A dispatch from the dawn of the green hydrogen era

[Think. Again.]

Canary gets a firsthand look at electrolyzer maker Verdagy’s pilot line. It’s one of many companies hoping to cash in on lucrative new subsidies for fossil-free hydrogen.

24 July 2023
Eric Wesoff, Canary Media
Full article: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/a-dispatch-from-the-dawn-of-the-green-hydrogen-era


The interior of Verdagy's pilot plant in Moss Landing, Calif. (Verdagy)

MOSS LANDING, California — A green hydrogen boom is about to jolt American heavy industry, and it’s all thanks to a set of tax incentives that are wildly generous, wickedly complex — and still not fully finalized.

Hydrogen is carbon-free if produced with renewable energy, and some experts see it as the key to decarbonizing certain ​“difficult-to-abate” industries. As of now, the fuel exists more in clean-energy models than in the real world, as almost all hydrogen is currently made with fossil gas.

But now we may be at the dawning of the green-hydrogen economy, as tens of billions of dollars in Inflation Reduction Act incentives encourage both startups and established companies to invest in driving down the cost of generating the carbon-free fuel.
Subscribe to receive Canary's latest news

The clean-hydrogen production tax credit in the IRA is ​“incredibly rich,” said Jane Sadler, an associate at think tank RMI’s U.S. program, during a recent webinar. (Canary Media is an independent affiliate of RMI.)

“It’s definitely going to change the landscape of hydrogen,” she added. ​“Unlike some tax credits in the IRA, the uncapped hydrogen incentive is available as direct pay (rather than a credit) to any applicant for five years and 10 years to tax-exempt applicants.”

-snip-

Much more at: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/a-dispatch-from-the-dawn-of-the-green-hydrogen-era

[CentralMass]

1. What is the efficiency and amount of energy per kg used by the electrol,ers.

Is there and improved efficiency at these karge scales ir are they just producing large amounts og hydrogen inefficiently?

Japan's hydrogen economy experiment has been a bust.
https://newatlas.com/energy/japan-hydrogen-policy-failure/

Using electricity to produce and compress hydrogen is very inefficent. The current infrastructure mentioned like steel pipelines and tanks can't be used fir pure hydrogen. It embattled stell.
For example itvtajes about 3x more electricity to produce and compress hydrogen for a hydrigen Fuel cell vehicle like the Toyota Murai the it foes to charge tghe battery of a comparable EV. For home heating a heat pump running on electricity is about 7x more efficient the using hydrogen to heat homes and businesses.

Hydrogen has it uses but if the industry ends up hogging green electricity and we get pushed into a hydrogen economy we may end up requiring substantially more green electricity and will pay more for things like transportation, heating, abd ekectricity.

.

[Think. Again.]

2. Efficiency...

...really only matters is there is an alternative option to compare it to.

The transfer of energy from any state to any other state is always inefficient, energy is lost when you charge your phone, when vehicles combust gasoline, etc, etc,.

However, we will not be able to use any energy directly from the source 100% of the time, we will need to store some of it for situations when we can not be wired directly to the source. A loss of energy, or innefficiency, for that needed storage will be the price to achieve that storage.

In a fossil-fuel system, Hydrogen will be needed for storing energy and for energy to be used in portable and mobile applications, yes, there are batteries as an alternative, but lithium is a finite resource, and also, battery power does not offer the combustion engine options that hydrogen does for uses when that is preferable.

Of course, choices will be made as to which form of stored energy is best for each different application.

The use of green energy to produce hydrogen will not overlap or "hog" the green energy produced for other uses when the hydrogen is made from dedicated solar/wind/hydro/nuclear sources. In other words, to produce green hydrogen, a plant is built that includes it's own green energy source, there would be no loss of energy from plants built to supply energy for other purposes.

And yes, in order to transition away from fossil fuels, we WILL need to produce all of our needed energy from green electricity sources for transportation, heating, and electricity, which are ALREADY becoming less expensive than fossil fuels.

As to the article about Japan's initial mistakes in developing a hydrogen economy, the article clearly points out 3 wrong approaches that Japan has made,

1) Japan is targeting hydrogen at the wrong applications
2) Japan has prioritized dirty hydrogen
3) The country's green hydrogen production sector is lagging behind

The article certainly does not imply that a Hydrogen industry in itself is a bad idea, it simply points out how Japan has not succeeded yet in their particular attempts.

In fact, the article points out that the third mistake that Japan has made, according to the article you referenced, is that they have not developed their Green Hydrogen industry fast enough.

[CentralMass]

3. There are a number of ways to compare efficiency.

I'm on a phone and going from memory. But a look at a comparison to gasoline. A gallon of gasoline contains 33.7kWh of energy. 1kg of hydrogen contains roughly the amount of energy. It takes about 38kWh of electricity to electrolyze 1kg of hydrogen and another 5 or 6 kWh to compress it.
So ~44kWh of electricity to produce 1kg of hydrogen containing ~33kWh of energy. Then when you convert that hydrogen back to energy there are losses as well. In the case of automobiles, about 25% to 30% of the energy used to produce hydrogen makes it to the wheels of an HFCV vs 80% to 90% for a battery EV.. A battery EV can go about 3x furthur then a comparable HFCV on the same amount of energy.

[Think. Again.]

4. But why would you compare...

...efficiencies of non-CO2 to CO2 emitting methods?

The only goal is to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions. That's the only reason we are doing this.

If it takes a certain amount of inefficiency to replace a CO2 emitting source with a non- CO2 emitting source, so be it, we are achieving our goal.

Of course if there are multiple options of non-CO2 energy to choose from, that's where an effeciency comparison would matter.

What your post above is saying is that we shouldn't stop using CO2 emitting energy because non-CO2 energy isn't more efficient.

But efficiency isn't the goal we seek, non-CO2 energy is.

And as I mentioned, lithium EV batteries could only be a bridge between CO2 emitting power and something else due to the limited supply of lithium. Lithium batteries are a short term option. Hydrogen can be produced (using non-CO2 energy) in UNlimited supplies.

Right now, the only 'something else' is hydrogen. Why not go straight to hydrogen rather than have to build both a battery industry now AND then a hydrogen industry later?

[CentralMass]

6. Regardless if where the electricity is coming from, direct use of theelectricity is more

efficient then using it to produce. For decarbonization of industrial processes or applications like shipping and long haul trucking it may nkje sense.

For things like personal transportation we will need 3x to 4x the amount of green electrucity to go the hydrogen route vs the battery EV route.

Fossil fuel are tje measuring stick thst the epa uses to calculate mpg-e (equivilent mile per gallon) fitr EV'S and HFCV's.. thst is why I quoted tge energy in I gallon gasoline.
From memory, I saw figures for the Toyota Mirai (HCFV) of 66 miles/kg of hydrogen. From what I've reads 1kg if hydrogen takes about 44kWh of electricity to produce and compress. A Tesla Model 3 uses about 0.243kWh/mile of electricity.
On 48kWh's of electricity the Tesla can travel 48kWh ÷ 0.243kWh/mile = 197.5 miles.

.

[Think. Again.]

7. Okay...

We'll use energy directly from the non-CO2 source where we can and use stored energy where we can't use it directly from the source. Done.

And okay, we'll need 3-4X green energy for a permanent hydrogen vehicle industry than for a temporary battery vehicle industry.

So, let's get moving on it then...

[CentralMass]

10. I would suggest that EV's are the long term solution for personal transportation and some other

energy storage applications.
Battery research is rapidly advancincing with new battery chemistries and progress on solid state batteries as well as recycling. Toyota is on the cusp of having solid state batteries wuth 600 and 900 mike ranges with exceptional fast DCFast charging times. Solid state batteries.will also reportedly have long life, 300k to 500k miles.. the material are recyclable and thAt process is being refined. THe materials areetals so old batteries can be recycled and tJe materials used to make new batterues.

[Think. Again.]

16. Good point!...

I've been focusing on lithium batteries since they are the current state-of-the-art, but you're right, we have yet to see what advances will overtake the short term option of lithium batteries.

[CentralMass]

24. I am no expert (obviously) but there are advancements veing made.

Tesla ha switch to LFP batteries that don't use cobolt and Ford is building LFP battery plants in Michigan FM is purchasing its cobolt from Australia rather tge the Democratic Republic of the Congo where human rights abuses in the cobolt mines have be reported on. Sodium-ion batteries chemistries are coming along and solid state batterues that eliminate liquids promise safer, faster charging, and longer life batteries
Add real recycling of the battery materials at end of life an battery technology looks much more promising.as a long term solution.

[Think. Again.]

25. I didn't know about those!

Thank you for telling me about all this, goodness knows we can't rely on the media to inform us on advances in the most important challenges humanity is facing.

I have read about grid-sized alternatives to lithium though:

https://newatlas.com/energy/form-energy-iron-air-battery-bezos/

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. There are several alternatives

One of the reasons why lithium is so nice to use in an automobile traction battery (or in a portable drill) is that (with an atomic number of 3) it is quite light, compared (for example) to iron (26) or lead (82.)


If your battery is just sitting on the ground, size and weight aren’t as important, and you can consider completely different types of batteries.

One of the interesting alternatives is a “flow battery.”
https://news.mit.edu/2023/flow-batteries-grid-scale-energy-storage-0407

To keep up on some of the latest advances in battery technology, you could start here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/batteries/
https://scitechdaily.com/tag/battery-technology/
https://www.eurekalert.org/advancedSearch/536334
https://news.mit.edu/topic/batteries

[Caribbeans]

31. Charging a battery is not "direct use of the electricity"

You're reciting all the anti-hydrogen arguments.

We will need both batteries and hydrogen and other things that haven't been invented yet.

Do you really think someone like a realtor or a salesperson will buy a car that needs to stop for ~45 minutes every 2-300 miles? (That's if there is no line to get to the plug.)

And replace the battery every 8-10 years regardless of the mileage? Absurd.

[CentralMass]

33. Here is a link explaining the efficiencies of HFCV's and EV's

https://earthorg.mystagingwebsite.com/hydrogen-vs-electric-cars/
"Efficiency
One of the most significant disadvantages of FCEVs is their inefficiency. Because of the complex processes involved both in producing and storing hydrogen and in converting the hydrogen into electricity in the fuel cells, FCEVs are generally only around 38% efficient, meaning that for every 100 watts of energy produced, only around 38 watts can be used to power the FCEV.

Unlike FCEVs, battery-powered electric vehicles are quite energy-efficient. While FCEVs are less than 40% energy-efficient, most battery-powered electric cars and other vehicles boast around 80% efficiency. This means that for every 100 watts of energy produced, nearly 80 watts will be used to power the vehicle.

When it comes to energy efficiency, battery-powered EVs are the clear winner, requiring half the amount of energy as FCEVs to generate power."

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. On the other hand, we need to look at the today's grid

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php


When you charge an EV in the US (on average) about 60% of the electricity came from burning fossil fuels. If you do all of the calculations, if you start out with a certain quantity of fossil fuel, it is somewhat more efficient to “reform” it, generating hydrogen to drive a FCEV than it is to burn it in a fossil fuel generating plant to produce electricity to drive a BEV.

If the grid were totally green, the BEV may be preferable from an efficiency standpoint. On the other hand, batteries (even lithium-ion batteries) are heavy. As the weight (or range) of a vehicle increases, you need a larger and heavier battery. As this trend continues, you wind up with a vehicle that puts a lot of energy into carrying around its battery…

For this reason, at this point, while Ford has a battery-powered F-150, for their "Super Duty" line of trucks they think they will be using hydrogen fuel cells.

EXECUTIVES STATE FORD SUPER DUTY WILL LIKELY GO HYDROGEN BEFORE GOING FULLY ELECTRIC

Batteries make the most sense for small vehicles with relatively short range. Hydrogen may make more sense for larger long-haul vehicles (especially things like boats, trains, planes.) The question is, where is the cut-over?

[Think. Again.]

8. Yeah but ....

...the ONLY goal is to keep moving AWAY from fossil fuels...

Today's grid stats will be meaningless as we (hopefully) keep displacing more and more CO2 emitting sources with non-CO2 sources.

Where we stand now doesn't matter anymore, where we are going does.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. We only get to where we're going, if we understand where we are

I’ve been dealing with this for too long. People want to pretend we have a clean grid, because (hopefully) some day, we will.

In the meantime, we need to deal with today’s reality.

In the final analysis neither batteries nor fuel cells are magical. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and frankly, it's not a question of “which is better for the environment?” but “which is less bad?”

The whole one person, one car model is horribly inefficient, whether that car is powered by “green hydrogen” or “green electrons.”

[Think. Again.]

12. I absolutely agree with you...

You write:

"In the final analysis neither batteries nor fuel cells are magical. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and frankly, it's not a question of “which is better for the environment?” but “which is less bad?”

The whole one person, one car model is horribly inefficient, whether that car is powered by “green hydrogen” or “green electrons.”

This is the actual truth.

As we now know, there is no magical energy source when we are trying to use more than natural processes produce and need.

Yes, CONSUMPTION is the core issue.

Not only do we have to displace fossil fuel energy sources with less-damaging alternative sources, but we also must find the balance of what we use and what we are willing to pay the price to produce.

But I disagree with you on this, you write:

"We only get to where we're going, if we understand where we are"

We know we are at an unlivable place, that's really all we need to know in order to understand that we must get away from this place as quickly as humanly possible.

That's what our focus must be on.

We can look back later, once we've left, if we are interested in understanding what this place actually is (was?).

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Try this on for size...

I hand you a map, and ask, “Can you show me how to get to Chicago?”

What’s the first thing you need to do?

[Think. Again.]

17. Locate Chicago.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Oh, that's easy.

It's right there!

Now, tell me how to get there…

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Let me make this question easier for you

I want to get to Chicago. Should I head East? West? North? South?

[Think. Again.]

35. Again...

The task is...

"I want to get AWAY from Chicago very quickly"
(Chicago=using fossil fuels)

The solution is...

"Start running in any direction and keep running until you're no longer in Chicago"
(Running=using other energy sources [and reducing use but we'll ingore that for this post])

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. You've changed the question

However, to play along with your game, if you run away from Chicago without paying attention to where you’re going, there’s a 50/50 chance that you will run into a lake and drown.

[Think. Again.]

38. Yes...

The original question didn't apply to the discussion on the topic of how stop emitting CO2.

But anyway...

There is a 100% chance you will die very soon if you stay in Chicago.

There is a 50/50 chance you will run into a lake and drown if you run now.

What would your choice be?

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. I would look at a map

First, I need to identify where I am.
Then I need to identify where I want to go.
Then, I need to determine the best route to take me there.

Once I have done that, I can start my journey.

[Think. Again.]

40. Cool...

Grab yourself a bite to eat at Alexander's while your shopping for a map, maybe consider if any rail-trails would be an interesting walk out of town.

Me, I'll be glancing at the position of the sun and heading in one direction (going around any obstacles, of course) and gettin' da heck outta dare!

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. Have you ever been in such a hurry...

…that you got onto an interstate headed in the wrong direction? Now, you're committed to traveling to the next exit, getting off, and back on again, just so you can get back to your starting point.

The result is you wind up wasting time, effort & energy, without making any progress at all.

Back before Al Gore Sr invented the Interstate Highway System, the saying was “A stitch in time saves nine.”

[Think. Again.]

42. yes....

...but I was never trying to outrun the threat of imminent death before.

[OKIsItJustMe]

43. Classic horror movie trope: Making mistakes because you're in such a hurry to escape imminent death

[Think. Again.]

46. Classic tragicomedy trope:

...wait so long trying to decide the best thing to do that you miss your opportunity to do anything.

(There's also the verified fact that the fossil fuel industry is makng a major effort to stall and slow-walk the transition using bogus diversions and distractions that are easily mistaken for thoughtful considerations. The difficulty is in sorting out what actually does need to be considered and what is just gaslighting and BS, without wasting too much time sorting that out.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

(Works every time!)

[OKIsItJustMe]

45. If you've ever stayed in a hotel or motel

you've probably seen a map something like this, showing the location of your room, and the location of the nearest fire exit (you know, so you can escape the threat of imminent death in a timely fashion, rather than just running around in the hall screaming, “HELP ME! THERE’S A FIRE!”)

[Think. Again.]

47. Yes...

...but if that map isn't there, or easily located, I'm not going to call the front desk and ask them to bring me one while I wait for it in my burning room.

I'm gonna head out and find my way to safety.

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. S.T.O.P.

I don’t remember this being a skill I was taught, but, it’s gotten me (and others who depended on me) out of bad situations.

When you’re faced with an emergency, S.T.O.P.

• Stop
• Think
• Observe
• Plan

I have a friend, who (although I've never shared a hotel room with her) I am confident checks for the map as soon as she enters the room, and if it is not there, calls the front desk to ask for one, before there is a fire to escape. — I say I’m confident of this, because I know for a fact that whenever she enters a large area, like a theater or a meeting room, she scopes out the exits. She always has an escape plan. It's one of her “superpowers.”

I'm not that good. My superpower is that when an emergency situation does occur, I get strangely calm. I quickly asses the situation, I formulate a plan and I act decisively. It just takes a few seconds, but it may save your life (or the life of someone you love.) Running blindly seldom helps.

So far, I’ve survived.

[Think. Again.]

50. I'm beginning to think...

...that our differences of opinion on this are based on a difference in our personality foundations.

It seems I'm reacting to an emergency with an emotional 'fight or flight' response,

And you are reacting with a more cognitive, rational response.

I don't know if there's a 'right or wrong' to this, becuase I can conceive of situations where either response could end up positively and/or negatively.

But here's a deal: I'll keep pushing the world to take immediate action to reduce CO2 emissions, and you keep making sure the world is taking the best possible actions when (and if) the world does take action.

Now all we need is a majority of humanity to work with us on this!

[Think. Again.]

48. Unfortunately,

...there is no handy map to show us the way out of this mess, but it is urgent that we find a way.

[Think. Again.]

19. but you asked me the wrong question...

In the situation we are in, you should have handed me a map and asked...

"How do you GET AWAY from this point here?"

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Which point? Where?

And will any change of location be an improvement?

[Think. Again.]

22. the point we are at where we are emitting CO2...

And yes, NOT emitting CO2 would be an improvement.

(Trying not to mix up metaphors too much!)

[CentralMass]

11. That is not the case. I read an article in Forbes citing data from one if the large

commercial supplier's of hydrogen. I think it was Praxair. The process of reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen actually has a larger carbon footprint than burning the natural gas directly. It also has a larger carbon footprint then gasoline, or or charging EV's from fossil fuels..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/06/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-hydrogen-production/

[Think. Again.]

13. Yes,

That's why the "GREEN" HYDROGEN designation is so important...

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. My "facts" may no longer be true.

However, the article appears to address “carbon footprint.”

On an apples-to-apples basis, it depends on several factors but it is likely that the conversion of hydrogen into power will have a carbon footprint greater than that of natural gas-fired power, but less than that of coal-fired power. However, it is possible in theory to capture the carbon emissions generated in the SMR process.

When you see something like “it depends on several factors but it is likely” you can safely interpret that to mean that the difference isn’t that large.

[Think. Again.]

23. I hope it doesn't get confusing when we...

...start discussing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)!

[CentralMass]

26. I'm all for green solutions but in actually practice effective carbon capture

appears to be a myth.

There are areas where green hydrigen make sense.but until the efficiency of electrolyzing water and compressing hydrigen and transporting it improve it is a waste of energy for many applications. The law of thermodynamics are hard to overcome.

If I wanted to go off grid and add enough solar and or wind power to either charge an EV or power an electrolyzer and compressor to fuel a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle I know which choice I'd make. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle would take st least 3x the number of solar panels to produce hydrogen vs charging the EV. There are economies of scale in both cases if you are doing it on a large scale but unless electrolyzer efficiency is greatly improved green hydrigen is a waste of energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. I think what it comes down to is this, "It all depends."

You really need to look at the application in detail, examine the advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions, perhaps the “most efficient” solution is not the most convenient. For example, you can store energy in batteries, or by splitting water, and putting it back together again. Or, you can store it as potential energy in a “gravity battery.” (Or a number of other methods, like compressed air.)

[CentralMass]

29. Here is an article on where Japan has failed in its efforts to switch to a hydrogen economy

https://newatlas.com/energy/japan-hydrogen-policy-failure/

It's worth the read.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. I may read it later. I've read what I suspect are similar analyses

You may want to browse: https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/research.html

[Think. Again.]

36. That article on Japan...

CLEARLY points out that Japan has made 3 mistaken efforts, that are correctable.

From the article:

1) Japan is targeting hydrogen at the wrong applications
2) Japan has prioritized dirty hydrogen
3) The country's green hydrogen production sector is lagging behind

The "Failure" refers to the wrong efforts they have made so far (as listed above), it does not mean building a hydrogen economy in Japan is undoable. They simply have to make correct efforts.

A person can not succeed in building a house by simply tearing down a garage, but that doesn't mean they can't build a house.

In fact, the third mistake the article points out is that Japan has NOT built out it's hydrogen production fast enough.

[CentralMass]

51. Hydrogen has its uses fir decarbonizung industrial processes

and shipping and possible long haul trucking.

It us abd economic and efficiency loser when it come to thing like energy storage, personal transportation a d heating. Unless some one finds out how to cheT tge kaws if thermodynamics electrolyzer efficiency is nor going to maje any major gains. If that changes then it could be a game changer. Until that happen Getying pushed into switching to hydrogen for our vehicles, heating and for sole method of green energy storage us a waste if energy. Using 3x the energy over ev's to power out vehicles or 7x to heat our home vs electric heat pumps is foolish.

Big pil does not want to lose it gravy train. They will milk every last opportunity to p olong tge use if fossil fuel including disproportionately utilizing available green electricity to priduce green hydrogen for purposes where there are mote efficient uses for thst energy.

[Think. Again.]

52. I agree.

Hydrogen, just like batteries, has appropriate and innappropriate uses depending on the needs they can fulfill.

Some situations such as power or heating needed 'in the field' where "refueling" by electric cables isn't possible will be well-served by transported-hydrogen powered equipment and vehicles, and the efficiencies required will also be dictated by the use and goals of the machinary needing to be powered.

Green hydrogen production does not have to be limited to electricity that is generated and intended for grid-use. In fact, most of the hydrogen production plants are planned to have their own dedicated solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro electricity sources specifically to avoid diminishing the supply of electricity needed elsewhere, which also negates the concerns about electrolyzer efficiency, we will simply generate the electrity we need (from non-CO2 emitting sources) to produce the amount of hydrogen we need at whatever efficiency it does, since there is no other purpose for the electricity produced, the efficiency of the hydrogen production will just be whatever it is.

Hydrogen also offers the capability of being used in situations where a non-CO2 form of combustion is best for a specific purpose.

And we really shouldn't make the same mistake of building a new energy economy entirely around a limited resource such as lithium, although there is hope that new battery storage tech will be less limited and ecologically damaging to acquire.

And I DEFINITELY agree with you about the fossil fuel industry's substantial attempts to stall and slow-walk the transition!

By creating confusion about the potential production and uses of any and/or all of the various non-CO2 options we already have, they are succeeding in slowing down the general public's acceptance of any (or all) of the variety of ways we can and should be displacing fossil fuels.

[Caribbeans]

32. JUNE 2023: Japan earmarks $107 billion for developing hydrogen

Japan's hydrogen economy experiment has been a bust.

They have revised their Hydrogen Strategy, not abandoned it like you're trying to portray.

Japan earmarks $107 billion for developing hydrogen energy to cut emissions, stabilize supplies

AP | June 6, 2023

TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s government on Tuesday adopted a revision to the country’s plans to use more hydrogen as fuel as part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions.

The plan sets an ambitious target to increase the annual supply by six times from the current level to 12 million tons by 2040. It also pledges 15 trillion yen ($107 billion) in funding from both private and public sources to build up hydrogen-related supply chains over the next 15 years...
https://apnews.com/article/japan-energy-hydrogen-climate-carbon-emission-7f5552cc387d7ad395980bc9bd5a934c

Everyone alive can thank Elon Musk for starting this war between batteries and hydrogen and he was trying to sell more batteries not clean up the environment. A Grifter's Grifter he is.

And this ridiculous war has cost time and progress but almost every car company in the world has plans for hydrogen cars. Meanwhile, simply ignore China because they - in 6 years - have become the leader. You won't be posting about that because it's contrary to the anti-H2 nonsense.