellulosic ethanol, which was suppose to magically solve the problems of ethanol production.

Again, not everyone can do this. You will have to have public chargers. Plus fast charging for long distance driving. This will still require millions of charging stations, far more than any technology that allows you to refuel.