In all the years of asking no one, scientist or otherwise will give a data backed definitive answer as there is to many unknowns in that field of science, but a lot of assumptions based upon belief, and you won't even get that level of debate/questioning in Australia and Banana (1) here isn't capable of giving that question any time at all.Wish i knew Ken . No doubt we have to go electric in some for or another even if hydrogen storage/transport becomes economically feasible
Seems to me the problem lies in the political speed chart of achieving net zero and the cost, the cost of social hardship for transferring wealth from the haves to the have nots unless there is a significant change to current policies (e.g. look at housing, on average each ferral politician has two investment properties, most likely in existing buildings which is key) which of course are tax deductible (got no problem with tax deductibility from new build as long as it's not for pulling down existing houses and simply building a new one in most cases)
It's deeply concerning when an expert policy maker, given the cost and turmoil, can't even say what impact net zero has on global temperature rise
Go to about 4:20 and witness the struggle to answer:
But you and the questioner are right, IF the world is going to take a leap into the unknown of Net zero there needs to be a compelling reason and result in the known data that can be trotted out for open mature debate.
In my own experience that will not happen as us ordinary folks wont be allowed to ask or query and in the case of this forum, the entrenched ideas one way or the other will not be openly discussed, more like shunned or put aside in a veritable too hard basket to handle case, lest some of us get angry at the other and common sense goes out the window.
So I guess at some time we may look back and say I told you so but we will still be waiting for answers to vital questions that may determine our preference to buy/own or avoid EV's
Ken