That article includes a link to a previous one in the same...

That article includes a link to a previous one in the same publication, which lays out a strong case against hydrogen and for batteries in the vehicle sector. It calls out Andrew Forrest for being part of the "hydrogen fantasy", including specific quotes where he goes into battle for hydrogen cars. There is passing reference to hydrogen's industrial potential. It is true, as AF says, that battery EVs, like just about everything else, are manufactured using processes which burn a lot of fossil fuels and emit a lot of CO2, and one hopes - vainly in my opinion - that this can be improved by industrial applications of hydrogen, although the timelines are vague.

Why is it a vain hope? Over-riding all this is the spectre of exponential global heating. The evidence for imminent catastrophe is growing, notably in research this week predicting that the 1.5 degree limit will be breached before this decade is out. "Net zero by 2050" is looking really farcical if the thing it's meant to prevent will already have happened 20 years ago. I think we are going to be forced into a realisation that we will have to stop burning fossil fuels BEFORE we have developed low or zero emissions alternatives, i.e. we'll just have to get by with less energy, less steel, less everything really.

One implication of that is that it will kill the iron ore cash cow which pays for the development of future hydrogen industries. So in that scenario the solution to the climate crisis won't be hydrogen. It's too late for that. What is the solution then? It's an unpopular thing to say, but I've come to the conclusion that there isn't one.

https://thedriven.io/2023/02/10/the-madness-of-big-autos-push-for-hydrogen-powered-cars/