Summarise your understanding of my posts in your own words.
Wait, don't bother. You already did that. You tried to turn it around on me like I was arguing against the points I already made. Now you're being facetious
I have no idea what you're talking about.
You wrote this:
[..] The only downside to better battery tech is it makes the idea of fusion powered vehicles even less relevant. No need to research scaling down the tech to fit in your moped if it's already being powered from a fusion powered grid.
I replied asking why you thought that was a downside:
How is that a downside? Even assuming that it's possible to scale a fusion reactor down that far at some point in the future.
You replied that it would be a factor at a personal scale, in the context of developing fusion-powered engines for small vehicles.
In the context of providing incentive to develop them for small vehicles. His inference was that better battery tech may hinder fusion advancements, which it won't at the industrial scale. It will be a factor at the personal scale.
Which doesn't answer the question of why it's a downside, only restates a context you'd already stated (engines in small vehicles). So I tried again, asking why you thought it was a downside and explaining why I think it isn't:
But why would that matter? Even assuming that it would ever be possible to make a fully functional high efficiency fusion engine small enough to fit in a moped, what advantages would it have over an equally hypothetical future battery far superior to any battery we have today? In other words, how would it be a factor at the personal scale? Both would be electrically powered. The difference would be in how the electricity was stored on the moped.
You replied by stating I'd done something I hadn't done and pretending you'd asked a question:
You're simply rewording my point but asking me a question? [..]
I answered your "question" and repeated my own, which you hadn't answered:
No, I was asking you why you think that's a drawback. And now I am asking you the same question again.
You replied with another statement and question, still not answering my question:
I'm getting dejavu with you and context. Let's try and skip some tail chasing here, what do you think I mean by drawback?
I gave a genuine answer. If you didn't intend "drawback" to mean "disadvantage, inconvenience, hindrance", what did you intend it to mean? What other meaning does "drawback" have that I couldn't find online (other than the type of taxation I already mentioned)? The word you originally used was "downside", which also has a clear meaning.
You replied with once again stating I'd done something I hadn't done, then said I was being facetious. Which is also something I haven't done. And you haven't answered the question.
You also misunderstood d_brennan:
D.P. wrote this:
[..] The other issue is if cheap grid scale energy storage can be achieved first then there no need for Fusion at all and renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs at lower costs and higher reliability
d_brennan replied directly to that text, quoting specifically that text and only that text so it was very obvious what text they were replying to:
There will always be a need for energy diversification. Even if battery storage tech takes a leap, you can bet fusion will still be researched. And still be 30 years away
You are now arguing that when d_brennan wrote that they were inferring something that they clearly weren't inferring:
His [d_brennan] inference was that better battery tech may hinder fusion advancements, which it won't at the industrial scale. It will be a factor at the personal scale.
You continued to tell d_brennan that was what they meant, even though it clearly wasn't and they told you it wasn't.
