I’ve been looking at PEM electrolyser scale-up from the materials side rather than from electricity price or electrolyser CAPEX. The global primary iridium supply kept around 7 tons/yr in the last few years and at the same time, the current commercial PEM systems appear to use roughly 0.45–0.75 g Ir / kW. That means that 1 ton of iridium would correspond to only about 1.3–2.2 GW of PEM capacity at the current catalyst loadings... this before accounting for iridium demand from electronics, automotive catalysts and other sectors.

What I find interesting is that iridium is mostly a by-product of PGM mining, so that a higher iridium price does not produce the normal supply response you might expect from a primary commodity.

So most of the work would rely on R&D and engineering improvments, but getting from today's loadings toward 0.2–0.3 g/kW, or eventually \~0.1 g/kW, is not just a matter of making the catalyst layer thinner: conductivity, catalyst utilisation, current density and durability, all these paramters start to change with lower catalyst loading.

I wrote the supply-chain and electrochemical side of this in more detail here: [Iridium PEM | Raw Science](https://raw-science.org/iridium-pem-electrolysers/)

While this article is from today, the buzz has been buzzing for nearly two years. In January 2025, the USGS announced their new map of potential sources for geologic hydrogen in the USA. On August 20, 2026, Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitmer announced a $7.5 million investment through the Make It in Michigan Competitiveness Fund to support the exploration, research and development of geologic hydrogen in Michigan.

Michigan is the home state of www.respectmyplanet.com. We got started as a watchdog organization to track oil & gas companies as they drilled across our state from 2008 to 2013 looking for natural gas and withdrawing enormous amounts of our fresh water to fracture their wells miles beneath the surface. RMP travelled all across the lower peninsula making sure every single well was "made famous" so the oil companies could not operate in the shadows.

If drilling resumes in the Michigan basin for geologic hydrogen, RMP will be there to monitor every single well bore and document its life cycle and potential to provide clean energy or H2 for industrial purposes. This time, however, RMP will be an advocate for responsible drilling that produces clean energy.

What do you think about the potential of geologic hydrogen for the US economy?

Lorde's concert in West London tonight and tomorrow will be powered by locally produced green hydrogen. Concert goers will be able to drink the byproduct of this simple method of power generation: clean water.

Here we go again: Hyundai is essentially building an EV that carries its own electricity generator — and suddenly everyone is excited about 600+ miles of range.

The interesting part is that the wheels are still being driven by electric motors. The gasoline engine is there primarily to make electricity. In other words, Hyundai has solved “range anxiety” by putting a fossil-fuel-powered power plant in an electric vehicle.

And honestly, that's a pretty logical engineering solution.

But it also exposes something the hydrogen skeptics don't seem to want to acknowledge: the vehicle doesn't actually care where its electricity comes from.

Hyundai is already a leader in both BEVs and FCEVs. So once you have an electric drivetrain, battery, motors and power electronics, swapping the gasoline generator for a hydrogen fuel-cell system isn't some crazy science-fiction concept. It's the same basic idea: carry your energy onboard, generate electricity as you drive, and keep the vehicle fundamentally electric.

Today it's a gasoline EREV.

Tomorrow, the same philosophy can be a hydrogen EREV/FCEV.

So while everyone is celebrating Hyundai putting a gasoline generator in an EV to eliminate range anxiety, I'm looking at the bigger picture: Hyundai is getting very good at building vehicles that are electric first and energy-source agnostic second.

Funny how the “hydrogen is pointless because batteries exist” argument gets a little less tidy when the battery vehicle needs to carry a gasoline power plant to make the range problem go away.

The future isn't BEV versus hydrogen.

The future is simply electric vehicles with different ways of carrying their energy.

Apparently a diesel range extender is brilliant, but a hydrogen range extender is stupid. 😂

This MAHLE concept is pretty interesting: an electric truck with an electric drivetrain, supplemented by a diesel engine that acts as a generator when the battery needs help.

In other words:

Diesel → generator → electricity → electric motor

And apparently that's a pretty clever way to solve the range problem.

Now substitute one component:

Hydrogen → fuel cell → electricity → electric motor

Suddenly, in certain corners of the BEV world:

"HYDROGEN IS STUPID. JUST USE BATTERIES."

😂

That's the irony.

The two systems are doing essentially the same fundamental thing: carrying an energy source onboard, converting it to electricity, and using an electric motor to move the vehicle.

The difference is that one burns diesel and keeps us tied to petroleum, while the other can use hydrogen produced from renewable electricity and water and has zero tailpipe emissions.

I'm not saying the MAHLE system is a bad idea. It's actually pretty clever.

I'm just wondering why diesel + electric motor gets applauded as an innovative electrification strategy, while hydrogen + fuel cell + electric motor gets ridiculed.

Apparently the electrons are fine either way.

It's the possibility of eventually getting rid of the oil that's controversial. 😂

While the local physics keyboard warriors are still furiously typing out manifestos on why hydrogen will never work, actual capital is quietly locking down massive land positions. Luma Hydrogen just formally launched with a massive 400 km² footprint across Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, right along the same deep-seated fault corridors that just yielded high-purity discovery drill holes. They aren’t just sitting on their hands either; they’ve already closed a C$550,000 private placement to fully fund their Summer 2026 exploration program and are aggressively targeting a public Canadian listing by the end of the year. It turns out that when nature does all the heavy lifting to generate and store the gas for you, the production costs utterly collapse—shattering the entire "it's too expensive to manufacture" echo chamber before they even finish their next blog post.

Remember when every "expert" and tech reporter used to smugly write off hydrogen by saying: "Umm, actually, pure hydrogen doesn't exist naturally on Earth, you have to make it out of fossil fuels!"

For decades, the standard media hit piece treated natural hydrogen like a scientific myth—claiming the molecules were simply "too light" and would just leak away into space, making it a complete waste of time to look for.

Well, the Earth just filed a massive bug report on that logic.

PetroChina researchers just announced a mind-blowing discovery in the Sichuan Basin: an active underground geologic system spewing out 98.24% pure natural "white" hydrogen. It completely shatters previous domestic records and stands as one of the highest concentrations ever recorded on the planet.

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.