Even if it offers 20% better range and some allegedly better refuel experience (H2 people keep handwaving that as "solved"), that wouldn't justify the gigantic infrastructure switchover cost.

Electric vehicles can use the grid. That's a massive advantage for infrastructure readiness and scalability, even if the current grid isn't ready for full EV consumer transportation.

EVs can use home solar as well. Easily scalable, adds redundancy and alleviates load to the grid.

H2 would need a huge buildout of hydrogen generators, transporters, refuelling. EVs are so far ahead of all of that.

By the time any significant H2 infrastructure was out there, it'd be 10 years even if they secured 100s of billions in financing yesterday.

In 10 years, the alternative energy / solar / home solar / grid / battery / storage economic proposition is likely to be 50% cheaper in real dollars, and possibly even better.

It's the same problem nuclear faces.

Sure, throw some money at places like aviation or maritime shipping.

But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen".

Green hydrogen smacks of "clean coal". Granted the physics/engineering for it are a lot more realizable.

But everyone should see that for the shell game it is.