It will happen by around 2030. It might reach 100% shortly afterwards. Also, hydrogen production should increase by well over an order of magnitude in 25-30 years.
Given the rapid drop in green hydrogen costs, this argument is itself becoming outdated. We will just switch green sources of ammonia and there will be minimal if not nonexistent increases in cost.
GM proceeded to ignore everything that worked at that plant (and still does, nevermind what that article says). They flat out refused to learn from Toyota even when they saw it upfront.
We live in a racist world. You either accept it or be blind to many of the problems of the world.
Not quite. The body would natural develop several types of cancer without an immune system to suppress them. People with AIDS will have short lives even without exposure to any external diseases.
I think the Detroit automakers have the same mentality. It's almost like there's this racism belief that the Japanese could never have figured something out that Westerners haven't.
There is no hard limit except 100% efficiency (sorta*). As fuel cells are a type of battery they can eventually match li-ion batteries on efficiency. Combined with their ability to capture curtail power on a very large scale and the economics of hydrogen could easily surpass that of the EV.
* There is a soft limit at 85%, but that is mainly due to the need to turn liquid water into steam over the entire process. This can be ignored if electrolysis is done on steam instead of liquid water. Also, 85% is close enough to li-ion batteries that very few people will care about it.
Hydrogen has already found those fundamental discoveries, and much of it is the rapid reduction in green hydrogen cost. It's really a matter of time before economics shifts the entire industry towards hydrogen over resource-intensive batteries.
It's already starting to happen. It won't be something that happens decades in the future. The disruption of EVs by hydrogen technology is likely a current event.
I think its time we start realizing that much of the "efficiency" argument is an exaggeration or a lie. EVs aren't that efficient especially in cold weather, and fuel cell cars aren't really that far off. The other big issue is the inability to capture excess renewable energy. As we keep on building out more renewables, we're finding out that curtailed energy is growing exponentially. Pretty soon the vast majority of renewable energy will just go to waste. Hydrogen allows to use that energy, but batteries won't. Combined with the huge resource requirements of batteries it's clear that this technology is primed for a major stumble.
Should be noted that that will work too. In fact that is the plan for most facilities. However, you will still need a separate electrolysis facility. With this you just pipe hydrogen into bigger pipes. It could be cheaper to implement it this way.
Piping gases is also a solved problem. It existed even before electricity. I sound certain because I'm certainty right. If anything it's bit amusing to see supposedly smart people have so much trouble accepting the existence of 18-19th century technology.
Unless the destination of the electricity is also next to the local collection network the pipeline can be simpler. It's certainly not going to be a worse idea.
For a household size connection sure, but once you're looking at extremely high voltages the electrical solution becomes hard. It's a totally different kind of cable and has very different problems to deal with. Meanwhile a pipe fundamentally doesn't change whether it's 1in or 48in wide.