EU JRC Places Heavy Thumbs On Scale So Delivered Inexperienced Hydrogen From Africa Will Be Low-cost

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

One other day, one other assessment 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 information service which employs scientists to hold out analysis in an effort to present impartial scientific recommendation and assist to European Union coverage.

Policymakers who learn the splash web page or coverage temporary can be left with the impression that inexperienced hydrogen may very well be manufactured and piped from Ukraine or northern Africa for a mixed price per kilogram of maybe €3. A detailed learn, using reasonable assumptions, and comparisons to way more credible experiences makes it clear that industrial hydrogen supply would price nearer to €8 / kg earlier than taxes or earnings and transportation hydrogen would price round €14 / kg earlier than taxes or earnings. The report’s summaries current solely the rosiest parts of a research which deliberately diminished major price 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 Examine To Different Analysis Organizations With Dangerous Hydrogen Research?

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

It’s not the Rocky Mountain Institute, which whereas traditionally very influential and does good work immediately, doesn’t peer assessment its publications and isn’t a governmental establishment with expectations of the very best high quality and self-discipline. I lately printed a broad evaluation of that group’s latest 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 educational group.

It’s not the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation, a company based to determine what would work and what wouldn’t, however which turned pot-committed to hydrogen for transportation prior to now few years and warped actuality to attempt to make the economics work after they don’t, committing apparent error after error. I began them as a result of an clearly fatally flawed trucking complete price of possession report which they’ve subsequently quietly fully modified. Then I seemed and printed on their equally flawed and error stuffed publications on maritime transport and aviation. That group is an NGO funded by properly that means and wealthy donors within the USA and likewise doesn’t do exterior peer assessment. And it’s not offering direct coverage steerage to the US Congress.

The JRC is way more just like the PIK Potsdam Institute for Local weather Impression 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 by the entire high quality filters with evident errors within the underlying assumptions. LIMES-EU has €1.67 per kilogram inexperienced hydrogen finish client costs for power mills baked in. REMIND has €2 per kilogram inexperienced hydrogen finish client costs for business and €3.50 for transportation and enterprise finish use instances.

These are empirically and theoretically unsupportable costs. There isn’t a method for finish client costs of hydrogen to be that low after manufacturing, storage, compression / liquification, distribution, pumping, and earnings 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 printed my evaluation of that research lately as properly and have advisable that PIK repair the underlying hydrogen price numbers, rerun the mannequin, and retract the latest report. Additional, this calls into query the standard of all latest 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 price of possession of European highway freight trucking decarbonization I’m helping with, requested my opinion of the JRC’s 2022 publication, Evaluation of hydrogen supply choices. I dug by 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, impartial, academically rigorous analysis organizations whose output is handled as authoritative gold in Europe.

What Was The JRC Research About?

Let’s body the research.

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

Thus far, 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, if that’s the case, which transportation pathways are most economical?

If the report had answered the primary query truthfully, I wouldn’t be penning this evaluation. Sadly, the authors cooked the books to reach at low cost delivered hydrogen. Having reviewed their educational {and professional} backgrounds, I can see no method through which they didn’t know that they have 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 fully potential that they have been extremely pressured to get constructive outcomes for supply of hydrogen, and so modified underlying assumptions till the tip worth factors have been ample. Or it’s potential 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 reasonable.

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

So, what did the authors do proper? First, they did create a price mannequin for 2 main situations 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 situations and the abstract was the place my radar began sending off alarms.

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

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

The low worth situation assumes electrical energy will likely be obtainable 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 price 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 typical 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 situation is making unsupportable price claims, and the low worth situation is assuming that the legal guidelines of physics and economics not apply.

A e book 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 attain this worth level, so what unrealistic assumptions are required within the mannequin to ship that” with out intervention of human judgement about reasonable 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 is not going to learn and even fewer have the competence to evaluate.

The electrolysers are assumed to be working at 35% capability

That’s reasonable in a distant space the place wind or photo voltaic devoted to hydrogen technology are constructed, however they assert that they will be working alkaline electrolyzers like that, when alkaline electrolyzers simply don’t flip on and off simply or properly. Even PEM electrolyzers are discovering it very tough to take care of intermittency in the actual 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 dimensions of low prices. Given the lengthy background of the research authors in hydrogen, that is arduous to ascribe to a easy mistake.

Then the actual 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 latest 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 particular kind truly required for the intermittency. They assert that these are 2030 costs and so are asserting virtually 40% price 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 dimensions for hydrogen.

However there’s no steadiness of plant. Traditionally, I’ve tended to make use of 1:1 for electrolyzer and steadiness of plant parts for water administration, dehumidification, purification, and the like, for instance in my price work-up of the deserted Norwegian Equinor-Air Liquide liquid hydrogen transport gas plant. Paul Martin, knowledgeable 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 properly.

As electrolyzers have dropped in worth, steadiness of plant has not and received’t. The opposite 27 or so parts in an industrial hydrogen manufacturing facility are commoditized industrial items which are already on the flat backside of the expertise curve sigmoid. Because of this, the latest IEA report places PEM at $2,000 with steadiness of plant and alkaline at $1,700 with steadiness 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 steadiness of plant for the required PEM electrolysis implies 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 very best 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 release 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 parts in hydrogen power pathways. As a part of the Swedish research I’m helping with, I seemed 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 can be anticipated to be optimized.

The statistics confirmed that upkeep prices have been 30% of capex yearly if extrapolated to focus on kilograms per day, that hydrogen refueling stations have been being mounted 20% extra hours than they have been truly pumping hydrogen, and that compressors have been the reason for over 50% of all upkeep points. I printed my evaluation of this a couple of weeks in the past, however the knowledge was obtainable earlier than the JRC report was printed.

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

Whole price of possession assessments for hydrogen refueling stations have tended to make use of unrealistically low 3% to 4% of capex as the upkeep price per 12 months for the stations and compressors are the dominant supply of failure. Knowledgeable contact shared with me {that a} credible refueling vendor for 350 bar refueling techniques advised him to make use of 10% of capex because the annual price in enterprise instances, a significant purpose why he didn’t proceed with hydrogen autos for the appliance in query.

There may be zero empirical proof which helps a 1% of capex upkeep charge. At minimal, a ten% of capex for upkeep annual price 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 have been long run hydrogen professionals and in a single case had been accountable prior to now for operation, upkeep and analysis of hydrogen manufacturing, storage and end-use techniques. 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, however it’s unclear if that is an empirically supportable quantity. It’s extra supportable than compressors, so I’ll take into account it at the very least defensible, in contrast to the opposite assumptions.

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

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

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

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

After I asserted firstly 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 price level after price level when business knowledge {and professional} expertise ought to have made it apparent that the outcomes and prices have been unsupportable.

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

There isn’t a world through which inexperienced hydrogen will price €1.5 /kg H2 to fabricate. The €3.5/kg H2 just isn’t supportable both, as to get prices right down to this stage with 35% utilization they needed to eradicate steadiness of plant, make PEM electrolyzers a lot inexpensive, common the associated 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 may very well be constructed each on the level of producing the hydrogen and on the finish of the pipeline in Europe. They admit that this may not be truly potential 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 potential 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 situations within the research. This is perhaps an oversight, however given the huge thumbs on the scales for hydrogen found to date, it’d very properly have been deliberately eliminated or by no means added as a result of it could name into query your entire premise of the research.

Their pipeline assumptions are questionable as properly.

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

This doesn’t align with latest German research that present that whereas pure gasoline pipelines could be repurposed, they should be run at significantly decrease pressures and volumes to keep away from points. Paul Martin referred to as that out in an evaluation which confirmed clearly that the report’s summaries have been equally cooked to point out very constructive outcomes.

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

The [IEA] price for hydrogen distribution by pipeline was given as USD 2 / kg H2 for a distance of three 000 km, which is much larger 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, properly below 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 stage merchandise would come alongside. Just a few thousand kilometers of hydrogen pipelines exist, the physics are properly understood and the applied sciences in use aren’t going to leap into the longer term. That is an unsupportable assertion as properly.

That is a part of the place the compressor upkeep issues are available in, as hydrogen pipelines require numerous them working at a lot larger pressures than pure gasoline 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 price assumptions are radically decrease as properly.

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

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

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

What would the fact of hydrogen manufactured in Africa for supply by pipeline to Europe be? Optimizing manufacturing might convey 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 can 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 stage for distribution and fed into what can 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 might put the extra reasonable price of hydrogen delivered to industrial services at €7.50 / kg with none earnings or price of capital or within the worth vary that Boston Consulting Group believes that inexperienced hydrogen is perhaps manufactured in Europe with inexperienced PPAs that respect additionality, locality, and temporality necessities. If delivered to truck stops, it could price within the order of €14 / MWh earlier than earnings.

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 transport, in addition they make a startling assumption. To make the associated fee case work, they assume:

For Case A (industrial use of hydrogen), it’s assumed that within the supply web site there may be the choice to supply waste warmth at 300°C, since in the sort of industrial setting waste warmth could also be obtainable. Data on the price of waste warmth just isn’t available, so the worth was set to a worth 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 will likely be costlier than pure gasoline, however that they’d be capable to get warmth very cheaply on the finish.

Sure, they assume 300° C waste warmth will likely be obtainable, that there will likely be no different financial makes use of for it and that they’ll be capable to 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 transport hydrogen in LOHC type, solely €3 per kg, wasn’t the most affordable choice and so was dominated out.. As with all of their outcomes, their price level is simply not plausible.

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

Whereas best liquefaction work is beneath 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 facility necessities may very well be diminished by as much as 50% (18-22 MJ/kg H2) [55]

The world has been liquifying hydrogen for many years for house packages and a number of industrial use instances. 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 acknowledged within the underlying lengthy report however neither of the 2 summaries, is a fantastical notion and an unsupportable assumption.

With extra reasonable however nonetheless frankly optimistic assumptions, I labored up a price case for liquid hydrogen transport from Namibia in 2022 and located that the more than likely price per unit of power delivered of liquid hydrogen by way of transport can be ten occasions that of liquid pure gasoline, the most costly presently imported type of power economies use immediately. That’s the fact of importing liquid hydrogen.

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

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

To be clear, in my assessments I’m frequently giving hydrogen advantages of the doubt as an power provider and discovering very excessive prices. For JRC’s report back to get below the best possible case situations 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 could be inexperienced however it could’t be low cost, however what would individuals truly 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 can be economically viable. This isn’t good coverage steerage.

For distances suitable with the European territory, compressed and liquefied hydrogen options, and particularly compressed hydrogen pipelines, supply decrease prices than chemical carriers do. The repurposing of current pure gasoline pipelines for hydrogen use is predicted to considerably decrease the supply price, making the pipeline choice 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 price is EUR 1.5/kg H2, whereas in Hello it’s EUR 3.5/kg H2.

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

Just about no policymakers will ever have 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 transport hydrogen utilizing assumptions with giant error bars, presents numbers which are properly beneath reasonable numbers with none error bars, then doesn’t inform policymakers that the numbers are extremely weak based mostly on absurdly optimistic assumptions and disagree fully with publicly obtainable knowledge 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 elemental message coverage makers can 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 relating to delivering hydrogen by modes apart from pipeline they are saying:

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

They’ll ship inexperienced hydrogen 2,500 km to 270 hydrogen refueling stations to place in heavy items autos as a result of it’s required, however your entire provide chain for delivering will probably be biodiesel as a result of that’s an affordable, low price, low-GHG choice. The cognitive dissonance as they wrote this will need to have cut up their skulls.

After I learn that it was 5 minutes earlier than I might convey myself to proceed my evaluation. They actually know and asserted the actual reply for transportation that may’t instantly 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 every little thing else, however assert that hydrogen is required for power within the EU. It’s painful to learn, for essentially the most half.