> but it's much more expensive to do so, so that won't happen.
It's the exact same story for any other subsidized technology at the beginning. If it were already cost competitive then the switch would likely already have happened. One of the common arguments against electric cars used to be that you were still burning coal or natural gas at the end of the day.
The technology hasn't remained static either. I barely follow hydrogen stuff but I recall there were several notable advancements in catalysis from various precursors over the past several years.
It's exactly the sort of medium to long term gamble that it makes sense for a government to invest in but likely doesn't for a corporation on its own.
It's the exact same story for any other subsidized technology at the beginning. If it were already cost competitive then the switch would likely already have happened. One of the common arguments against electric cars used to be that you were still burning coal or natural gas at the end of the day.
The technology hasn't remained static either. I barely follow hydrogen stuff but I recall there were several notable advancements in catalysis from various precursors over the past several years.
It's exactly the sort of medium to long term gamble that it makes sense for a government to invest in but likely doesn't for a corporation on its own.