Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Because that's only my opinion based on minimal information and very limited knowledge of the subject matter, and I don't consider it my job to censor information from credible sources. I don't only post links to articles where the conclusions agree with my own, I post articles so other people can inform themselves; they are free to arrive at their own conclusions, and can state and discuss them as they choose just as I do.
If I have a strong opinion on the subject whether pro or con, I'll make my own comment.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave! You're not an expert on the tech you say? so you'll just post up a puff piece for others to decide (even though you claim that you thought it was greenwashing), you say? Yet somehow you found the expertise to be able to tell how others SHOULD be designing their electric cars not too long ago.
Oh that's right, but you've denied being a proponent of Hydrogen and FCEV's. You've even stated that you support whichever tech made the most sense. Yet you have no strong opinion on a tech that you think is greenwashing? .... yeah, ok.
I have far more personal knowledge and experience of what capabilities personal and commercial vehicles need to be capable of, as I've been driving for well over four decades and also had a couple of decades of experience in the trucking industry (and through that, the requirements of freight transport in general), as well as (noted in my Sig) extensive knowledge and experience of off-grid systems and the foibles of storage batteries. Li-ion are different chemistry from what I was working with, but they're still batteries with the same types of advantages and disadvantages; only the specific details of those have changed.
OTOH, when it comes to the details of blue or green H2, CCS, the costs and techniques of same, I'm dependent on others with far more knowledge and experience of the subject than I have. I want to read information and arguments from multiple sides of a subject and decide which I find more credible, not just live in another internet echo chamber. A press release from a company is likely to be one-sided, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the information in it. I post the info so that others can, if they disagree with the info, comment on it and advance their own arguments against it, and I will form my opinion based on which arguments and data I find most persuasive.
My opinions about the greater usefulness of H2 for long-range ZEV transport are based on its capabilities, just as my opinions on the greater usefulness of batteries for short-range transport are based on theirs. The issues with each are infrastructure as well as future developments. as to cost, capability, as well as any potential limitations on basic resources and supply. My opinions on the financial aspects of each and their likely (but by no means certain) future development are based on decades of reading on the patterns of technical improvement and replacement, as well as my own experiences seeing how what was then still an immature tech (PV and related) has developed, what government support was needed to bring it to the mainstream, and the numerous false starts and blind allies along the way as competing techs were abandoned or limited.
What I
am a proponent of is reducing and ultimately getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. I am far less concerned with which tech(s) we use to do that in each niche, but I state my opinions for various niches based on what seems to me the best match for a given use. One thing I am certain of is that governments have a very poor track record at picking winners in the technical and commercial spheres, especially decades in advance, so given the dire situation I believe we find ourselves in (the latest IPCC report reinforcing that belief) I believe we must push ahead with multiple techs until such time as one or more of the ZE or net-zero carbon techs in transportation, electricity production, heating and industrial processes prove commercially viable and have replaced GHG-producing methods to the maximum extent possible, as quickly as possible. Reductions in local air pollution are a secondary but also very important goal of this. This requires government subsidies for basic research, dem/val, probably some early production facilities and some early deployment. Inevitably it also means that much government money will be wasted as we find that this or that tech fails to develop as hoped, but IMO the ultimate cost of not pursuing multiple pathways is almost certain to be far higher, not just in money but in the livability of this planet.