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.

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

Itis impossible to get data that recent FYI.

Again, green hydrogen adoption is rapidly growing and is following the trajectory of wind and solar growth in the past. Your rhetoric is just mirroring the anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric of the past. They too were always looking backwards. You will end up no different.

Wrong. You have totally fallen for fossil fuel propaganda. All of that rhetoric originated from the oil and gas industry. After all, if “both sides are equally bad” then there would be no motivation to move away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the battery industry, which is really just an extension of mining industry and China’s governmental policy, is adopting this type of rhetoric.

Again, you are 20 years out of date. As in more than one decade. As in literally decades out of date. You won’t even google the term and yet you think you know everything. This is Ludditism at its purist.

And you have developed Ludditism.

It is not a fantasy. In fact, the opposite is true. The problem is that you are wildly out of touch with recent events. You are still pretending like it is 2004, not realizing that that was 20 years ago. Green hydrogen is a rapidly growing market and is following the trajectory of wind and solar.

Except you’ve actually debunked your own argument.

At 9.3 kg of CO2 for one kg of H2, and assuming 110 km/kg of H2 (normal fuel economy for an FCEV), you get 84.5 grams of CO2 per km of driving.

Meanwhile, a BEV gets anywhere from 70-370 grams per km, depending on dirtiness of the grid: https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions/

In other words, an FCEV is comparable to a BEV when it comes to emissions. You can even double the numbers for the FCEV if you want to include possibilities like upstream losses or production. The numbers would still be very comparable to BEVs running on most grids.

And this is the problem here: You’re so deep in your anti-hydrogen conspiracy theory that you failed to notice that the math works against you.

Those people are Tesla fanboys and investors. They are blatantly lying about competitive threats to BEVs. In reality, they have become a type of climate change denier. For them, the only “solutions” that can exist are the ones that make them money, and all the others must be stopped.

So was electricity until recently. Nearly all of it was made from fossil fuels. The difference is that we can make it from renewable energy.

And the exact same is true with hydrogen. If you cared at all, you’d google it yourself and realize that significant green hydrogen production is coming online. Not only is it all over the news, there are huge government programs supporting it now.

The fundamental problem is that you are either closed-minded or totally out of touch. It’s time realize that it’s 2024 and whatever outdated thinking you have is long over.

That’s climate change denial rhetoric. Same was said about nearly everything until we started to build more wind and solar power. This is just a repeat of that tactic.

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.

That argument applies to Biden too.