ICCT’s Hydrogen For Aviation Perspective Is Deeply Incorrect As Properly

Join each day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!

The Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation (ICCT) is a US-headquartered suppose tank with workplaces globally. It’s been round since 2001. It was based with noble beliefs and funding from progressive and climate-focused foundations together with the Hewlett and Packard household foundations and the Power Basis. It’s mission and imaginative and prescient is to supply clear coverage steerage primarily based on proof to extra quickly deal with local weather change.

But it surely’s gone astray by some means relating to hydrogen. This got here to my consideration after they printed a fatally flawed truck transportation whole price of possession research that included the outstanding conclusions that hydrogen trucking would have vitality prices solely barely greater than battery electrical trucking, that by 2030 it might be price aggressive with diesel and that by 2010, hydrogen trucking can be solely 10% dearer than battery electrical choices. The lead interactive graphic and conclusions have been clearly mistaken at a look, as many transportation specialists identified.

They’d put a number of thumbs on the size for hydrogen together with massive subsidies, cheaper electrical energy, no revenue necessities and extra, and additional had scattered these thumbs throughout three completely different research, making it tough to evaluate how they’d gone so mistaken. That it was mistaken ought to have been obvious at a look to the 2 authors and a number of ICCT reviewers, but it handed into public file. Sturdy criticism, together with by me, led to them rerunning the mannequin and quietly altering the infographic and conclusions with out really acknowledging that they’d carried out so and that their preliminary publication was fully mistaken, merely stating that there had been curiosity they usually had added an addendum.

A month after the trucking report, they printed an equally odd report on maritime decarbonization with hydrogen and sails. Evaluation of that research discovered that it had modeled inflexible sails on ship sorts the place they clearly weren’t viable, however that wasn’t the most important problem. As soon as once more, hydrogen reared its molecular head. The prices of liquid hydrogen delivery used a per ton charge for hydrogen that was solely the price of electrolyzing it with none compression, distribution or liquification prices, or as soon as once more any income for anybody within the provide chain. This was clearly said within the doc they referenced, and the worth level of $4.30 per kilogram was clearly unburdened with the greater than doubling that a good remotely correct price accounting would supply. That price level was clearly low regardless, because it ignored steadiness of plant, and had decrease costs for electrical energy than US industrial charges.

But it surely received worse. The reference doc in query, one other ICCT paper entitled Present and future price of e-kerosene in the USA and Europe from March of 2022, had future hydrogen manufacturing prices that have been each terribly low and unsupported by the info that ought to have made them up. In 2030, they have been asserting a worth level that equated to 100% effectivity for manufacturing hydrogen from electrical energy. In 2040, the hydrogen worth level made it clear that 10% of the vitality within the hydrogen was coming totally free via unspoken means. In 2050, it was 50% of the vitality, with a per kilogram worth level of producing of solely $1.6 per kilogram.

Whereas there are illusions that this is likely to be doable, they rely upon free electrical energy and successfully free electrolyzers and plant tools, neither of which have been referenced within the research, or on very giant subsidies, which as soon as once more weren’t included within the supporting materials. The US IRA will not be talked about within the report. It may have been an artifact of the discounted money circulation mannequin they use, besides that the price of electrical energy barely dropped, whereas the price of hydrogen plummeted, they usually have been, to be clear, electrolysing water to make hydrogen utilizing electrical energy.

So the maritime decarbonization materials that the ICCT is publishing is deeply flawed in relation to hydrogen pathway prices as nicely. And after we say e-kerosene, what that interprets to is aviation gas. Is that this one report an aberration from the ICCT on the usage of hydrogen and artificial fuels comprised of it? Sadly, no.

Let’s end off with the 2022 e-kerosene report earlier than transferring on. There are another odd assumptions in it. They cite the supply of $40 per ton CO2 as both flue carbon seize or direct air seize, each of which have seize prices double that worth level within the case of flues and 10 to 25 instances within the case of direct air seize. They embrace no distribution prices for CO2 which are obvious both, and CO2 is a cumbersome fuel that’s costly to ship, with truck delivered prices usually within the $100 per ton vary even when the supply is geological shops of CO2. Piping CO2 requires changing it to dense or supercritical phases and is extremely energetically costly as nicely. The associated fee level of CO2 is unsupportable, in different phrases, one other thumb on the size for e-kerosene.

This price work up is the best possible case for manufacturing artificial kerosene utilizing direct air seize, electrolyzed hydrogen with filth low cost low-carbon BC industrial electrical energy charges and the identical course of that the ICCT paper makes use of. I labored this evaluation up in 2019 as a part of my collection on Carbon Engineering, one of many many carbon engineering applied sciences I’ve assessed deeply.

You’ll word that with each advantage of the doubt given to Carbon Engineering’s resolution, the worth level for CO2 per ton is sort of thrice that utilized by the ICCT paper. Additionally as a word, the worth level for electrolyzed hydrogen is from a US research that steered it would get as little as $5 per ton, which continues to be very optimistic and as soon as once more helpful to the e-kerosene price case. A sensible price of hydrogen manufacturing at scale is more likely to be within the $6-$8 per kilogram vary with steadiness of plant, and as you’ll additionally word, the price of hydrogen is 50% of the price of e-kerosene.

At that, on this best possible case situation with an unrealistic assumption of zero effectivity losses alongside the chemical processing journey, the associated fee per ton of e-kerosene was near $1,600 USD. Even with artificially low CO2 and hydrogen prices and 100% environment friendly chemical engineering, simply the price of manufacturing with no distribution prices or income within the provide chain was 2.3 instances larger than the present price of Jet A. Precise adders would make it 4 instances the associated fee.

The ICCT research makes some prone to be optimistic assumptions about electrolyzer effectivity features and price decreases, however as soon as once more has no steadiness of plant. The belief is that it’s an built-in hydrogen electrolysis to chemical course of manufacturing plant, and that’s a great one, however there’s nonetheless steadiness of plant together with dehydration, and the determine of $1.6 per kilogram continues to be unsupportable. And also you gained’t be getting electrolysis, CO2 flue seize and kerosene manufacturing all in the identical place.

Unsurprisingly, they discover that e-kerosene in 2050 can be about $1,100 per ton, a deeply unrealistic price level. Additionally unsurprisingly, all of those thumbs on the size result in e-kerosene being very near price aggressive with biofuels and Jet A in 2050, a very unrealistic end result.

Is that this the one downside with ICCT’s aviation-related research? No, however the place did the issue begin? Let’s return to a pair of 2018 ICCT papers, The price of supporting various jet fuels within the European Union. and Decarbonization Potential of Electrofuels within the European Union. As soon as once more artificial kerosene with electrolysed hydrogen is being assessed in opposition to different options. These research seem like pretty rigorous and make word that synthesized paraffin worth factors would require large use of artificial diesel on roads in addition to very excessive subsidies with a view to obtain decrease prices. Electrified aviation isn’t talked about, which might be cheap in 2018 as a result of the scope is jet fuels.

Different more moderen ICCT papers share a propensity to imagine that projections of large progress of civil passenger miles would proceed at 4.5% per 12 months, aligned with IATA and main aerospace corporations like Boeing. A 2021 paper excludes the short- and mid-term impacts of COVID-19 from its projections. As passenger aviation is comparatively flat within the developed world and big diversion of potential progress to high-speed rail is happening in China particularly, with a lot slower progress charges in different creating international locations, I think about these projections and the gas calls for primarily based on them to be arduous to contemplate cheap, however whereas excessive, are no less than defensible.

My projections for progress, iterated after discussions with worldwide aviation demand projection specialists, is far more gradual. It contains COVID-19’s short- and medium-term impacts, together with vital lack of enterprise journey as consultants and deal makers do far more work remotely. It contains the flattening of inhabitants progress globally, with the newest projections of peak inhabitants as early as 2050 and solely as late as 2080 within the newest UN projections. It contains each the large diversion of potential flight demand to high-speed rail in Asia and to autonomous over evening, electrical automobile journeys in lots of components of the world.

Notably, it contains diversion of very giant percentages of shorter flights to battery electrical air journey, one thing which will increase till in roughly 2070 I’ve the optimistic perspective that new battery chemistries will allow transoceanic flights. Even earlier than then, within the late 2030s, silicon chemistries which have began commercializing and bettering have already got a theoretical peak vitality density enough for 3,000 kilometer flights, enough for the overwhelming majority of within-continent air journey.

Lastly, it respects the essential economics of accelerating aviation gas prices. Direct battery electrical will probably be cheaper per passenger mile for gas and upkeep, and rising autonomous flight, initially for big cargo and utility unmanned aerial autos over low-risk flight paths, will cut back direct pilot labor prices for shorter flights. Nevertheless, neither of those are going to be accessible to longer passenger jet flights as price discount levers seemingly till nearer to 2050. As such, longer haul aviation will turn into dearer, as no jet gas pathway is cheaper than turning geological hydrogen carbons into ahead motion whereas utilizing the environment as an open sewer. The rise in jet gas prices is one thing the ICCT’s work respects in precept, however not in apply. They don’t regulate demand downward for improve ticket prices, however go away the 4.5% demand projections alone.

Having carried out the mathematics on hydrogen and artificial fuels myself a number of instances, I exclude them from the working just because they gained’t be economically aggressive. The decline in demand is enough that second-generation sustainable aviation biofuels from waste biomass can simply present the availability for all aviation that doesn’t electrify via 2050. Additional, these biofuels divert biomass which might typically flip into methane via anaerobic decomposition to far more local weather pleasant pathways resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. All of these provide chains and industrial processes will electrify in my outlook as nicely, resulting in arguably unfavourable carbon, however in my projections carbon-neutral aviation.

There’s way over sufficient waste biomass for the aim. I’ve carried out a survey and evaluation of a lot of the size of provide and applied sciences, from stalk cellulosic to meals waste to livestock dung, and there are enough factors within the provide within the provide and waste chains the place there’s sufficient biomass that it’s handy for automated assortment and processing. I’ve additionally assessed meals competitors and it’s extra hysteria than actuality. We waste 2.5 billion tons of meals yearly, and the comparatively tiny quantity of vitality crops we develop doesn’t start to place a dent in that. Meals shortage is an financial, distribution and coverage failure, not a biofuels issues.

The excellent news is that a lot of the ICCT aviation-related evaluation does give attention to sustainable aviation biofuels. The unhealthy information is that as a result of they divert no aviation to electrification and have outsized progress projections, they assert of their reviews that there’s inadequate biomass for the demand. The 2021 report An evaluation of the coverage choices for driving sustainable aviation fuels within the European Union demonstrates these challenges with ICCT evaluation. Whereas good, it begins from a foul framing of demand assumptions and ignores the transformation that electrification will convey to aviation.

It’s not just like the ICCT’s bigger crew ignores electrification of aviation fully. The report Efficiency Evaluation of Regional Electrical Plane from 2022 is on the topic, however has failings. The primary is that it assumes very, very gradual enhancements to low ranges in battery vitality density, 300 Wh/kg in 2030 and 500 Wh/kg in 2050. That is amusing just because CATL launched a 500 Wh/kg aviation manufacturing battery in 2023, 27 years sooner than ICCT’s timeline. Equally, there are silicon anode battery chemistries accessible from 4 organizations on a few continents that are in that vary as nicely, with theoretical maximums of 5 instances that doable by 2040.

Additional, whereas nodding at hybrid fashions, the ICCT vary and passenger capability evaluation ignores them. Apparent fashions for hybrid airplanes the place reserve and divert are managed by SAF mills are already being constructed and demonstrated. Ampaire has simply accomplished a 12 hour demonstration flight protecting 2,220 kilometers with its hybrid drive practice. I’ve spoken to aerospace engineers on a number of continents about battery electrical and hybrid aerospace fashions and am snug that present applied sciences permit for much longer distances and passenger numbers than the ICCT report concludes.

Additional, having been on the advisory board of a battery electrochemistry agency and spoken to electrochemists and battery specialists globally, I’m snug that the ICCT is solely mistaken relating to its printed opinions on the potential for each pure battery electrical and hybrid fashions. Proper now as much as 100 passenger turboprop flights of 300 kilometers with divert and reserve supplied by SAF biofuel hybrid fashions are fully technically doable. By 2040, my projection is 3,000 kilometers with silicon chemistries. And bear in mind, each battery substitute for each airplane will improve vary within the coming many years.

So the ICCT is successfully dismissive of battery electrical aviation, thinks that aviation demand goes to be vastly larger than will probably be even when they only used their very own projections within the easiest of weapons and butter financial fashions, and thinks consequently that there isn’t enough waste biomass for the remaining fuels. They’ve painted themselves right into a nook, and right here’s the place hydrogen and artificial fuels re-enter the equation.

Clearly in case you set up the situations that imply that there’s inadequate vitality from different sources, then it’s a must to discover methods to justify deeply costly and wasteful hydrogen and artificial gas pathways. That’s what seemingly led to the deeply mistaken headed report on e-kerosene with its $1.6 per kilogram hydrogen. That very low price of the first price driver is required for any of this to make any sense.

And it’s not alone. Clearly in the event that they’ve dismissed batteries and the sufficiency of biofuels, meaning they in all probability have to spend so much of time on direct use of hydrogen in aviation. And so they do.

Let’s begin with the fundamentals. Plane that use hydrogen straight aren’t going to be a factor, and it’s much more positive than for floor transportation the place each area of interest is already provably stuffed with batteries, grid-ties or hybrids of the 2. Hydrogen will at all times be dearer than SAF biofuels, so it gained’t have the ability to compete. Gaseous hydrogen has far too low an vitality density to be greater than a curiousity.

Liquid hydrogen requires placing globe-shaped extremely insulated tanks filled with far more costly cryogenic hydrogen at 20° above absolute zero contained in the fuselage with passengers. Hydrogen contained in the fuselage, whether or not gaseous or liquid, may have a powerful tendency to leak as a fuel with an explosive vary of 4% to 74% of inside cabin air and a spark level within the vary of primary electrical home equipment. Additional, it’s extremely reactive with electronics, requiring fully completely different electronics. The mix of utmost temperature ranges and inside cabin fuel signifies that liquid hydrogen isn’t certifiable for civilian aviation. There’s no solution to make something besides flying demise traps and civil aviation doesn’t permit these. Boil off of hydrogen in small tanks inside planes means that it’s going to lose vital vary with solely 1-2 hour waits on runways or circling. The previous signifies that comparatively regular delays would require returning to the terminal, recalculating gas necessities, refueling and leaving once more. Each minute of divert flying eats away at reserve considerably as nicely.

But it surely will get worse. Aviation gas is presently largely saved within the wings of airplanes as they’re suspended by the air and don’t affect most gross take off weight, a basic flight gas calculation. With heavy tanks and gas contained in the fuselage, vary plummets radically.

And it will get worse once more. If the tanks are in a slender physique airplane behind the airplane — the one probably configuration — and one requiring extending the airframe size for any cheap ratio of gas to passengers, then the steadiness of plane is radically altered. The gas weight is nicely behind the wings as an alternative of balanced via the middle of mass. That’s fully manageable for takeoff with model new plane, however the Boeing 737 Max debacle makes it clear that it’s not manageable simply by tweaking present airframes and letting avionics handle it.

But it surely’s fully not manageable over the course of the flight. Plane steadiness round middle of gravity is a rigorously managed course of, with recertification required for issues so simple as changing cargo maintain doorways. Baggage distribution and passenger distribution are rigorously assessed. Gasoline is managed to take care of the steadiness.

All that goes out the window when hydrogen is consumed throughout flight. Lots of or hundreds of kilograms of mass will disappear from the furthest a part of the airplane behind the wings, on the level the place the airplane’s middle of gravity will probably be most impacted by its removing. Liquid hydrogen has 2.8 instances the vitality density by mass as Jet A, however even within the smallest plane they mannequin, 1,190 kilograms of mass is for the hydrogen, and that’s going to vanish from the tail over the course of the flight. For anybody who hasn’t flown in a sparsely passengered turboprop not too long ago, they put equal numbers of passengers on the entrance and rear of plane for steadiness across the middle of gravity, and large people weight 100 kilograms. Having ten husky males disappear from the again of a 72-passenger airplane whereas nobody disappears from the entrance would trigger the airplane to enter a nosedive.

For the most important plane they mannequin, it’s 5,050 kilograms, a full 5 tons, the load of a full grown elephant.

Proponents of hydrogen plane by no means do imply gross takeoff weight calculations they usually by no means do middle of gravity transformation calculations in flight. Additional, they by no means trouble to have a look at certification necessities for civilian plane and decide what it could take to certify 20° Kelvin hydrogen subsequent to human beings inside a pressurized tube touring via the air.

Actually the ICCT whitepaper Efficiency Evaluation of Evolutionary Hydrogen-powered Plane from 2022 is silent on all three factors. Ought to it have been? After all not. A fast evaluation of the backgrounds of the first authors signifies that one is an precise aerospace engineer and one is a civil engineer who has been concerned in assessing decarbonizing aviation since 2008. These clearly apparent purple flags and operational nightmares are inside their educational and mental scope to acknowledge, but the report is totally silent on them at the same time as acknowledged dangers. Certification will get a slight point out in a footnote associated to engines, as if hydrogen contained in the fuselage and passenger security aren’t value contemplating.

Bizarrely, that paper additionally claims that inexperienced hydrogen can be cheaper than blue hydrogen. Whereas the latter if comprised of pure fuel won’t ever be cheaper than hydrogen with out carbon seize, there isn’t any credible evaluation that signifies inexperienced hydrogen will probably be cheaper, simply far more environmentally benign. The inexperienced H2 prices are from the identical 2022 ICCT paper that deeply lowballed inexperienced hydrogen by giving it subsidies, filth low cost electrical energy and no steadiness of plant, so there’s a chaotic attractor of hydrogen price failures. To be clear, the 2022 paper had plenty of nuance about what was and wasn’t inside scope that referencing papers clearly ignored.

The more moderen 2023 paper Efficiency Evaluation of Gasoline Cell Retrofit by one of many two authors of the hydrogen aviation paper simply mentioned has precisely the identical issues. Zero calculation of most gross takeoff weight implications of gas (and gas cells and heavy tanks) contained in the fuselage. Zero evaluation of shifts in middle of gravity as hydrogen is consumed. Zero consideration to certification necessities.

Having painted themselves right into a nook which requires hydrogen and e-fuels for decarbonization, the ICCT created an organizational setting the place they needed to discover some solution to price justify hydrogen and e-fuels. That ends in unnatural acts just like the unhealthy trucking whole price of possession research, the hardly and badly costed give attention to liquid hydrogen for delivery, and the complete vary of their current aviation focus. This led a few ICCT researchers who in 2018 had principally restated the apparent, that hydrogen and spinoff fuels have been too costly to conceivably be options, to publish in 2022 a flawed evaluation which mentioned that hydrogen can be price efficient underneath deeply unrealistic situations.

Then different ICCT researchers, additionally working inside this bubble the place hydrogen and its derivatives have been clearly important, cherry picked the most affordable, greatest case, most underneath loaded hydrogen prices from their papers and add different methods hydrogen might be even cheaper.

It’s been a slippery slope for the ICCT and its workers. Over 5 years they’ve devolved from a fairly rigorous analysis group to 1 greedy at hydrogen straws as a result of they received a bunch of basic stuff mistaken. They’re clearly predisposed to molecules for vitality throughout the group. They’re clearly predisposed to large progress of transportation passenger miles regardless of very apparent the reason why that’s not sensible and why the projections are unrealistic. They don’t get batteries and electrification. And consequently they vastly overstate molecules for vitality necessities after which discover that biofuels from waste biomass are inadequate. This ends in them requiring hydrogen and artificial fuels manufactured from it for transportation fuels regardless of their group understanding traditionally that they have been absurdly and uneconomically costly. After which they contort themselves to search out methods to justify hydrogen and their derivatives.

Till they confront this cognitive lure and overcome it, the probability than something that they publish is value taking a look at could be very low. Additionally, the organizations funding the ICCT aren’t attaining the targets that they need, speedy decarbonization of transportation. Fairly the alternative. The ICCT has stumbled backward into being a delayer of decarbonization in land, sea and air transportation.

A couple of phrases on credentials, authority and bias.

It’s fairly straightforward to search out causes to contemplate the ICCT’s publications extra credible than mine, and to contemplate my critique of the ICCT’s publications as slight. That might in all probability be a mistake, however it’s an comprehensible and forgivable one. Let’s discover this a bit.

On credentials, the ICCT researchers all have PhDs so far as I can inform, even when in a roundabout way related to their ICCT publications. I’ve a few years of undergraduate science and math, a computer systems and enterprise diploma and a bachelor of literature. It’s straightforward to imagine from that their publications and opinions are extra credible. I do the identical credibility calculus. That mentioned, not one of the analyses I do or the critiques I supply require PhD ranges of science or math. Every thing I level out is one thing {that a} first 12 months science and math and even grade 12 science and math pupil may work out. This isn’t rocket science. It’s primary stuff. Nobody who desires to verify the numbers or science requires a PhD to transform the fundamentals. A PhD extends human data, however not one of the ICCT’s analysis extends human data, it simply analyses what is understood. At greatest it’s Masters degree work. Frankly, a disciplined individual with a 100 IQ and the web may do what I do, albeit seemingly extra slowly. Does this imply I’m proper and they’re mistaken? After all not, however it does imply that their credentials are solely considerably related.

On authority, the researchers have a much bigger place to face and a lever longer than mine. They’re members of a Washington-headquartered, globally officed suppose tank that’s been round since 2001. I’m one man with my one-person suppose tank and consultancy. They write reviews with a number of authors and a number of reviewers. I write articles that get retracted or corrected after I make embarrassing errors. They’ve respectable budgets for formatting and graphics. I take advantage of Google Sheets charts and generative AI picture instruments. It’s fairly straightforward and never mistaken in any respect to imagine that ICCT reviews are extra authoritative than my work. I wouldn’t start to disagree. If readers select to lean on ICCT materials as an alternative of my assessments and critiques, that’s fully cheap. That doesn’t make them proper. The enchantment to false authority is likely to be a logical fallacy in both path.

On bias, neither the ICCT or I’ve a venal predisposition to fossil fuels and therefore hydrogen for vitality for these causes. We share a predisposition away from fossil fuels and for local weather motion. However the ICCT researchers are largely long-term transportation analysts, and that results in, primarily based on my targeted observations, a predisposition towards molecules for vitality. Generally, transportation sorts aren’t electrochemistry or battery sorts. They spent their formative educational {and professional} careers in an area the place molecules are burned for vitality and have a bias towards molecules consequently.

And the ICCT researchers are in a little bit of an organizational bubble. They reference every others’ work always, seemingly as a requirement pushed upon them by steerage and evaluate. It’s more durable to protect in opposition to group suppose or cherry choosing extensions to unnatural and unsupportable positions like those that they’ve printed on trucking, delivery and aviation. 

Does this imply that my independence is essentially much less biased? After all not. There are innumerable impartial cranks on the market who make it clear that iconoclastic independence isn’t remotely a precursor to rational, empirical evaluation. And it doesn’t make me resistant to the group suppose which has clearly caught the ICCT in its net. I’ve my very own networks of people that agree with me, even when the ties are extra ephemeral. I’m as topic to the challenges of affirmation bias and bubbles, just a bit much less so than than the ICCT workers.

And I’m topic to particular criticisms associated to bias. I’m or have been on the advisory boards of two electrified aviation begin ups. I’ve been a strategic advisor to a battery electrochemistry startup. It’s straightforward to level at these particulars and say I’m promoting a perspective. Besides, in fact, that I got here to my conclusions on batteries and aviation earlier than taking these positions. These positions have been supplied to me by deep professionals together with electrochemistry PhDs as a result of I’d carried out and printed the arduous evaluation work from the basics of science, math and economics, not as a result of I used to be prepared to pitch their perspective. I’ve turned down much more advisory roles than I’ve accepted. Does this make me an ideal and virtuous Spock-like creature? After all not. It simply counter balances an apparent criticism.

The final level on bias is expounded to framing. The researchers at ICCT have focus areas in transportation. A few of them are (unnecessarily) targeted on the price of hydrogen in its varied varieties. Others are targeted on maritime delivery. Others on trucking. Others on aviation. They’ve a framing downside which signifies that they generally tend to check a subset of potential choices and rely upon others for the mathematics associated to hydrogen. It’s considerably simpler for them to imagine different individuals’s numbers are appropriate as a result of they haven’t carried out the work themselves.

By comparability, I’ve a body which incorporates all the above, together with calculation of hydrogen manufacturing, distribution, compression and liquification. Which means I embrace ultimately extra of the choices, however it does imply that in relation to detailed analyses and simulation of slender lanes throughout the house, I’m prone to miss stuff. Attempting to know all of the fundamentals means I’m prone to miss salient particulars. I’ve labored via numerous that however don’t faux to know every little thing.

Each frames, slender and broad, are legitimate. Each have strengths. On this case, I believe the weaknesses of the ICCT researchers specialization has created vital issues. However they may equally argue that my lack of depth on particular fashions that they make use of results in me being incorrect. That a number of international hydrogen and transportation specialists appear to agree with me from my perspective doesn’t imply my perspective on their settlement is correct.

All of that mentioned, the funders, Board and government of the ICCT ought to be contemplating critically the info, logic and supporting materials I’ve introduced collectively in my critique, together with the publicly said help for it from international thought leaders. If I’m appropriate in my critique, that is an existential risk for the group and a failure to attain its targets.