Micheal Barnard like many others is an ideological fundamentalist who harbours a deep hatred towards the widespread use of hydrogen, or any realistic decarbonisation agenda.

I recognise my comment here regarding Sarah Miller's article may appear somewhat negative, however this was really not my intention.

I certainly agree that most electricity will decarbonise by 2035, which will hopefully enable much greater use of electricity up to 2050. I believe the maximum however will be around 50% electrification, and even then a stretch. There are still cost, storage and technology issues which may prove difficult or insurmountable.

Hydrogen I think will play a much more important role in replacing fossil fuels than many people realise today. Certainly the IEA/IRENA scenarios, which foresee 18% biomass in final energy use, while trying to limit any focus or investment in hydrogen, appear deeply protectionist towards oil producers and revenue, as well as the stranded asset risk that is looming.

The reality is that Middle Eastern oil producers have no problem supplying hydrogen to Europe and Asia, as hydrogen will replace not just the remaining fraction of oil not already replaced by electric vehicles (you might think - why not passenger vehicles too?), but also coal (30% of EU steel by 2030) etc, and eventually LNG/gas.

Emissions are still rising, we are absolutely nowhere near meeting 1.5°C, and indeed the effect of just 1.3°C is proving a considerable problem today, with mega-scale climate impacts announced daily.

So I must apologise to Sarah Miller, however I do believe that for the large energy demand that exists beyond electricity, much of this will eventually be supplied by hydrogen.