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.

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Again, you are 20 years out of date.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 As in literally decades out of date.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.

It is how giant publishing houses self-destruct in the gaming space. They fail to realize how difficult it is to build up talented devteams. Everything becomes about maximizing profits in the end. Between the shitty monetization tactics and the terrible working environment they’ve created, they end up destroying their ability to make good games. I fully expect more mediocrity from Xbox/Activision-Blizzard, if not declining quality.

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.

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.

There’s a good chance Cruise will land someone in jail. And frankly people should go to jail over this.

That’s effectively been rescinded. It will likely be formally rescinded at some point.

A big chunk of the green movement is totally complicit with this type of behavior. For many of them, it is just about fundraising, not serious action against climate change.

In the short-term, all types of cars will exist including PHEVs. It is the BEV fanatic that is trying to eliminate all alternatives.

They are aiming to ban all alternatives, or create subsidies in such way that only one idea can exist. That is consistently with a monopoly.

Solar got cheap and then it became widespread. You are witnessing the same thing happen with hydrogen now.

That’s revisionist history. Wind and solar were widely condemned as being inferior technology in the past. They are in many ways worse than hydropower, their main zero emission competitor of the time.

Your repeating some old anti-hydrogen story probably from either an oil company or a battery company. An FCEV gets around 70 MPGe. There is very little argument that it is somehow less green than existing petrol cars. It’s an obvious repeat of classic anti-green rhetoric. We heard everything from solar panels or hybrids being demonized as being worse than the conventional solution by random fossil fuel marketing firms. It’s all bunk.

And no to that last claim either. There’s a good reason to believe that an FCEV is greener than a BEV. For starters, it has much less upfront emissions during production. And at something like 30% green hydrogen, the BEV will never catch up to the FCEV, even if it is running on 100% green electricity.