"By 2045" sounds exactly like the "by 2000."
From the abstract of this particular line of crap, found in the OP.
nstead, the town today is experiencing something of a housing shortage. Faced with the possibility of losing its largest customer — the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — if it continued to burn coal, the Intermountain Power Agency decided to replace the coal plant with a pair of gas-fired turbines with a combined capacity of 840 MW designed to run on 100% green hydrogen by 2045..
Emphasis mine.
Every single bit of hydrogen bullshit published - every last word - is meant to greenwash and excuse fossil fuels. There are no exceptions.
Here's an example of "by 2000" hydrogen miracles published in 1981.
The market potential for electrolytic hydrogen, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 6, Issue 1,
1981, Pages 53-65
The abstract:
By the year 2000, the potential market for advanced technology electrolytic hydrogen among specialty users is projected to be about half of what the merchant hydrogen market would be in the absence of electrolytic hydrogen. This potential market, representing an annual demand of about 16 billion SCF of hydrogen (approx. 200 MW of installed electrolyzer capacity), will develop from market penetrations of electrolyzers assumed to begin in the early 1980s.
The bold is mine.
It seems difficult to believe that the people attempting to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen" haven't noticed - not that they give a rat's ass about the world at large - that a prediction in 2000 that the planet will be burning, as it is, "by 2025" would be accurate, no matter how much more hydrogen bullshit would be piled on.
There are two possibilities: Number one, they are stupid and disconnected from reality. Number two, they just don't give a shit, and are counting on vast public stupidity, always a good bet, since money (and the environment) are being squandered on hydrogen bullshit.
Neither is very appealing.
= new reply since forum marked as read