Join every day information updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!

One other day, one other evaluation of a significant hydrogen for power report which doesn’t stand as much as the slightest scrutiny. Sadly, this one is from the EU’s Joint Analysis Centre (JRC), its science and data service which employs scientists to hold out analysis in an effort to present unbiased scientific recommendation and help to European Union coverage.

Policymakers who learn the splash web page or coverage temporary could be left with the impression that inexperienced hydrogen might be manufactured and piped from Ukraine or northern Africa for a mixed value per kilogram of maybe €3. A detailed learn, using lifelike assumptions, and comparisons to way more credible experiences makes it clear that industrial hydrogen supply would value nearer to €8 / kg earlier than taxes or income and transportation hydrogen would value round €14 / kg earlier than taxes or income. The report’s summaries current solely the rosiest parts of a research which deliberately decreased main value assumptions to reach at low cost imported hydrogen.

This report was a deep disservice to coverage discussions in Europe and clearly not aligned with the JRC’s mission.

How Does The JRC Evaluate To Different Analysis Organizations With Dangerous Hydrogen Research?

The JRC just isn’t a company like DNV, the place the European pipeline operator affiliation pays them off to supply a horrible report displaying that inexperienced hydrogen manufactured offshore and piped into the economic sectors of Europe could be the most affordable strategy to get hydrogen, a report I tore aside a number of months in the past.

It’s not the Rocky Mountain Institute, which whereas traditionally very influential and does good work at this time, doesn’t peer evaluation its publications and isn’t a governmental establishment with expectations of the best high quality and self-discipline. I just lately revealed a broad evaluation of that group’s current failures on hydrogen for power vectors, discovering assumption after assumption that was not supportable by empirical actuality. RMI, whereas influential, isn’t an arm of presidency or an instructional group.

It’s not the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation, a company based to determine what would work and what wouldn’t, however which grew to become pot-committed to hydrogen for transportation previously few years and warped actuality to attempt to make the economics work after they don’t, committing apparent error after error. I began taking a look at them as a consequence of an clearly fatally flawed trucking complete value of possession report which they’ve subsequently quietly utterly modified. Then I appeared and revealed on their equally flawed and error crammed publications on maritime delivery and aviation. That group is an NGO funded by effectively that means and wealthy donors within the USA and likewise doesn’t do exterior peer evaluation. And it’s not offering direct coverage steering to the US Congress.

The JRC is way more just like the PIK Potsdam Institute for Local weather Affect Analysis, which was funded a long time in the past by two ranges of German authorities to determine what was occurring and what to do about it, has about 400 workers, maintains two main fashions, REMIND and LIME-EU, which it and others use to mannequin options for power and decarbonization in Europe, and publishes peer-reviewed materials in good journals. Sadly, their most up-to-date publication managed to get via all the high quality filters with obvious errors within the underlying assumptions. LIMES-EU has €1.67 per kilogram inexperienced hydrogen finish shopper costs for power turbines baked in. REMIND has €2 per kilogram inexperienced hydrogen finish shopper costs for trade and €3.50 for transportation and enterprise finish use circumstances.

These are empirically and theoretically unsupportable costs. There isn’t a means for finish shopper costs of hydrogen to be that low after manufacturing, storage, compression / liquification, distribution, pumping, and income alongside the worth chain. Assumptions claimed by the paper of 75% of common EU industrial costs for electrical energy alone would have resulted in €8.80 per kilogram only for electrical energy prices, with nothing else included. I revealed my evaluation of that research just lately as effectively and have really useful that PIK repair the underlying hydrogen value numbers, rerun the mannequin, and retract the current report. Additional, this calls into query the standard of all current PIK publications which depend upon LIMES-EU and REMIND mannequin outputs and evaluate hydrogen to different power pathways.

After publication of the PIK research evaluation, a Swedish researcher whose research on complete value of possession of European street freight trucking decarbonization I’m helping with, requested my opinion of the JRC’s 2022 publication, Evaluation of hydrogen supply choices. I dug via that this morning, and I’m deeply dismayed at what I discovered within the underpinnings. This research is as problematic because the PIK’s, and each are governmentally funded, unbiased, academically rigorous analysis organizations whose output is handled as authoritative gold in Europe.

What Was The JRC Examine About?

Let’s body the research.

To implement the European Hydrogen Technique it is very important perceive whether or not the transport of hydrogen is value efficient, or whether or not hydrogen needs to be produced the place it’s used. If transporting hydrogen is sensible, a second open query is how lengthy the transport route needs to be for the price of the hydrogen to nonetheless be aggressive with regionally produced hydrogen. 

To date, so good. The primary query is an effective one. Can inexperienced hydrogen be made in northern Africa or Ukraine and be transported to western Europe economically? After which, in that case, which transportation pathways are most economical?

If the report had answered the primary query actually, I wouldn’t be scripting this evaluation. Sadly, the authors cooked the books to reach at low cost delivered hydrogen. Having reviewed their tutorial {and professional} backgrounds, I can see no means during which they didn’t know that they had been creating deeply unrealistic outcomes. Why they did so is unclear to me as I don’t know them and I don’t know the JRC, so it’s totally doable that they had been extremely pressured to get optimistic outcomes for supply of hydrogen, and so modified underlying assumptions till the tip worth factors had been satisfactory. Or it’s doable that, just like the ICCT researchers, they fell right into a bubble of inside bias echoing till they actually believed what they professionally are certified to know is nonsense appeared lifelike.

I make no judgements besides that the ultimate report is fatally flawed and that no insurance policies or methods needs to be based mostly on it.

So, what did the authors do proper? First, they did create a price mannequin for 2 main eventualities and 4 main supply choices. Situation A was supply of hydrogen by transmission pipeline or ship 2,500 kilometers to main industrial customers. Situation B was to take the hydrogen from the tip of the pipeline and to distribute it to 270 hydrogen refueling stations throughout Europe.

They created high and low prices eventualities and the abstract was the place my radar began sending off alarms.

(1) Low worth (Lo), with a manufacturing website electrical energy value of EUR 10/MWh and a consumption website electrical energy value of EUR 50/MWh; (2) Excessive worth (Hello), with a manufacturing website electrical energy value of EUR 50/MWh and a consumption website electrical energy value of EUR 130/MWh. For case A (industrial use of hydrogen), waste warmth at 300°C can be assumed to be accessible, at a price of EUR 20/MWh. […]

For Lo the estimated hydrogen value is EUR 1.5/kg H2, whereas in Hello it’s EUR 3.5/kg H2

The low worth state of affairs assumes electrical energy shall be accessible for €0.01 per kWh from renewables in Africa or Ukraine and European customers will get industrial charges of electrical energy at €0.05 per kW. Neither of those numbers is remotely credible. The excessive value numbers for hydrogen manufacturing in distant areas of €0.05 per kW is a reputable quantity, however the €0.13 per kW is once more not credible. The common worth of commercial electrical energy in Europe is €0.21 to €0.24, as I discovered when trying on the ICCT materials in late 2023.

The researchers assert that they’re utilizing Germany’s industrial electrical energy charges, however Statista makes clear that Germany hasn’t had charges that low since 2010. In different phrases, even the excessive worth state of affairs is making unsupportable value claims, and the low worth state of affairs is assuming that the legal guidelines of physics and economics not apply.

A ebook I’ve been recommending is Escape from Mannequin Land: How Mathematical Fashions Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It by Erica Thomson. These outcomes scent like a sample Thomson describes, “We’ve to realize this worth level, so what unrealistic assumptions are required within the mannequin to ship that” with out intervention of human judgement about lifelike outcomes. That is completely different than what seems to be the case with the PIK researchers, the place reverence of a trusted mannequin precluded skepticism of validation of outcomes, once more a failure of human judgement and professionalism.

However that was solely the abstract and one clear indicator of an issue. The meat of the issues surfaces within the detailed report and its assumptions.

Hydrogen Will Be A lot Extra Costly To Manufacture Than JRC Asserts

Let’s pull aside the assumptions underlying the research, all from the lengthy report which most policymakers won’t learn and even fewer have the competence to evaluate.

The electrolysers are assumed to be working at 35% capability

That’s lifelike in a distant space the place wind or photo voltaic devoted to hydrogen technology are constructed, however they assert that they will be operating alkaline electrolyzers like that, when alkaline electrolyzers simply don’t flip on and off simply or effectively. Even PEM electrolyzers are discovering it very troublesome to take care of intermittency in the true world versus Mannequin Land.

They take the cheaper alkaline and costlier PEM electrolyzers and common the price of manufacturing, though their assumptions preclude using alkaline electrolyzers. That’s one other thumb on the size of low prices. Given the lengthy background of the research authors in hydrogen, that is onerous to ascribe to a easy mistake.

Then the true meat begins to reach in Annex 2 p 101 of the lengthy report. They assert electrolyzer prices for PEM at €500 per kW of electrolyzer capability when 2024 prices are US$800 per kW per per the Worldwide Vitality Company’s current e-fuels report. Alkaline is at €400 which is shut sufficient to the IEA’s US$400. So as soon as once more, less expensive electrolyzers of the precise kind really required for the intermittency. They assert that these are 2030 costs and so are asserting nearly 40% value takeout in solely eight years on a product which has been manufactured for many years.

Artificially low cost electrolyzers is one other thumb on the size for hydrogen.

However there’s no stability of plant. Traditionally, I’ve tended to make use of 1:1 for electrolyzer and stability of plant elements for water administration, dehumidification, purification, and the like, for instance in my value work-up of the deserted Norwegian Equinor-Air Liquide liquid hydrogen delivery gas plant. Paul Martin, an expert chemical engineer who has labored with hydrogen for many years, a designer of modular chemical engineering vegetation and a co-founder of the Hydrogen Science Coalition has traditionally used 1:1 prices as effectively.

As electrolyzers have dropped in worth, stability of plant has not and gained’t. The opposite 27 or so elements in an industrial hydrogen manufacturing facility are commoditized industrial items which are already on the flat backside of the expertise curve sigmoid. Consequently, the current IEA report places PEM at $2,000 with stability of plant and alkaline at $1,700 with stability of plant. That is three to 4 occasions extra capital expenditure than the JRC report assumes, and that capital expenditure should be amortized throughout each kilogram of hydrogen.

A utilization issue of 35% for $2,000 per kW stability of plant for the required PEM electrolysis signifies that they’re understating capital prices per kg by greater than an element of 4.

Additional, they assert an amortization interval of 20 years. Nonetheless, electrolyzers solely final a decade earlier than requiring alternative, so this amortization interval is unsupportable in actuality. That’s one other issue of two discount on the capital prices facet per kilogram of hydrogen. I used the 10-year determine in my evaluation of an best possible case hydrogen manufacturing alternative, in Quebec in Canada utilizing their low industrial charges for energy and demand with 95% utilization and alkaline electrolyzers to reach at hydrogen numbers that may allow economically viable manufacturing of inexperienced ammonia for fertilizer. Even that required kicking cryptocurrency miners off of the grid to liberate their energy demand, as new electrical energy provides are double the price of current provide.

After which there are their assumptions in Annex 2 on p 102 about compressors. They’re asserting capex of €170 to 250 million for case A for compressors and upkeep prices of €1,900 to 2,700 thousand for annual upkeep. That’s 1% of capex for annual upkeep of the compressors. For Case B, the numbers are €17 to 25 million capex and €200 to 280 upkeep, once more a ratio of 1%.

Nonetheless, compressors are the one main failing elements in hydrogen power pathways. As a part of the Swedish research I’m helping with, I appeared on the upkeep historical past of California’s hydrogen refueling stations. I took the final six months of the six years, post-COVID, when utilization was highest, after lemons would have been eliminated and when upkeep could be anticipated to be optimized.

The statistics confirmed that upkeep prices had been 30% of capex yearly if extrapolated to focus on kilograms per day, that hydrogen refueling stations had been being fastened 20% extra hours than they had been really pumping hydrogen, and that compressors had been the reason for over 50% of all upkeep points. I revealed my evaluation of this a number of weeks in the past, however the information was accessible earlier than the JRC report was revealed.

Additional, discussions with an expert who has been engaged in each compressed pure fuel and hydrogen ventures confirmed that compressor failures are the largest downside throughout the area. This 2016 US Nationwide Renewable Vitality Lab research discovered a imply time between failures of solely 49 days for a 400 bar compressor.

Complete value of possession assessments for hydrogen refueling stations have tended to make use of unrealistically low 3% to 4% of capex as the upkeep value per yr for the stations and compressors are the dominant supply of failure. An expert contact shared with me {that a} credible refueling vendor for 350 bar refueling methods informed him to make use of 10% of capex because the annual value in enterprise circumstances, a significant purpose why he didn’t proceed with hydrogen automobiles for the appliance in query.

There may be zero empirical proof which helps a 1% of capex upkeep fee. At minimal, a ten% of capex for upkeep annual value is defensible and solely simply. That is an order of magnitude out when it comes to low-balling prices.

And as soon as once more, the researchers engaged on this research had been long run hydrogen professionals and in a single case had been accountable previously for operation, upkeep and analysis of hydrogen manufacturing, storage and end-use methods. It’s inconceivable that they thought 1% of capex for upkeep was a reputable quantity.

With the ten% of capex upkeep figures to exchange particularly seals, the compressors are anticipated to have 20-year life spans because the JRC research assumes, but it surely’s unclear if that is an empirically supportable quantity. It’s extra supportable than compressors, so I’ll take into account it at the least defensible, not like the opposite assumptions.

Are they referencing exterior information and research which help these very, very low value selections? No, the tables are rife with “Personal assumption,” “Personal calculation,” or no feedback or sources in any respect.

A way more lifelike hydrogen manufacturing and transportation research was carried out in 2022, Figuring out the Manufacturing and Transport Price for H2 on a World Scale, by researchers at Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. What did they conclude for northern Africa manufacturing prices?

The manufacturing value ranges from 6.7—11.4 €/kg H2 (common normal deviation 0.37 €/kg H2), with the bottom value areas being northern Africa and the Center East (7.0—7.5 €/kg)

Notice the ranges and error assertions, issues utterly lacking from the JRC research which makes it seem that grime low cost hydrogen is assured.

After I asserted at first of this piece that the authors of the research cooked the books, it’s clearly obvious from each the deeply unrealistic outcomes, but additionally the clear low-balling of value level after value level when trade information {and professional} expertise ought to have made it apparent that the outcomes and prices had been unsupportable.

That is clearly a case the place the researchers or their group wanted to reach at a selected worth level for delivered hydrogen, created what seems to be an nearly full and helpful mannequin, after which adjusted assumed prices downward time after time till they arrived at what they felt had been acceptable prices.

There isn’t a world during which inexperienced hydrogen will value €1.5 /kg H2 to fabricate. The €3.5/kg H2 just isn’t supportable both, as to get prices right down to this degree with 35% utilization they needed to remove stability of plant, make PEM electrolyzers a lot inexpensive, common the fee throughout alkaline electrolyzers which couldn’t be used, amortize the electrolyzers over double their lifespan, after which slash compressor annual upkeep prices by an element of ten.

Transportation Prices Are A lot Decrease Than IEA & DOE Research

Is there the rest? Sure, to make any of this work they needed to assume that salt caverns might be constructed each on the level of producing the hydrogen and on the finish of the pipeline in Europe. They admit that this won’t be really doable given the fundamentals of geography the place huge salt deposits aren’t uniformly distributed, however they as soon as once more made the most affordable doable selection for hydrogen and used that in all of their finish outcomes.

For vehicles, they assumed 500 bar compression, double the traditional US restrict of liquid hydrogen. Exceptions are permitted at as much as 500 bar, however not as the usual for all vehicles. However even at these ranges, the US DOE finds that trucking both liquid or compressed hydrogen could be very costly.

For liquid tanker-based stations, supply prices are calculated to be roughly $11/kg at 450 kg/day and projected to be roughly $8/kg at 1,000 kg/day stations. For tube-trailer gaseous stations, supply prices are projected to be $9.50/kg and $8/kg at 450 kg/day and 1,000 kg/day stations, respectively (2016$)

At no level wherever within the JRC report did the authors spell out the price of trucking hydrogen to hydrogen refueling stations in €/kg delivered, one of many key transport eventualities within the research. This is likely to be an oversight, however given the large thumbs on the scales for hydrogen found to date, it’d very effectively have been deliberately eliminated or by no means added as a result of it might name into query the complete premise of the research.

Their pipeline assumptions are questionable as effectively.

For newly constructed pipelines, relying on measurement and the state of affairs thought of, they vary from 1.4 to three.4 M€/km. If pure fuel pipelines are repurposed, the prices can drop right down to between 0.2 and 0.6 M€/km

This doesn’t align with current German research that present that whereas pure fuel pipelines might be repurposed, they should be run at significantly decrease pressures and volumes to keep away from points. Paul Martin known as that out in an evaluation which confirmed clearly that the report’s summaries had been equally cooked to indicate very optimistic outcomes.

And the pipelines outcomes don’t align with IEA research on pipeline prices, one thing the JCR researchers stated themselves.

The [IEA] value for hydrogen distribution by pipeline was given as USD 2 / kg H2 for a distance of three 000 km, which is way increased than the prices assumed in our research (< EUR 1/kg H2, see Determine 8).

In reality, their reference worth for delivering hydrogen by way of pipeline was as little as €0.55 per kg, effectively underneath a 3rd of the IEA’s calculations. As a substitute of leaning into this, they clarify it away with anticipated decrease prices of issues in 2030 and the assertion that unspoken low expertise readiness degree merchandise would come alongside. Just a few thousand kilometers of hydrogen pipelines exist, the physics are effectively understood and the applied sciences in use aren’t going to leap into the long run. That is an unsupportable assertion as effectively.

That is a part of the place the compressor upkeep issues are available, as hydrogen pipelines require a variety of them operating at a lot increased pressures than pure fuel pipelines 24/7/365. As a reminder, the DOE discovered that hydrogen compressors fail each 49 days on common.

Given how the research made assumption after assumption in favor of hydrogen, it’s unsurprising that they discover that their supply value assumptions are radically decrease as effectively.

Again to the opposite German report from 2022. What does it say for the price of hydrogen pipelines with lifelike assumptions?

the pipeline value of 1.4/kg H₂ to move H₂ from Sharm El-Sheikh to Cologne

Sure, the research discovered 2.5 occasions increased prices for pipelines from northern Africa than the JRC research did.

What would the truth of hydrogen manufactured in Africa for supply by pipeline to Europe be? Optimizing manufacturing might deliver the worth level right down to €5 / kg. The IEA and different research pipeline numbers are way more credible than the JRC numbers, so one other €1.50 / kg could be required for transmission.

The research additionally doesn’t present any prices of transportation of hydrogen by distribution pipeline, simply transmission pipeline prices. On the finish of the transmission pipeline there’s an enormous salt cavern and hydrogen needs to be compressed into it. Then it needs to be extracted and compressed to the correct degree for distribution and fed into what could be a set of a lot smaller pipelines. The research is silent on the price of this course of in any €/kg mannequin. Let’s be beneficiant and assume one other €1 / kg.

That may put the extra lifelike value of hydrogen delivered to industrial amenities at €7.50 / kg with none income or value of capital or within the worth vary that Boston Consulting Group believes that inexperienced hydrogen is likely to be manufactured in Europe with inexperienced PPAs that respect additionality, locality, and temporality necessities. If delivered to truck stops, it might value within the order of €14 / MWh earlier than income.

This compares to the second German research’s worth level of €8.4 /kg for hydrogen transmitted — however not distributed, taxed or profited off — to Cologne.

For liquid natural hydrogen carriers, a contender for longer distance delivery, in addition they make a startling assumption. To make the fee case work, they assume:

For Case A (industrial use of hydrogen), it’s assumed that within the supply website there may be the choice to supply waste warmth at 300°C, since in one of these industrial setting waste warmth could also be accessible. Data on the price of waste warmth just isn’t available, so the worth was set to a price significantly decrease than that of warmth supplied by NG, at a worth of EUR 20/MWh.

For these unfamiliar with LOHCs, they launch important warmth power of their manufacturing and require it in extraction of the hydrogen, roughly a 3rd of the power as within the hydrogen or in the identical vary as liquification. That warmth should be supplied and the research didn’t assume electrical energy because the supply, which shall be costlier than pure fuel, however that they’d be capable of get warmth very cheaply on the finish.

Sure, they assume 300° C waste warmth shall be accessible, that there shall be no different financial makes use of for it and that they’ll be capable of get it actually, actually cheaply, as a result of that’s the belief that’s required to reach on the per kg hydrogen worth level they want for any of this to make sense. That’s not a supportable assumption.

Even so, their unrealistically low quantity for delivery hydrogen in LOHC kind, solely €3 per kg, wasn’t the most affordable possibility and so was dominated out.. As with all of their outcomes, their value level is simply not plausible.

For liquified hydrogen, the purported winner of the delivery mannequin for transportation of hydrogen, they make extra startling assumptions.

Whereas perfect liquefaction work is under 14.4 MJ/kg H2 [54], the power requirement of present liquefaction vegetation is within the order of 36-43 MJ/kg H2 [55]. It’s anticipated that with bigger scale vegetation (>50 tonnes/day), the ability necessities might be decreased by as much as 50% (18-22 MJ/kg H2) [55]

The world has been liquifying hydrogen for many years for area applications and a number of industrial use circumstances. Assuming that the power prices to liquify hydrogen right down to a cyrofluid at 20° above absolute zero would drop by 50% by 2030, the timeframe said within the underlying lengthy report however neither of the 2 summaries, is a fantastical notion and an unsupportable assumption.

With extra lifelike however nonetheless frankly optimistic assumptions, I labored up a price case for liquid hydrogen delivery from Namibia in 2022 and located that the almost certainly value per unit of power delivered of liquid hydrogen by way of delivery could be ten occasions that of liquid pure fuel, the costliest at the moment imported type of power economies use at this time. That’s the truth of importing liquid hydrogen.

What would a policymaker who learn the coverage temporary assume? That for distance of 10,000 km, it might be doable for finish customers to buy hydrogen delivered by way of liquid hydrogen delivery for maybe €4.50 / kg, assuming that they added up the numbers. As with pipelines, the truth is far increased.

I additionally did the value workup for importing ammonia as an power provider just lately and as soon as once more, actual prices could be a lot increased than JRC’s very optimistic ones. Per the evaluation for Japan’s meant use to displace coal in thermal technology items, the best possible doable case state of affairs with the most affordable doable actual world hydrogen could be 9 occasions the fee per kWh of imported coal.

To be clear, in my assessments I’m regularly giving hydrogen advantages of the doubt as an power provider and discovering very excessive prices. For JRC’s report back to get underneath the best possible case eventualities I’ve labored up, they need to be inventing deeply unrealistic numbers throughout a number of resolution units.

What Would Policymakers Take Away From The JRC report?

As all the time, hydrogen might be inexperienced however it may’t be low cost, however what would individuals really take away from this report?

In the event that they solely learn the splash web page, as most would, they’d see zero numbers and clear assertions that transporting hydrogen lengthy distances could be economically viable. This isn’t good coverage steering.

For distances appropriate with the European territory, compressed and liquefied hydrogen options, and particularly compressed hydrogen pipelines, provide decrease prices than chemical carriers do. The repurposing of current pure fuel pipelines for hydrogen use is predicted to considerably decrease the supply value, making the pipeline possibility much more aggressive sooner or later. 

In the event that they solely learn the Science for Coverage Transient, which might be all of the overwhelming majority of policymakers would do, they’d see some very low numbers in textual content and in a graph.

For Lo the estimated hydrogen value is EUR 1.5/kg H2, whereas in Hello it’s EUR 3.5/kg H2.

Most could be left assuming that the low worth of round €2 / kg is probably going and most would probably suppose the mixed worth could be someplace within the center, round €3 / kg. Most could be left with the belief that this was the fee to get hydrogen to finish customers.

Just about no policymakers will ever take a look at the lengthy report and its tables and tables of assumptions or have the competence to evaluate the standard of these assumptions.

The research first radically diminishes the prices of each manufacturing and delivery hydrogen utilizing assumptions with giant error bars, presents numbers which are effectively under lifelike numbers with none error bars, then doesn’t inform policymakers that the numbers are extremely weak based mostly on absurdly optimistic assumptions and disagree utterly with publicly accessible information together with the IEA, the US DOE and different credible peer reviewed research.

The 2 summaries clearly make it seem as if low cost hydrogen imports from 1000’s of kilometers away is economically viable. That’s the basic message coverage makers could be left with.

Let’s End On A Humorous Notice

There was one factor that didn’t depress me about this fatally flawed research. On web page 30 of the lengthy report concerning delivering hydrogen by modes aside from pipeline they are saying:

Biodiesel is the gas selection for ships, diesel trains, and vehicles.

They will ship inexperienced hydrogen 2,500 km to 270 hydrogen refueling stations to place in heavy items automobiles as a result of it’s required, however the complete provide chain for delivering it is going to be biodiesel as a result of that’s an affordable, low value, low-GHG possibility. The cognitive dissonance as they wrote this will need to have break up their skulls.

After I learn that it was 5 minutes earlier than I might deliver myself to proceed my evaluation. They actually know and asserted the true reply for transportation that may’t straight electrify, used it of their assumptions, after which pretended it wasn’t related to the findings of the report.

Equally, all through the report they use electrical energy for compression, heating, transportation, and the whole lot else, however assert that hydrogen is required for power within the EU. It’s painful to learn, for essentially the most half.