What a terrible take.
First off, unironically yes on account of higher efficiency in electric engines over combustion engines.
Second, what grids still run on 100% coal? And why would they keep doing that long-term, given that coal is just shit on its own merits?
It was never a strong combat game imo. It's a fantastic game despite the combat, not because of the combat.
Product launches are the vehicle for attaining promotions at Google, allegedly. Maintenance does not get similarly rewarded, nor does launching projects and having them live on to actually be successful.
When the launcher got promoted and moved on, they have to figure out whether to keep the thing around, and the answer is generally going to be no since few things can really compete with the infinite money glitch that is search ads.
The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You're also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.
The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.
Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.
The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.
It's true that it's possible to ride all year, even in places with harsh winters.
It's going to be decidedly less fun, though.
This was enough to tip the balance in favour of taking transit during the months of snow and slush here in Sweden, but I'm also spoiled for choice here. Now I've moved and have less of a ride to work, so I think I'm probably going to shoot for biking all year now.
I don't see any good reason why the merits of hydrogen for vehicle fuel would be any better than production and disposal of batteries. The other cases I agree that hydrogen will have a useful niche.
It's hard to assess the validity of those claims as the article doesn't bring any numbers and the paper itself is paywalled. As the fossil fuel industry is pushing hard towards wedging in hydrogen as a means of keeping themselves alive for a while longer, it's vital to be able to assess the actual claims, lest they are just planted there by the fossil fuel industry.
There are some use-cases where hydrogen will be useful, but I don't think storage is one of them. Nor do I think vehicles are a particularly good use-case either, as compared to just iterating on battery technology.
and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.
Is it really that good of a storage method, though? The round-trip efficiency is quite bad when compared to other methods of storage.
32% coal vs 39% renewables, with natural gas making up the majority of the remainder - https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO#tabs-4