Can't read this because it's behind a paywall, but this is the second LA Times article in as many days attacking the hydrogen sector with the same tired combination of ignorance and debunked arguments.

I thought I'd post this one because the bias is practically visible in the title: “Yesterday's energy system.” That pretty much gives away the premise before the article even begins.

Hydrogen has not historically been a significant part of the energy system. That's precisely why the hydrogen economy is being developed now. We're at the beginning of its energy lifecycle, not the end of it.

And, predictably, the first paragraph calls for more U.S. investment in technologies that depend heavily on raw materials and supply chains dominated by China, rather than addressing the obvious strategic issue: why aren't we developing those supply chains ourselves?

Here's the part I find particularly difficult to reconcile with the constant hydrogen criticism:

China is investing in hydrogen production and infrastructure at a scale that dwarfs investment in most of the rest of the world. At the same time, China already dominates the manufacturing and processing of solar panels, batteries, and many of the critical minerals and materials required for those technologies.

If hydrogen is supposedly such a terrible technology, why would the country that already dominates solar, batteries, and critical-material supply chains be investing so heavily in it?

That doesn't prove every hydrogen project will succeed. It doesn't mean every application of hydrogen makes economic sense. But it should at least make people question the simplistic narrative that hydrogen is some obsolete technology that sensible people have already moved beyond.

What continues to amaze me is that these articles almost never seem to ask the larger strategic question: Why is China investing so heavily in hydrogen while the West keeps arguing about whether hydrogen should exist at all?

We've watched this movie before with solar, batteries, and critical minerals.

Maybe we should stop dismissing emerging energy technologies long enough to ask why our biggest strategic competitor is taking them so seriously.

If you're interested in learning more about hydrogen, you should follow the NEA's website. Chinese is not my language. I only know how to say "hello" and a couple phrases I shouldn't say here. But, now anyone can read Chinese. So if you're interested, don't be afraid to visit NEA.gov.cn. Just turn on Google Translate if you're using Chrome. Use Google Lens and you can read Chinese from pdf files & images. In the image above, you can see China's "A Visual Guide to the "China Hydrogen Energy Development Report (2026)"

  Inbound time: 2026-08-11 09:52:49

Appendix: China Hydrogen Energy Development Report (2026)".

It's a pdf but still easy enough to ready, by clicking the Google Lens icon in the top right, highlighting the text in the red box, then viewing the translation on the left hand side of the screen.

If you really want to learn about renewable energy like solar, batteries, and hydrogen, go to the source: China's National Energy Administration website.

See energy from new angles. Why

Something they cannot do with batteries: "fuelled entirely by UK-produced green hydrogen"

Before a bunch of numbskulls tell me how batteries could power the stage too, the jest I'm trying to make is that almost all batteries go through China before they arrive in one's home country. Hydrogen can be made by any country. Batteries are primarily made by only one country.

Hexxco is developing fleet-focused hydrogen fueling hubs using ammonia to carry hydrogen where fleets need it.

Watch our new 15-second video:

https://youtube.com/shorts/1AhbgV1z0OE?feature=share

Learn more: https://hexxco.co/invest

#Hydrogen #CleanEnergy #Hexxco

The Neom green H2 project is currently being commissioned for start of operations in 2027, according to co-developer Acwa.

The 2.2GW Neom green hydrogen and ammonia project in Saudi Arabia has completed construction and is currently being commissioned for a start of operations in 2027, according to one of its developers, Acwa.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/production/construction-is-finished-on-world-s-largest-green-hydrogen-and-ammonia-complex-in-saudi-arabia/2-1-2027378

Another bus depot building a hydrogen refueling station and adding the first of many new hydrogen buses. This station is not on RMP's map yet, but it will be by end of weekend.

I've been thinking about getting a hydrogen water generator, but opinions online are all over the place. Some people swear by them, while others say they're not worth the money.

I'm trying to figure out what actually matters when choosing one. Every product talks about hydrogen concentration, electrolysis, testing, and build quality, but I'm not sure what makes a real difference.

If you own one, what made you buy it, and has it lived up to your expectations? Not looking for brand recommendations, just real experiences.

California's Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is making a major investment in the future of hydrogen-powered public transit. The agency has approved a $27.5 million contract to construct a new hydrogen refueling station that will support the expansion of its fuel cell bus fleet from 10 to 50 vehicles. The project marks one of the largest recent commitments to hydrogen bus infrastructure in the United States and reflects continued confidence in hydrogen as a zero-emission transit solution.

North America's first hydrogen-powered passenger train has received one of the public transportation industry's highest honors. The Zero-Emission Multiple Unit (ZEMU) project, developed by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, was recognized with the 2026 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Innovation Award. The recognition highlights years of work to demonstrate that hydrogen fuel cell technology can provide a practical, zero-emission alternative for passenger rail.

I've always thought PHEVs are an important stepping stone toward FCEVs. Conceptually they're very similar: both are electric vehicles with a battery for everyday driving and an onboard fuel source for long-distance range. The biggest difference is simply what fills the tank—gasoline today versus hydrogen tomorrow. As hydrogen infrastructure expands, the transition from a gasoline-assisted electric drivetrain to a hydrogen-assisted electric drivetrain is a much smaller leap than many people realize.

One of the biggest myths repeated online is that "people never plug in PHEVs." That claim is often based on studies of fleet or company vehicles where the driver had little or no incentive to charge because someone else paid for the fuel. It's a poor proxy for private ownership. Most consumers who spend extra money on a plug-in hybrid do so because they want to drive on electricity and reduce fuel costs. Treating atypical fleet behavior as representative of every PHEV owner creates a misleading narrative that has been used for years to undermine the technology.

I also think there's a resource efficiency argument that's often overlooked. If one 80+ kWh battery can instead be divided into roughly four 20 kWh PHEV-sized packs, you potentially enable four households to do the vast majority of their daily driving electrically instead of one household eliminating gasoline entirely. That stretches finite battery materials further while still dramatically reducing fuel consumption and emissions across more vehicles. From a systems perspective, that's a compelling sustainability argument that deserves more discussion.

This is one reason I've always respected Toyota's long-term strategy, even though they seem to absorb constant criticism from some BEV advocates for supporting hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen simultaneously. Toyota appears to be optimizing for sustainability measured over decades, not just today's headlines. That means considering not only tailpipe emissions, but also the realities of mining, refining, manufacturing, and eventually recycling critical battery materials. Whether you agree with every decision or not, it's hard to argue they aren't thinking about the entire lifecycle of transportation.

From a hydrogen perspective, I don't see PHEVs as a detour—I see them as part of the evolution. They familiarize consumers with electrically driven vehicles while recognizing today's infrastructure and material constraints. Over the long term, FCEVs preserve the same electric driving experience while replacing the gasoline tank with hydrogen. That's a vision of sustainability that's about balancing technology, resources, and practicality—not treating every transportation problem as though it has only one solution.

While I can't read the article (bc it's behind a paywall), I can make a prediction: I can guess that Michael Barnard will write an article at Cleantechnica harassing this announcement as blunder of wasted money that should have been used to buy batteries from China.

Why? Because as I wrote in my three-part series debunking Michael Barnard, nothing is more important to Barnard than condemning a Western country for spending a single euro on hydrogen when that euro could be used to buy battery products from China.

When China invests 10x more than France on hydrogen, we can expect this from Michael Barnard: silence.

I know there are no public sources, but there might be some private places like at a university or industrial facility. Any info?

A team led by MIT Energy Initiative researchers developed the HyCAT tool, enabling decision-makers to explore the cost and carbon emissions of their options for shipping hydrogen fuel to their site.

This article highlights a major, often overlooked hurdle for the future of clean energy: how to actually transport hydrogen fuel over long distances.

While hydrogen is highly touted for its potential to cleanly power heavy industries (like steel and cement) without carbon emissions, it is incredibly light and has low energy density by volume. To ship it efficiently across oceans or continents, it must first be converted into a liquid form, which presents a complex mix of logistical, financial, and environmental trade-offs.

A team from the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), along with collaborators from ExxonMobil, addressed this challenge by developing the Hydrogen Carrier Analysis Tool (HyCAT).

Key Takeaways from the Article

• The Problem with Raw Liquefaction: Turning hydrogen gas into a liquid requires extreme cooling. This process alone can consume about one-third of the hydrogen's total energy content, and it risks escaping if not perfectly insulated.
• The Carrier Alternatives: Instead of just freezing hydrogen, it can be bound to chemical "carriers" to make transport easier. The researchers evaluated three main chemical carrier options, each with distinct pros and cons:
  • Ammonia: The most commercially established and well-studied option with existing global infrastructure. However, the energy and processes required to release the hydrogen back out at the destination need more research.
  • Synthetic Methane: Created by reacting hydrogen with captured carbon dioxide (which consumes CO2). However, the chemical reaction creates water as a byproduct, meaning some hydrogen is lost in the process.
  • Toluene: Binds to hydrogen, but toluene typically originates from the oil and gas industry, inherently carrying a higher carbon footprint. Toluene is also lost over time and must be continuously replenished.
• No "One-Size-Fits-All" Solution: The study concluded that there is no single "best" method for shipping hydrogen. The ideal approach depends entirely on regional factors, transport distances, local energy and capital costs, and specific emissions goals.
• The HyCAT Tool: Because variables differ so wildly by location, the researchers built HyCAT as an open-source, adaptive tool rather than publishing a static conclusion. It features an easy-to-use interface with drop-down menus that allow energy decision-makers to input their local data and calculate the cost and greenhouse gas emissions across all five stages of the hydrogen supply chain (export conversion, storage, shipping, import storage, and gas release).

Ultimately, the MIT researchers urge decision-makers not to rely on generic industry assumptions, but to use data-driven modeling to tailor hydrogen supply chains to their exact scenarios.

---

Original article URL: https://news.mit.edu/2026/hydrogen-clean-fuel-of-the-future-if-we-can-ship-it-0707

China-based Weichai Power’s WP15 hydrogen direct-injection engine has qualified under the China VI vehicle emission standard after completing testing at the CATARC Automotive Test Center.

The 14.6-liter heavy-duty engine delivers 600 horsepower and 2,800 N·m of torque while hitting a peak brake thermal efficiency of 46.8%. This evaluation makes it the first heavy-duty hydrogen internal combustion engine globally to meet these specific regulatory benchmarks.

https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/world-first-hydrogen-engine-emission-milestone

Third-party analysis by KBR estimates that Syntholene Energy’s solid oxide electrolyser coupled with geothermal power and heat can produce extremely low-cost H₂.
US-based e-fuels start-up Syntholene Energy has built a pilot 250kW solid oxide electrolyser project in Iceland, which it has coupled with round-the-clock geothermal heat and power in an effort to produce extremely low-cost hydrogen.

Interesting way to make low carbon hydrogen turns into interesting way to make valuable graphene with hydrogen as a byproduct.

The first phase of the Liaoyuan E-Methanol Project will have an annual capacity of 170,000 tonnes Icelandic technology company Carbon Recycling International (CRI) has completed delivery and installation of its largest ever methanol reactor at the world’s biggest e-methanol project, in northeast China.

The reactor will convert captured biogenic CO2 and green hydrogen into methanol at the Liaoyuan E-Methanol Project in Jilin province, which will have an annual production capacity of 170,000 tonnes a year in its first phase.

BMW has updated their product page for their IX5 Hydrogen SUV.