Impossibility Fallacy

I consider this to be a fallacy where something is considered impossible, when in fact it is just difficult.  For example: It was considered impossible to reuse rockets, which was a fallacy because SpaceX proved it was simply difficult.  This fallacy is much used by climate warming deniers who state that it is impossible to use renewables to power a grid on account of intermittency, but many consider that it is simply difficult and the problems can be overcome. The fallacy is linked to the Nirvana Fallacy.

This is my idea of a fallacy which I have not seen defined or named.  Do any others have thoughts on this?

The concept of "impossibility" is actually quite complex, and requires a decent philosophical understanding. I wouldn't fault people for poor reasoning by claiming "impossibility" most of the time when "extremely difficult" would be more accurate or even factually correct. Also, to be a fallacy, it would have to occur within the context of an argument, and then it would just be a false premise:

1. It is impossible to reuse rockets.
2. Single use rockets are far to expensive for commercial space travel.
C. Therefore, commercial space travel will never be viable as long as rockets are used.

The flaw here is with premise 1 and the fact that it is false.

Again, false premise, lack of understanding of what is possible or not, exaggeration, or perhaps just pathological pessimism, but I wouldn't call it fallacious.

I can see claims of impossibility being used as rhetorical devices in persuasion or manipulation, which borders on fallacies like the argument by gibberish — a form of gaslighting. The difference is, with the argument from gibberish, the real fallacy is when the interlocutor unreasonably conflates the gibberish for a "good reason" and with claims of impossibility, the interlocutor is essentially just being lied to.