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

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

The Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation (ICCT) is a US-headquartered assume tank with places of work 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 offer clear coverage steering based mostly on proof to extra quickly tackle local weather change.

However it’s gone astray someway concerning hydrogen. This got here to my consideration once they printed a fatally flawed truck transportation complete price of possession research that included the exceptional conclusions that hydrogen trucking would have power 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% costlier than battery electrical choices. The lead interactive graphic and conclusions had been clearly improper at a look, as many transportation specialists identified.

They’d put a number of thumbs on the dimensions for hydrogen together with large subsidies, cheaper electrical energy, no revenue necessities and extra, and additional had scattered these thumbs throughout three totally different research, making it tough to evaluate how they’d gone so improper. That it was improper ought to have been obvious at a look to the 2 authors and a number of ICCT reviewers, but it handed into public report. Robust criticism, together with by me, led to them rerunning the mannequin and quietly altering the infographic and conclusions with out truly acknowledging that they’d performed so and that their preliminary publication was utterly improper, 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 largest 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 acknowledged within the doc they referenced, and the value 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 stability of plant, and had decrease costs for electrical energy than US industrial charges.

However it obtained worse. The reference doc in query, one other ICCT paper entitled Present and future price of e-kerosene in america and Europe from March of 2022, had future hydrogen manufacturing prices that had been each terribly low and unsupported by the info that ought to have made them up. In 2030, they had 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 power within the hydrogen was coming totally free via unspoken means. In 2050, it was 50% of the power, with a per kilogram worth level of producing of solely $1.6 per kilogram.

Whereas there are illusions that this could be potential, they depend upon free electrical energy and successfully free electrolyzers and plant tools, neither of which had been referenced within the research, or on very massive 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 stream mannequin they use, besides that the price of electrical energy barely dropped, whereas the price of hydrogen plummeted, they usually had 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 once 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 made out of it? Sadly, no.

Let’s end off with the 2022 e-kerosene report earlier than shifting 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 occasions within the case of direct air seize. They embrace no distribution prices for CO2 which can be 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 fee level of CO2 is unsupportable, in different phrases, one other thumb on the dimensions 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 sequence 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 answer, the value level for CO2 per ton is sort of thrice that utilized by the ICCT paper. Additionally as a word, the value level for electrolyzed hydrogen is from a US research that steered it’d get as little as $5 per ton, which remains to be very optimistic and as soon as once more useful to the e-kerosene price case. A practical price of hydrogen manufacturing at scale is more likely to be within the $6-$8 per kilogram vary with stability of plant, and as you’ll additionally word, the price of hydrogen is 50% of the price of e-kerosene.

At that, on this very best case state of affairs with an unrealistic assumption of zero effectivity losses alongside the chemical processing journey, the 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 occasions greater than the present price of Jet A. Precise adders would make it 4 occasions the fee.

The ICCT research makes some prone to be optimistic assumptions about electrolyzer effectivity good points and value decreases, however as soon as once more has no stability of plant. The belief is that it’s an built-in hydrogen electrolysis to chemical course of manufacturing plant, and that’s a very good one, however there’s nonetheless stability of plant together with dehydration, and the determine of $1.6 per kilogram remains 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 dimensions result in e-kerosene being very near price aggressive with biofuels and Jet A in 2050, a totally unrealistic consequence.

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 different 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 the intention 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 development of civil passenger miles would proceed at 4.5% per yr, aligned with IATA and main aerospace firms 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 development to high-speed rail is happening in China particularly, with a lot slower development charges in different creating international locations, I contemplate these projections and the gas calls for based mostly on them to be exhausting to contemplate cheap, however whereas excessive, are at the least defensible.

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

Notably, it consists of diversion of very massive 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 power density adequate for 3,000 kilometer flights, adequate for the overwhelming majority of within-continent air journey.

Lastly, it respects the essential economics of accelerating aviation gas prices. Direct battery electrical can be inexpensive per passenger mile for gas and upkeep, and growing autonomous flight, initially for big cargo and utility unmanned aerial autos over low-risk flight paths, will scale back direct pilot labor prices for shorter flights. Nonetheless, neither of those are going to be obtainable to longer passenger jet flights as price discount levers seemingly till nearer to 2050. As such, longer haul aviation will turn out to be costlier, as no jet gas pathway is cheaper than turning geological hydrogen carbons into ahead motion whereas utilizing the ambiance 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 alter demand downward for improve ticket prices, however depart the 4.5% demand projections alone.

Having performed the mathematics on hydrogen and artificial fuels myself a number of occasions, I exclude them from the operating just because they gained’t be economically aggressive. The decline in demand is adequate that second-generation sustainable aviation biofuels from waste biomass can simply present the provision for all aviation that doesn’t electrify via 2050. Additional, these biofuels divert biomass which might usually flip into methane via anaerobic decomposition to rather 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 may be excess of sufficient waste biomass for the aim. I’ve performed a survey and evaluation of a lot of the dimensions of provide and applied sciences, from stalk cellulosic to meals waste to livestock dung, and there are adequate 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 power 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 concentrate on sustainable aviation biofuels. The dangerous information is that as a result of they divert no aviation to electrification and have outsized development projections, they assert of their studies 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 nasty framing of demand assumptions and ignores the transformation that electrification will carry to aviation.

It’s not just like the ICCT’s bigger group 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 sluggish enhancements to low ranges in battery power 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 obtainable from 4 organizations on a few continents that are in that vary as nicely, with theoretical maximums of 5 occasions that potential 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 comfy that present applied sciences enable 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 comfy that the ICCT is just improper concerning 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 offered by SAF biofuel hybrid fashions are fully technically potential. By 2040, my projection is 3,000 kilometers with silicon chemistries. And bear in mind, each battery alternative 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 greater than it is going to be even when they only used their very own projections within the easiest of weapons and butter financial fashions, and thinks because of this that there isn’t adequate 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 for those who set up the situations that imply that there’s inadequate power from different sources, then you need to discover methods to justify deeply costly and wasteful hydrogen and artificial gas pathways. That’s what seemingly led to the deeply improper 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, which means they most likely 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 certain than for floor transportation the place each area of interest is already provably crammed with batteries, grid-ties or hybrids of the 2. Hydrogen will all the time be costlier than SAF biofuels, so it gained’t be capable of compete. Gaseous hydrogen has far too low an power density to be greater than a curiousity.

Liquid hydrogen requires placing globe-shaped extremely insulated tanks filled with rather 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 robust tendency to leak as a fuel with an explosive vary of 4% to 74% of inner cabin air and a spark level within the vary of primary electrical home equipment. Additional, it’s extremely reactive with electronics, requiring utterly totally different electronics. The mixture of utmost temperature ranges and inside cabin fuel implies that liquid hydrogen isn’t certifiable for civilian aviation. There’s no option to make something besides flying dying traps and civil aviation doesn’t enable these. Boil off of hydrogen in small tanks inside planes means that it’s going to lose important vary with solely 1-2 hour waits on runways or circling. The previous implies 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.

However it 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 elementary 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 slim 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 stability of plane is radically altered. The gas weight is nicely behind the wings as a substitute 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 current airframes and letting avionics handle it.

However it’s fully not manageable over the course of the flight. Plane stability round heart of gravity is a fastidiously managed course of, with recertification required for issues so simple as changing cargo maintain doorways. Baggage distribution and passenger distribution are fastidiously assessed. Gas is managed to take care of the stability.

All that goes out the window when hydrogen is consumed throughout flight. Tons 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 heart of gravity can be most impacted by its elimination. Liquid hydrogen has 2.8 occasions the power 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 lately, they put equal numbers of passengers on the entrance and rear of plane for stability across the heart of gravity, and massive 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 largest plane they mannequin, it’s 5,050 kilograms, a full 5 tons, the burden of a full grown elephant.

Proponents of hydrogen plane by no means do imply gross takeoff weight calculations they usually by no means do heart of gravity transformation calculations in flight. Additional, they by no means hassle to have a look at certification necessities for civilian plane and decide what it will 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 pink flags and operational nightmares are inside their educational and mental scope to acknowledge, but the report is totally silent on them whilst 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 made out of pure fuel won’t ever be cheaper than hydrogen with out carbon seize, there isn’t any credible evaluation that signifies inexperienced hydrogen can be cheaper, simply rather 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 stability of plant, so there’s a chaotic attractor of hydrogen price failures. To be clear, the 2022 paper had numerous nuance about what was and wasn’t inside scope that referencing papers clearly ignored.

The more moderen 2023 paper Efficiency Evaluation of Gas 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 heart 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 atmosphere the place they needed to discover some option to price justify hydrogen and e-fuels. That leads to unnatural acts just like the dangerous trucking complete price of possession research, the hardly and badly costed concentrate on liquid hydrogen for delivery, and the whole vary of their latest aviation focus. This led a few ICCT researchers who in 2018 had principally restated the apparent, that hydrogen and spinoff fuels had 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 had been clearly important, cherry picked the most affordable, finest 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 employees. Over 5 years they’ve devolved from a fairly rigorous analysis group to at least one greedy at hydrogen straws as a result of they obtained a bunch of elementary stuff improper. They’re clearly predisposed to molecules for power throughout the group. They’re clearly predisposed to large development of transportation passenger miles regardless of very apparent the reason why that’s not lifelike and why the projections are unrealistic. They don’t get batteries and electrification. And because of this they vastly overstate molecules for power necessities after which discover that biofuels from waste biomass are inadequate. This leads to them requiring hydrogen and artificial fuels manufactured from it for transportation fuels regardless of their group understanding traditionally that they had 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 entice and overcome it, the chance 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 objectives 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.

Just a few 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 most likely 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 circuitously 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 yr science and math and even grade 12 science and math scholar may work out. This isn’t rocket science. It’s primary stuff. Nobody who desires to test the numbers or science requires a PhD to transform the fundamentals. A PhD extends human information, however not one of the ICCT’s analysis extends human information, it simply analyses what is understood. At finest 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 improper? 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 assume tank that’s been round since 2001. I’m one man with my one-person assume tank and consultancy. They write studies 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 improper in any respect to imagine that ICCT studies are extra authoritative than my work. I wouldn’t start to disagree. If readers select to lean on ICCT materials as a substitute of my assessments and critiques, that’s utterly cheap. That doesn’t make them proper. The attraction to false authority could be a logical fallacy in both course.

On bias, neither the ICCT or I’ve a venal predisposition to fossil fuels and therefore hydrogen for power 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, based mostly on my targeted observations, a predisposition towards molecules for power. 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 power and have a bias towards molecules because of this.

And the ICCT researchers are in a little bit of an organizational bubble. They reference every others’ work continuously, seemingly as a requirement pushed upon them by steering and evaluation. It’s more durable to protect in opposition to group assume or cherry selecting 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 proof against the group assume 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 employees.

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 had been supplied to me by deep professionals together with electrochemistry PhDs as a result of I’d performed and printed the exhausting evaluation work from the basics of science, math and economics, not as a result of I used to be keen 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 kinds. Others are targeted on maritime delivery. Others on trucking. Others on aviation. They’ve a framing downside which implies that they tend to match a subset of potential choices and depend 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 performed 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 finally extra of the choices, however it does imply that in relation to detailed analyses and simulation of slim lanes throughout the area, I’m prone to miss stuff. Making an attempt to know all of the fundamentals means I’m prone to miss salient particulars. I’ve labored via a variety of that however don’t faux to know all the pieces.

Each frames, slim and broad, are legitimate. Each have strengths. On this case, I feel the weaknesses of the ICCT researchers specialization has created important issues. However they might 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 acknowledged help for it from international thought leaders. If I’m appropriate in my critique, that is an existential menace for the group and a failure to realize its aims.