not really cheap either.

I remember natural gas vehicles (busses and cars, like the honda civic). You could actually fill up at home if you had natural gas, but the electricity just to compress the natural gas for the car cost as much or more than the compressed fuel in the car.

For hydrogen, it is even harder. take a look at cars running compressed hydrogen. I remember $17 for the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. I think it is even more expensive now.

Easier to burn CH4 than use energy to split out the H2, then compres it, then store it.

I actually think solar is better.

Most of the Hydrogen that is currently being produced is "gray". Meaning that it is produce with steam reforming from natural gas.

This is currently the cheapest and most used method (around 60%). Coal (around 20%) and oil (around 20%) are also used for hydrogen production.

Green hydrogen is below 1%.

So fossil fuels are still currently the cheapest option there. Just not a green one.

Dollars are fake, or more accurately, a social construct, remember that. You can always tax the cheaper fuel and subsidize the more expensive one.

Dollar costs of physical things (pre tax) quite accurately measure how much effort it takes to produce/acquire that thing. Hydrogen being more expensive than X quite stronly suggests that it is much more effort to get than X.

I agree, that’s why I say tax the right things and subsidize the right things.

All well and good until you have producers burning (or otherwise using) the cheap, taxed fuel to produce the expensive, subsidized one while creating more net pollution in the process. It's hard to get this stuff right at the best of times.

Carbon credits should also fix that. The bigger problem is getting everyone to agree something needs to be done.