All Bullshit as expected. There is not a lot of difference between the substantial existing network of NAT GAS fueling stations and a hydrogen fueling station.
I think one network existing and one network not existing is a rather substantial difference. But then, I'm part of the reality-based community, as opposed to your fantasy-based community.
The natural gas fueling network isn't really for travelers. It's almost entirely used locally by buses and fleet vehicles. And that natural gas network grew incrementally out of the preexisting natural gas infrastructure. In contrast, there is no preexisting hydrogen infrastructure, and there's no financial incentive to make one.
Europe already has a "Hydrogen Highway" in place.
Which is basically vaporware, a few hundred stations for all of Europe.
And this BS about efficiency is totally unfounded. Fuel Cells are HIGHLY efficient and the rest of the EV car design is the same as for a plug-in..
One system uses electricity directly.
One system uses electricity to make hydrogen, hauls the hydrogen around, then uses a fuel cell to turn hydrogen back into electricity.
Those who possess any engineering common sense would recognize which is more efficient.
Now, you could offer the defense that hydrogen made from natural gas requires less electricity, but that's essentially turning the hydrogen vehicle into another type of fossil fuel machine, and makes this into an apples to oranges comparison.
The inefficiencies are in trying to move 30% more demand to an already INEFFICIENT and ANTIQUATED electric grid..
Handwaving and bad logic.
Grid losses are around 6%. That's peanuts compared to the other losses of the hydrogen system.
And the same grid has to supply the power to make the hydrogen, so that same loss factors into the fuel cell vehicles as well.