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

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.

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.

We already have that ability. In particular, we can now make hydrogen from electrolysis at vast scale. Derivative fuels, such as ammonia, are also doable.

Your problem is that you are being brainwashed by the battery companies. You think magical batteries exist when they do not, but are stuck in the early 2000s when it comes to competing technologies.

Solid state batteries don’t exist yet. It’s the classic “magic batteries from the future will solve everything” argument. Meanwhile, a sensible path to zero emissions exist now, provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels. At some point, refusal to accept this option is its own form of climate change denial.

Except fast charging quickly degrades the battery. For people without home charging access, this is the key issue. In reality, BEVs won’t catch on. Between the cost, weight, and other problems of the battery, it is a doomed idea and a repeat of the early 20th century. The future of transportation will involve a chemical fuel, whether it’s ICE or fuel cell powered or whatever. It has to mirror the functionality of existing cars completely, or it won’t work.

Batteries are not a sustainable solution. For vehicles the size of SUVs, they are a disaster. In reality, the vast majority of transportation will be powered by some kind of chemical fuel. If you must have electrified vehicles, then you should look at trams, trolleybuses, light rail, etc.

People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It’s not the first time they behave like that, so don’t think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It’s purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.

Actually no. You actually need a chemical fuel in a lot of cases.

A hydrogen car is basically an EV but with a vastly more energy dense battery. Hence why it is a better idea than a BEV.

And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.

Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.

Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.

Seriously, fuck off. You’re just a sad troll.

By itself, no. But you can power basically anything with hydrogen. Pretty much all of industry will switch to hydrogen. Same is true of most of transportation. It’s just the BEV fanatic crowd that suddenly has an issue with passenger cars also being powered by hydrogen. In reality, it is a big revolution across many sectors. That will in fact solve climate change or at least greatly reduce the problem.

BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.

BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.

Hydrogen pipeline are cheaper than wires and they don’t leak either. You are just repeating marketing BS from competing industries. Hydrogen molecules aren’t even the smallest. Helium is the smallest since it is a nobel gas and not a diatom.

Pipelines are made of steel. They are much cheaper than copper wires. In reality, your idea is much more expensive from an infrastructure point of view.

FCEVs are nearly PHEVs already. Battery powered for (very) short ranges and hydrogen for longer range. A PHEV version is just one with a bigger battery.

The current price of green hydrogen is already cheap enough to justify itself as a fuel. It is just distribution that is the issue.

It will be much cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity. Pipelines are cheaper than wires after all. The cost of upgrade the grid and putting a charging point everywhere will be in the trillions of dollars. Many times more expensive than what it would take to have hydrogen stations replace gas stations.

The BEV over FCEV argument, as a near-term solution, is quickly running out of steam. It is similar to when several car companies were stuck promoting diesel cars just when the BEV began showing up. It will be the same story. People are desperately asking for an EV that can be a one-to-one replacement for their current car. As a result, the arrival of FCEVs will happen sooner than what many expect.

Your own post was garbled as well.

Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.

FCEVs are again, just EVs. Just without the huge cost of batteries. That ensures they will be the cheapest solution out there. Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.

The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That’s an absurdity. It’s pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology. To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.

Those other BEVs are just other car companies chasing the subsidies. Once you get over Musk’s lies, you’ll realize that the market is not an organic one. It is just an artificial market created by the government. Most people don’t want a BEV.

That’s a local supply issue. It reminds me of the polysilicon shortage of late-2000s. Plenty of people came out of the woodwork to proclaim the solar panel as a dead technology. But the physics of the idea, namely that it’s all made from sand, meant that cost will eventually plunge and it did.

Hydrogen is the same story. Investment has recently skyrocketed across the world. No one except a few BEV fanatics are still opposed to hydrogen. That is why guys like you are stuck in the past. You are repeating the same story as what people said about wind, solar, even the BEV itself in its early days. It is guaranteed to be wrong.

You can repair ICE cars. Unless you bought some complex luxury car, ICE cars are very cheap to maintain.

FCEVs will have something similar. They will be cheap to build and maintain. They do not have a giant battery to replace.