You are projecting. You are the one spamming BEV propaganda. You are the one repeating lies. People like you are nothing more than climate change deniers and allies of corporate interests.
Hydrogen pipelines are a lot cheaper and simpler to build than high-voltage powerlines.
And you are just ignoring what I just wrote and substitute outright lies from BEV companies. Again, there is no difference in CO2 emissions when both are made from fossil fuels. As a result, BEVs are not any greener and arguably much worse when you look at certain factors related to weight and battery production. The entire argument over efficiency is just a extremely rare scenario which doesn't even apply in this case, and won't apply even in the future. In reality, you will need to store electricity in a 100% renewable grid. That requires large scale and long-duration energy storage solutions. One of which is hydrogen based energy storage. So you will charge your BEV with hydrogen power in the future. This quickly kills the idea that BEVs are anymore efficient.
And that is before you factor future innovation. In the long run, we will make hydrogen directly, such as from photocatalysts or thermal processes that don't use electricity. Fuel cells will increase in efficiency until they are basically the same as conventional batteries. As a result, this entire argument will be totally rejected. It will only be remembered as this BEV propaganda statement from the early 21st century.
There is less logistical challenges for moving hydrogen around than trying to expand the grid to handle all cars plus the infrastructure of manufacturing of batteries. People have simply failed to grasp how big of a challenge the latter actually is.
You can buy fuel cell powered toy cars right now. The basic cost of fuel cells is very low. People are merely looking at effect of low manufacturing rates and then ignoring the possibility of mass production. In reality, a mass produced FCEV would cost about the same as a ICE car and have the same range. BEVs are fundamentally inferior idea.
Not to mention that BEVs are close to $60k right now, despite high levels of mass production. This shows that the idea cannot be competitive.
It can easily be demonstrated that BEVs cost much more than ICE cars to make, especially when it is suppose to be long ranged.
A fuel cell in a car is highly efficient. You don't gain significantly more efficiency by use it in a centralized power plant. Especially when you have to take into account losses from the grid and charging losses.
If it is being generated by hydrogen, why not run the cars on hydrogen directly?
Everything else you said is totally false. Hydrogen cars are much cheaper to manufacture than BEVs. They are safer and much less resource demanding too.
Again, straight-up BS. People are blatantly lying to you about this subject. BEV companies are spreading nothing but propaganda. It is a factually false claim.
In fact, it can easily be demonstrated to be the case. You generate 9.3kg of CO2 per kg of hydrogen when made from 100% natural gas. At 70 miles per kg, that is 133 grams per mile.
Meanwhile, electricity from natural gas generated 0.86 pounds, or 0.44 kg, per kWh. At 3.4 miles per kWh, that is 129 grams per mile.
This is anti-hydrogen propaganda. Fuel cells are batteries. At least in the fundamental sense. BEV fans and companies are just poisoning the well against any possible alternatives to their product. As a result, they have become silent climate change deniers, whose main goal is now promotion of outdated technology over genuine environmentalism.
Also, there is no evidence that FCEVs are dangerous. There has never been a record incident of a FCEV exploding or even burning severely. If anything, they are safer than BEVs.
You only need grams of it per fuel cell stack. It is not much more than what is already being used in catalytic converters. So it is unlikely to be a big problem.
We have about as good enough reason to believe that he existed as any other historical person. That is my point the whole time. And it is the point of all historical scholars on this topic.
If that isn’t enough evidence, and we instead insist on a standard of proof that puts historical Jesus in the unconfirmed category, then we have to abandon nearly all historical people from the list of confirmed. History before the modern era almost completely vanishes in that case.