[kelnos]

That's a bit of a disingenuous analogy; vacuum tubes have already been supplanted by a better technology. Hydrogen may be a better technology than BEVs, but it hasn't supplanted anything.

> You can never make a coherent argument that an EV powered by rare or limited resources could ever be a better idea.

Better idea or not, BEVs are being produced in ever-increasing numbers. Hydrogen cars are not. Sure, maybe that will change at some point in the future, but I think BEVs have too much momentum and capital behind them to fade away any time soon.

As an aside: judging by your word choice and tone in your comments, you seem to be emotionally invested in hydrogen cars. That's fine, but I think how you're presenting things is hurting your argument quite a bit.

[_hypx]

Then you can use whatever technology that hasn't be driven into obsolescence yet, but basic physics nearly guarantees that outcome. Maybe flash memory versus HDDs, or perhaps fiber optics over copper wires.

BEVs where at basically zero not that long ago. The problem is that economically, they are always going to have a major upfront cost. And the more range and the larger the car, the bigger this will be.

It's Tesla fanboys that are invested in a particular outcome. My own opinion is just asking "what comes next?" If you ask that question honestly, you'll end up with the same opinion that I have.