Because I doubt that a more complex system that requires extreme cold, and excess thermal energy and the storage of both will have both efficiency and cost advantages over a similar, less complex system that can function at ambient temperatures.

As this is a battery, it would be a one time carbon capture energy price, and then would be a form of sequestering it. It wouldn't be a constant input.

And until both are proven in the real world, where both are currently in the process of doing so. I don't think claiming one is so much better that the other has no use is warranted.

That is a better analogy than hybrids. Still don't think it's very applicable based on what I've seen.

The startup cost difference isn't negligible, and it could easily be used with a carbon capture project.

And I'll wait for third party tests on either's efficiency before I believe the real world numbers.

And, as someone who enjoys going offroad/off grid for longer than an electric will allow, I absolutely see the use case for hybrids.

To my understanding, the benefits from co2 come from being able to compress it into a liquid at room temperature leading to an efficiency advantage, and simpler, probably cheaper systems to build.

But moreover, I don't see any reason why both couldn't be viable in different situations, with liquid air near sources of waste thermal energy, etc.

The fact these don't need the exotic elements to function, coupled with not needing major tech breakthroughs makes these incredibly viable.