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

deleted by creator

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.

Lemmy needs to move away from downvotes altogether, or make it totally pointless. Just because Reddit uses it doesn’t make it a good idea.

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Again, you are 20 years out of date.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 As in literally decades out of date.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

Mass layoffs is going to make it worse, not better.

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.

Then believe what you want. I find your trust in the system hilarious as well.

There’s no reason for them to conduct audits honestly. Again, if you are totally convinced that what I described is impossible, just let me know. We can end this conversation now.

Regulatory capture is anytime that special interests have overridden the enforcement agencies’ desire to protect the public. That can also apply to accounting firms. So yes, it is correct.