That is anything but the simplest explanation.

Finally a way to burn our perfectly good vehicles?

If heat is your requirement and you have hydrogen or iron powder on hand, then burning those things is going to provide the highest efficiency. If you're out of hydrogen or iron powder, and you have excess electricity, then producing more hydrogen or iron oxide in addition to heating with electricity will provide the highest efficiency. If you convert all your electricity to hydrogen or iron powder, only to burn it for heat, you're definitely doing it wrong.

Glad someone finally mentioned hydrogen. They are basically the same concept, except storing hydrogen is much harder than storing iron power. I'm not actually sure how the efficiencies of producing iron from rust and hydrogen from water compare.

Carbon free steel isn't steel, it's grey iron.

a useless fucking article.

More like, this article is epic stupidity.

Yeah, I'm here for the Vaginal Fluid Transfer Group Activity...

It does? OK...

The Prestige was great. Great cast, and a fairly cerebral mind bender of a plot.

Nonsense. Nobody by this point thinks electric vehicles are not the future. They've invested heavily because the writing is on the wall.

They don't care what they sell. They only care that what they sell sells and sells at a profit.

Do you have the idea that fossil fuels were formed with no energy input?

Hydrocarbons are simply an energy storage mechanism. You put energy in, and then later (a few minutes, a few million years, whatever) you can get some of that energy back out to make your car go vroom or make your feet warm. The energy can come from the sun via photo synthesis (like with fossil fuels) or via solar voltaic, wind, or hydro.

So, in fact, turning atmospheric CO2, water, and energy into fuels makes all the sense in the world, and if we can shorten the process to a few minutes or hours, it can be done at scale until the sun quits working.

The part about CO2 sequestration and fossil fuel extraction seems to be nothing more than large scale journalistic stupidity.

The article is so badly written, it's no wonder GP is confused.

The fact that you think this is pointless would appear to indicate that you don't know what a working brain actually does.

This is complete nonsense. That's only true if the motorcyclist behind you is actively looking for the Darwin award. Would it be better to stop even faster than the cycle could under the best of conditions by slamming into a car? Would it be better to flatten an innocent pedestrian than to test the reflexes of a motorcyclist who is following too closely and/or not paying paying attention? I think not.

More nonsense. Disabling that feature may well make your vehicle less safe, if you're not a very attentive driver. In other words, if you're like the average driver.

I'm not arguing that Uber should have had the Volvo EAB active. I'm arguing that Uber's software should have been advanced enough to never need it before being tested on public roads.

Obviously extensive testing on public roads is and should be a requirement before the technology can be put into general use. But closed course testing should have been more than sufficient to iron out whatever bugs were present that could have allowed the car to plow into an obstacle without even a hint of recognition. In this case, a failure to slow down in a smooth manor, or to get a little too close to the pedestrian as it passed, would be the kind of bugs I'd be expecting here. Absolutely not a complete failure to even notice the obstacle.