bearboiblake

Sorry, are you expecting the government, which is owned and controlled by the ruling class, to make legal changes which would go against their own interests? Haven't you been paying attention?

If you want change, there's only one way for us to get it, and it's through a social revolution.

That's a very good question. The reason is that Cuba is a socialist nation, and the US is ideologically opposed to socialism, because it is a threat to the interests of the wealthy ruling class. Due to the popularity of the regime and communism itself in Cuba, it was known by the US that the only way to effect regime change was through economic pressures:

As this document outlines:

while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/27400-document-1-state-department-memorandum-decline-and-fall-castro-secret-april-6-1960

Of course, this didn't prevent them from waging a campaign of US state-sponsored terrorism in Cuba, nor from proposing a CIA-backed 9/11 style false-flag terrorist attack against US citizens in order to gain support for a war against Cuba.

The real blame lies with the politicians, especially the Democrats, for not having a positive message that motivates people to vote. Both Trump and Kamala were genocidal and the Democrats don't disagree with going to war against Iran, they just have a bunch of process concerns. They're totally cool with bombing schools and hospitals and sending kids to die for Israel, they just feel like the proper procedure to do so should be followed.

The democrats and republicans are both on one side, the ruling class. Both are the enemies of the working class.

Hydrogen seeps out of the system at a significantly slower rate than a battery self discharges. Modern hydrogen systems are functionally leak free and will lose next to no hydrogen over the course of months or even years.

It's a network effect issue. Nobody uses stations because nobody drives hydrogen cars, nobody drives hydrogen cars because they are dependent on stations, and stations are not widespread, but that is because nobody wants to fund the infrastructure, because it is hard to profit from.

None of any of that is an inherent issue with the technology, and it isn't because people have some irrational hatred for hydrogen or something.

In the past, massive infrastructure works were funded by states to improve the quality of life of the people who lived there, rolling out sewers, telephone lines, electricity, and so on. We could do that with hydrogen, but states are far more interested in funneling money from citizens to private individuals and corporations.

Fossil fuel based hydrogen is called blue hydrogen, which is why I specifically mentioned green hydrogen, which is made from renewables and water. I absolutely agree with you that fossil fuels must die, but simply replacing it with lithium or sodium mining or whatever is a bad alternative when we have a far better alternative with green hydrogen fuel cell EVs. Not to mention that BEVs are often charged with electricity generated by coal and gas power plants.

They're a fantastic idea which is incompatible with capitalism. Recharging is easier and much, much faster, a full charge gets you much further, it allows for usage of vehicles in areas without an functioning or reliable electrical grid, it’s considerably more energy-dense meaning that vehicles can be lighter, and it’s considerably safer - fires caused by thermal runaway in EVs have been deadly. It's completely clean, greener than BEVs because there is less raw materials required to manufacture, hydrogen can be made out of water and sunlight. It's functionally free, and using it turns it back into water, with zero emissions. Batteries self-discharge whereas modern hydrogen systems are functionally 99.999% leakproof and even bulletproof.

They haven't been a success because no one wants to pay the infrastructure costs necessary for them to be widely accepted, because nobody can make any profit from it. The technology itself is very good.

storage remains an issue, because you can’t contain hydrogen

I'm glad you're walking your claim back, at least, but the fact you made it tells me that you are arguing to defend a pre-held position, rather than discussing the matter with me to find consensus. Your persistent need to claim I do not understand the complexities of hydrogen storage underscores that fact.

There is one disadvantage hydrogen has over battery electrics, and that is the matter of efficiency, which I freely admit, I just don't see it as a major problem, because we can generate it completely cleanly from renewable energy, which makes it significantly cleaner and cheaper in the long run compared to the highly extractivist BEVs.

But yeah, anyways, I'm sure you'll come up with any number of rationalizations to justify your pre-existing beliefs, change is hard, I get it.

There is no point in discussing this further with you. You are firmly in denial about the facts of the matter. Have fun in your alternate reality where hydrogen storage isn't a solved problem.

There are of course technical issues which we have overcome. We used to struggle with storing water until we invented pottery, too, but that doesn't mean that indoor plumbing isn't viable, does it?

Batteries also self-discharge, btw, far more than hydrogen leaks -- and batteries are considerably heavier, more dangerous, and less energy dense.

I'd concur with the other commenters here and recommend getting a second hand Pixel device. I was a lifelong iOS user until they walked back their end-to-end encryption, jumped ship to using a second hand Pixel 8 Pro I got on eBay, installed GrapheneOS immediately, never even experienced stock Android. After a bit of an adjustment period, I'm very happy with my choice.

There are a number of advantages to hydrogen fuel - recharging is easier and much, much faster, a full charge gets you much further, it allows for usage of vehicles in areas without an functioning or reliable electrical grid, it's considerably more energy-dense meaning that vehicles can be lighter, and it's considerably safer - fires caused by thermal runaway in EVs have been deadly.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me, there are obviously pros and cons to both technologies, but acting like there are no reasons beyond "idiots want to buy a liquid", is just incorrect, and rude.