This is a nice article, however you are missing some key issues. Essentially, electricity is not going to replace fossil fuels in their entirety - at most, electricity is expected to reach about 45-50% of most energy systems. Today, over 80% of the global energy system is supplied by conventional fuels, and for much of this, direct electrification or batteries won't do. Beyond the practical issues such as the energy density of batteries for transport such as aviation or shipping, there are also considerations such as seasonal energy storage for winter heat, high temperatures for industry, and the practicality of supplying stored electricity for more than a few hours via batteries rather than gas turbines.

For all these applications, hydrogen is the only genuinely practical answer. I describe the many ways this can be understood comprehensively in my first book.

Unfortunately with hydrogen missing from the energy transition narrative, we remain in the situation we are in today: various promises made, but still emissions are climbing. If we are supposed to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 and haven't actually started on the downward slope, then earlier confidence might seem misplaced.

The narrative of hydrogen for some reason 'not being effective' because of cost or some other issue is absolutely false: hydrogen is now €2.50/kg delivered by pipeline in Spain (same cost as coal), and at €4-7/kg dispensed at refuelling stations in Asia is up to 3 times less than petrol prices for passenger vehicles in Europe (or about the same as diesel for truck engines). All reports see hydrogen being produced for below €2/kg within a decade.

So the idea of hydrogen 'not being effective' is very useful if the objective is to maintain the fossil energy industry, but with massive H2 pipelines and supply projects in the Middle East and North Africa being built, we should not listen to fossil energy lobbyists.

Their only goal is to block hydrogen for as long as possible, to avoid the end of the entire industry.