HerrBeter

I know and agree, however there's been a big group advocating for only preservation of forests

In Sweden there's a lot of tree plantation and also I hear a lot of "We have to stop cutting down trees"

What the duck are we going to be building our houses out of then? Clay?

I liked the analogy but I do think it would be clearer to say something like joules = money in bank account and Watt = spending per second

The fossil fuel industry is arguing for hydrogen because to keep costs down it will be made by natural gas reforming. Otherwise cost wise, putting 1 kWh of hydrogen into cars will be maybe 40% efficiency, then using fuel cells. So just multiply whatever your cost per electric kWh by 2,5. Hydrogen usable for stationary things like steel production though. Maybe methanol fuel cells are more viable idk

Albeit this is just off the top of my head so it's not necessarily 100% correct. It is much more efficient to put electricity into batteries.

There's no skipping thermodynamics, maybe there will be a technology for an arbitrary molecule to hydrogen gas reformation but it doesn't exist to my knowledge. Electrolysis of water means breaking the bonds and that takes a lot of electrical energy.

While hydrogen is common, free H2 molecules are not

Hydrogen is a horribly volatile compound, inherently unsafe. Regarding costs, I'll believe it when I see it.

Besides there isn't enough of vital rare earths for the fuel cells. Currently it's a dead end.

But do indulge me with links if you will

[citation needed]

They're not backed by reality

Because hydrogen is primarily made from natural gas (fossil fuel). Hydrogen is not a viable solution since efficiency is crap

The LLM worked better than the Indian service agent I got to talk to, however after I got an agent speaking my language things resolved

Yeah, supervisors(?) got a kickback