> 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.
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.
In reality, hydrogen cars are far cheaper to make than BEVs. They have very little raw material needs. They do not need the hundreds of kilograms of batteries that BEVs need. They only need water as their raw material. That's fundamentally a superior idea. You can never make a coherent argument that an EV powered by rare or limited resources could ever be a better idea.
Again, a fuel cell car is literally an EV, only one whose "battery" is made from water. You cannot do better than that.