In the pilot episode of Byte Off Podcast, our co-hosts, David Fidalgo & James Carter, and expert guest, Paul Martin, discussed whether or not hydrogen is the fuel of the future? How it compares (or if at all) to electrification? We took a look at the development of the infrastructures from the last few decades, the mindset (or misconceptions) that users tend to have towards hydrogen, and a thorough discussion of its costs and benefits. Things get heated, so plug in your headphones and grab some popcorn for this fiery, thought-provoking debate.
In the pilot episode of Byte Off Podcast, our co-hosts, David Fidalgo & James Carter, and expert guest, Paul Martin, discussed whether or not hydrogen is the fuel of the future? How it compares (or if at all) to electrification? We took a look at the development of the infrastructures from the last few decades, the mindset (or misconceptions) that users tend to have towards hydrogen, and a thorough discussion of its costs and benefits. Things get heated, so plug in your headphones and grab some popcorn for this fiery, thought-provoking debate.
D: Hello, everybody, and welcome to a new episode of our podcast. Byte Off is not a new episode is a new journey as well, I'm actually how with me and you're gonna be with me in the journey, Mr. James Carter. Hello, James, how you doing?
J: Hey, great to see you, David, hey, I hope everything's well in the UK and it's good to be here in Canada. And you know what one thing I'm really excited about this podcast is that you know, we get a really bite into stuff. And that's why we've named it Byte Off is because we want to take a bit of a chunk out of things. Chew it around, spit it out, throw it back, and, you know, see where it lands. And, you know, I think that's gonna be a fun discussion that we're gonna have today. And, you know, we have a really great guest. It's Paul Martin here. And Paul Martin is actually one of my friends, he lives quite close to me in Toronto here in Canada, we get to have lunch, and we get to chew around some of these things that we talk about. And, you know, that's why I'm really excited to have Paul on our podcast today. And, you know, to have this discussion with our audience and, you know, had this discussion with David. And I know, Dave, you've got some pointers that you will, you will, you're going to be throwing at Paul, and we're going to see what happens. So, Paul, welcome. So great to have you here.
D: So Well, we actually I had, as I said, one of the things we actually lack of converse of Byte Off is basically we're having interesting conversation with interesting people. And we're looking forward to actually talk with you today, Paul. And basically, I think we started the conversation even in preparation. But for me, actually, I want you to [answer] one of my first questions to you that we were discussing, like, how do you think is this race between hydrogen and electric? Do you think it's a race on it? You think that is something that it will be seeing in the market in the next 15-20 years, we will see some hydrogen electric cars in the road. What is your vision on that?
P: Oh, yeah, I've got a very clear and definitive answer to that hydrogen for transport is dead dog. It's just not a feasible option. It's been studied since the late 1980s. I was involved in trying to make hydrogen to feed fuel cells first for vehicles, and then later it was going to be for combined heat and power in homes back in the late 1990s. And uh the thing about hydrogen, it's seductive. It sounds like a good idea, if you don't really know very much about it. Because you can get seduced by the notion that if you feed hydrogen to a fuel cell, you just get water as a product and there are no other emissions and you make electricity. And so you can feed that to a nice, efficient electric drive. And everything's good. But the devil is hiding in the details. And in fact, to a chemical engineer like me, the devil is not hiding in the details. He's there waving his pitchfork at you with one hand and is raising his middle finger at you with the other. So yeah, hydrogen is a transport fuel is it's deader than a doornail. It's a very bad idea. And honestly, I would go further and I would say that hydrogen as a transport fuel is not only a problem for cars and light trucks, it's a problem for larger vehicles as well. It's absolutely a dead end for jet aircraft, for instance, and, and ships and it perhaps is the thing that we might see hydrogen used in for transport in the future is as a chemical to make other fuels from, but we'll only do that if we're both rich and desperate.
D: But why but yeah, I mean, for what you think is that I mean, for me the ways in electrification versus hydrogen it's I've seen in the same race of the petrol versus Diesel, right? And basically you need to have two different sorts of power trains, fuels that help small vehicles and then large vehicles in terms of large mileage so that's how I'd see it, right. So why do you think they don't have any application because of the cost of basically developing the hydrogen? What is your view on that one?
P: Okay, so David, what you want is a list of what's wrong with hydrogen as a transport fuel. We could occupy the whole time that we have speaking about it if we wanted to go into detail, but the simple reason is that hydrogen involves too many steps. And since each step is not perfect, and thermodynamics sets limits for how good each step can be, the combination of all those steps result In a very poor energy efficiency and poor energy efficiency results in a high cost. But we're not done there. That if it was just costly, but it gave you some other benefit, like so greater effectiveness of some sort, that would be really wonderful. And we do that, for instance, the gasoline vehicle is a perfect example of trading efficiency for effectiveness. Gasoline vehicles are not very efficient. But gasoline as a fuel is extremely effective. It's a liquid, you can pour it into a tank very rapidly, the energy density per unit volume and mass is very high. And it's not very expensive. Well, it gets very expensive if you can't treat the atmosphere as if it were a public sewer anymore. But if you do get to use the atmosphere as a public sewer, it's very cheap. So the trouble with hydrogen is that it's neither efficient nor effective. So the inefficiency is structural . It's a result of the thermodynamics of hydrogen, which are not going to change. And the problem isn't that each step is too inefficient. It's not there are too many steps. And each step has its thermodynamic limits. But the other problem is, it's ineffective as a fuel, it's a gas, and it's a very low density gas, and turning it into a stored quantity of energy sufficient to move a vehicle even with a more efficient electric drive train is challenging business. So let's put some numbers to this. Because being an engineer, I like numbers, I think numbers tell the story better than that in anything. If you look at the Toyota Mirai, the, you know, prototypical fuel cell, fuel cell hydrogen vehicle, that Toyota kind of bet the farm on, that vehicle has 5 kilograms of hydrogen in tanks on board, and they're stored at 700 bar pressure, 10,000 pounds per square inch gauge pressure. The mechanical energy that's in that 5 kilograms of hydrogen due to the fact that it's a lot of gas squished into a very, very small volume, by virtue, very high pressure, the mechanical potential energy of that 5 kilograms of hydrogen is the same as that of the Mirai car suspended about a kilometer in the air. And that energy has to go in, in order to store that fuel, and you don't get it back out again, in any useful form, it's gone, it's wasted. That's just one example. So that, you know, hydrogen is neither efficient nor effective. And because of the ineffectiveness, you get all these other costs, like infrastructure costs to build refueling infrastructure, you know, a charger is a comparatively simple piece of electronic equipment. Now, there's some costs associated with them, especially when the current draw for an electric vehicle charger needs to be very high. So I'm not saying that they're free. But when you look at hydrogen, you're talking about high pressure gas storage tanks with a failure mode that might include, you know, doing injury or damage to property at a considerable distance away. So it has to be designed in order to withstand that and to be able to, to manage that. And you have to have one of them all over the place, you need to have a multiplicity of them. And they're very expensive. And the thought of it is, you know, the thought of hydrogen distribution, and refueling infrastructure. Being affordable is just mind boggling. So again, it's pretty high level.
D: Why do you think so many people are actually trying to bring hydrogen? Because basically, we have cars in their production already with hydrogen, there's plans to actually developing hydrogen as well. Because basically, what was my view? Sometimes it is basically the maybe is a customer demand basically, sometimes people developing things because it's a customer demand. And basically, there's a need to provide alternative ways to provide the transportation, but what is your view of that particular trend in which basically people see hydrogen as a potential solution for long term range or electric buses or trucks? Or what is your view on that thing? Because I guess, I guess, as I said, I think is customer demand is kind of important to understand how the fuels or how the transportation industry is going to move through in the next 10-15 years. So what do you think about that? You think that is because people is not educated? Because
P: I'll give the answer in two parts. So the first question is is hydrogen, and is hydrogen actually what people think it is. So the way the model the mental model people have about hydrogen is that it's a fuel like gasoline. And you can just pour it into a tank, I mean through it's a gas, so you have to pour it through a hose, right? As opposed to, you know, putting a nozzle in. So you have a high pressure connection, and you make a connection, you fill a tank, and the whole, the whole value proposition is faster refueling. So what do you get in return for faster refueling? Do you get more range? Eh, in a in a vehicle the size of a car. Not really, if you compare the mall model, the Tesla Model 3 long range to the to the Mirai, the range is about the same. I mean, in fact, the Model 3 long range has the same range. That's the old Mirai now that the new Mirai, they've got a Mirai Mark 2 where they added another hydrogen tank, and they sacrificed some passenger room to fit it in order to try to squeeze another couple kilograms of hydrogen into the vehicle. But we're not talking about small tanks, these are really quite large. But looking at the old Mirai versus the Model 3 long range, if you compare them, the Model 3, the car is cheaper. It accelerates twice, twice as fast. So it's way more fun to drive. It uses 1/3 as much energy in fact that the Mirai uses 3.2 times as much energy per mile driven. And the cost of that mile is 5.4 times as high.
D: You compare it to me right, the one for which year to a Model S I mean, just to follow you there. It's an equation, eh?
J: Actually, I'm going to go on this model as the I'm going to have a bit of a rant here because, you know, you take that new Mirai, right. And and as Paul said, it's stuffed with a giant few hydrogen tank in the middle of it. So so its interior space is really quite, really quite poor. So this car, this, this Mirai is as large as a Model S, but its interior room is smaller than a Model 3. So what do you compare it to by size or by interior, of course Toyota wants you to compare it by.
P: And honestly, I don't care about any of that, because it's a tiny change in the range. It's not meaningfully different to a driver, honestly. And the thing that determines your range is is where you run out of fuel and how you have to recharge. So the trouble with hydrogen is the people that have had Mirais in California, have ended up with their vehicles stuck in some parking space, unable to refuel it, because there's no way to actually get it to somewhere that has hydrogen to refuel it, there aren't enough stations. And this chicken and egg problem of there are no cars, so there's no refueling infrastructure. And because there's no refueling infrastructure, nobody wants to buy a car. That problem is entirely leapfrogged by the electric vehicle. Because not everybody, not especially not everybody in an urban environment. But an awful lot of people, especially in North America, have driveways, where they park their cars, and they can plug in with a landscaping outlet. Like I plug this car in the hood of which is hanging up there, I drove 16,000 miles in a homemade electric car that I recharged from a landscaping outlet. You know, so there's a huge difference between wants and needs. But let me answer the second part of your question. The second part of your question was, why are people pursuing this despite its obvious disadvantages? And the reason and I-I'm a, I'm a very rude fellow, you know, I'm going to - I'm known for being very direct, and I'm gonna call call it for what it is. There are two kinds of people that are pushing hydrogen. The first kind are the fossil fuel industry. And the second kind are the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industry. So the fossil fuel industry is interest in hydrogen is really clear, because as Michael Liebreich said, I think very aptly, for the fossil fuel industry hydrogens a no-lose bet. It either delays decarbonisation, and they win because they don't make electricity. Or they get dragged into the future of energy supply by virtue of making so called Blue hydrogen, which is hydrogen made from fossils with carbon capture which really, at best, is going to be really very blackish blue bruised colored hydrogen. They get dragged into that future by virtue of 10s to hundreds of billions of dollars of government large s government subsidy and they win so for the fossil fuel industry hydrogen's a win win. So who are the useful idiots? Okay, now they're useful idiots. They're people whose hearts are in the right Place, they want to make giant quantities of renewable electricity by wind or solar, or they make fuel cells or electrolyzers, or the like. And they they're pushing green hydrogen, hydrogen made from electricity, you know, starting with water and using electricity to make hydrogen. And that green hydrogen is super important to our future. It's far too precious to waste as a vehicle fuel, though, we need it to replace the 90 million tonnes of chemical hydrogen that we use a year that we will still use in a decarbonized future 40 million of which are literally keeping half the human beings on earth alive in the form of ammonia that's used as a nitrogen fertilizer to keep us fed. So replacing that ammonia and the ammonia derived nitrates and all the other nitrogen fertilizers that are all made right now from fossil derived hydrogen that's made with no carbon capture. It's the only kind of hydrogen really that you can buy in the world right now. replacing that with green hydrogen is imperative if we're going to decarbonize. So the notion that we will, in the near future have excess green hydrogen leftover that we can waste as an inefficient vehicle fuel is just foolishness. It's not people aren't thinking properly. So it's, like I said, it's being pushed by the fossil fuel industry. And by people that really, maybe their hearts are in the right place. They want to make green hydrogen, but they-they're thinking about selling it for the wrong purposes.
D: But again, I think is what your, for me, I think in your assessment, you taking this time of what happened for the fossil fuel industry, but you don't think that customers as well, they askeding for other types of fuel. Because the because, again, this is other type of customers I mean, users that they say, look, it's taken too long to actually recharge the car, right? Because for example, for me, I think I'll agree with both of your assessments on the cars, I think hydrogen for car with the level of technology we have in electric now is quite difficult to actually achieve that same range, right. But if you actually go to heavy truck vehicles, or long haul vehicles, basically, that they need to actually do a long range and have a lot of space for actually the tanks of the of Hydrogen. And maybe those ones are starting to come in because there's a demand for it. Right. It's a demand for people that they actually want to have increased efficiency or increase efficiencies, you don't look about how much space you have inside of the car for the passengers. But basically, you can fit some of these particular technologies, right. So you don't think that the users as well, because I think, Boy, no, disagree with what you were just saying, but I think what promoting it right, what is promoting that is happening?
P: Let me explain to you why I don't think that, okay. First of all, you have a model in your head, that's wrong. And lots of people do. They think that filling hydrogen into a high pressure gas tank is the same as pouring gasoline or diesel into a gasoline or diesel tank and it's not, okay, it's a high pressure gas. And when you feed that gas in large quantities, so for instance, for large vehicles, you have to chill it because as it expands, it heats up, it has a negative Joule Thomson coefficient. So you can't refill a hydrogen tank in three minutes on a major truck or Class 8 truck it's going to take 20 minutes it's not going to be done in three minutes. You can't just dump it in and walk and by the time you've got 20 minutes in you could have charged or you could have recharged a battery pack to 80% you know, so honestly I don't see it refueling speed and as far as range is concerned this is I think James could jump in here, James has actually got the data on this if you look at Class 8 trucks first of all, most loads do not gross out you know they don't end up limited by the mass of the you know, the gross weight of the vehicle, vehicle plus its cargo, they max out on volume. So more loads are boxes of Amazon goods that don't weigh very much but are big and bulky. Then our loads of gravel or actually of the gross loads that the ones that that max out on gross vehicle weight, guess what they are, they're mostly fossil fuels being transported, big tankers full of gasoline and diesel. So so when you look at it, the number of loads that are going to suffer from having an extra couple tons of battery being carried around in the vehicle, that are going to suffer you know from a loss of efficiency in in freight travel as a result of having heavy, heavier battery, there actually a diminishingly small fraction of the number of loads that move down the road every day. And I'll tell you something about trucking companies. I know this from experience of moving great big chemical plants over the road under special permits using heavy haul trucking, and then trying to get empty trailers back again, for a reasonable price, trucking companies understand total cost of ownership. Okay? They understand that their costs consist of not just the labor of the driver and the capital cost of the vehicle, but maintenance and energy cost. And they charge fuel surcharges to their clients, which is, frankly an embarrassment to the trucking companies, they don't like doing it, they do it because the competitive environment requires them to do it. It's a way for them to, to level their, the playing field one to the next. And to kind of take that, that fuel costs portion and externalize it, I can tell you that if you offer them an opportunity to drop their fuel cost by a factor of two or three. You know, they're willing to put up with a lot of inconvenience in order for that giant competitive edge. And hydrogen is not going to drop your fuel costs. Hydrogen is going to make their fuel cost increase. It costs more than gasoline or diesel. So I don't I honestly I don't think-
J: That's the thing, Paul. How, how is like, you got a trucking company and say, hey, look, we’re gonna save the world, and we're gonna triple your fuel cost. What do you think is gonna happen? I think that guy will go screw you, we're not gonna go hydrogen.
P: No kidding, right. I'm an old guy. I've got some gray hair. And like I said, I was working on this back in the late 90s. And the whole push for hydrogen at the time had nothing to do with decarbonisation, because decarbonisation was a future fantasy. As far as people were concerned. It had to do with emissions reductions, because they didn't like the fact that engines generated toxic emissions, particulates and NOx and sulfur dioxide and the like, right. And so hydrogen was a cleaner fuel was viewed as a cleaner fuel, albeit a much more expensive one. And it's only cleaner, honestly, if you burn it in a fuel cell. And you know that that leaves you with the limitations of fuel cells. But anyway, that being put aside, the the notion here that you're going to generate decarbonization on the back of a more expensive fuel, honestly, that's going to be the fact of the matter in aviation. It's the only way that jet aviation, for instance, is going to get decarbonized is by switching to more expensive fuels. But, you know, in trucking, they've got an alternative to switch to a cheaper fuel that also results in the decarbonisation and instead, they're going to reach for a more expensive one. Why? Because drivers are so expensive that they can't wait around for a little bit to reach? honestly I don't get it. It's not making sense it doesn't add up. And now if you think about shipping, okay, if transoceanic shipping, I want to talk about that for a second. That's the one where the thinking gets actually absolutely totally muddy. It makes it just makes no sense to me at all. transoceanic shipping, you know long distance shipments of goods from China, for instance, the cost of transoceanic shipping per ton mile is 40 to 60% fuel costs, and that's using the cheapest liquid petroleum garbage that they can burn that you know that that's now half a percent sulfur, they're regulated to half a percent sulfur, which is still enormous. I mean, it's 50,000 ppm whereas diesel is 30. Right. So, when you think about transoceanic shipping, the value proposition for decarbonisation is a total mystery, because every decarbonized fuel doesn't matter hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, biofuels, it doesn't matter which one you pick, is going to cost a huge multiple of what they're paying right now. And that's going to go right to the bottom line of the of, of those shipping companies, they're going to have to charge greatly more to ship goods. Now that's okay, if it's like, I don't know, Nikes. Shipping a pair of running shoes, it's not going to add very much cost to the pair to a pair of running shoes. But it certainly is going to add an awful lot of costs to people shipping, bulk goods, you know, ores and wood and raw materials, and those costs are gonna skyrocket.
D: Now, I don't think that that's due to the volume feed because at the same the same things again, we go back to the history of electrification, it was kind of like the same problem back then, right, we were going back to 2005-2006 the same problem for were actually scaling up electrification was the same thing. They don't have volumes, right. And we have problems of raw materials as well. And we have problems over the cost of lifecycle analysis of doing the cars as well and it was kind of like the same, the cost. I mean, the first battery I bought for, for an OEM it cost me 65,000 pounds or $75,000. Right? So basically, I'm basically you can find it the same battery now you can buy it for China for probably like $400, right? With the same energy that-
P: You just brought up the other problem, David, that people aren't talking about. Okay, so what-what happened? How did that expensive lithium ion battery that you bought for 65,000 pounds become a vastly cheaper one. The reason is everybody started, everybody had a cell phone, and meaningfully improving the lifetime of their cell phone or the power draw from that cell phone. So it could do more things and be more useful to people made it worthwhile for cell phone manufacturers to pay $3,000 a kilowatt hour for the original prototype lithium ion batteries because they were the best thing that existed. And that mobile electronics market, small batteries, but billions of them caused the the rights law doubling cost improvements chain to happen to the point where it almost started to look like one day, you might be able to make a practical electric car using lithium ion batteries. And, and the rest is history. I mean, we now you know, I bought some prismatic cells, lithium iron phosphate cells recently with a friend of mine for a solar application, and they were under $100 a kilowatt hour. I mean, it's the batteries are cheap now. And so and the reason they got cheap electronics now let me finish. Hydrogen doesn't have the same path scale. And the problem with hydrogens path to scale is that cars and light trucks were their path to scale. And cars and light trucks are dead for hydrogen. So fuel cells were going to get cheap by making millions of them for cars and light trucks. And hence the cheaper fuel cells would be affordable in in big trucks in Class 8 trucks. Well guess what? The path to scale is gone. They're going to have to go in there. You know, just with billions of dollars of their own money saying yeah, okay, the fuel cells cost $150,000 Each right now, in the hope that someday we get that down to $10,000 each, we're going to subsidize the first runs of production of hydrogen trucks. Are you kidding me? It's not a mod-
D: That's but that's what happened with electric though. So no, that's what happened with electric Paul, is exactly you're describing what happened with-
P: what happened with what happened with electric is that there wasn't off the scale. The path to scale was mobile electronics-
D: - I think that this operation, it was basically subsidizing by by governments to bring the power trains and get bring the cost of battery down. Right. And that was that was what happened between that in 2000-
P: cost of batteries, no that's not what happened. That's not what happened. What happened is-
D: we believe differently
P: - the robot electronics industry, laptops, cell phones, tablets, and all kinds of other devices. Power Tools for that matter, resulted in large volumes of lithium ion batteries and their feedstocks, cathode materials, anode materials, current collector foils, all of that stuff being produced. And that resulted in reductions in the cost per kilowatt hour of the batteries now, yeah, okay, electric drive trains and inverters and the other stuff definitely received subsidy. That's absolutely true. And that was very helpful in reducing the cost of the vehicle. But the cost of the battery reduced as a result of market forces due to a path to scale. And hydrogen lacks that path to scale, there will be no right slot doubling for fuel cells, because there won't be any hydrogen cars. So guess what hydrogen for cars and light trucks is dead, hydrogen for for heavy trucks is similarly dead because it lacks a path to scale. And government subsidy isn't going to get it there.
J: I think the other thing that's worth pointing out here is is when you take a look back at Tesla's really early days, one of the things that they wanted to prove was that this concept of using a basically a whole bunch of laptop batteries in you know, thrown together to power a car could possibly work. And that's what the Tesla Roadster was, it was it was simply that a bunch of laptop batteries thrown in together to see what happens and and the concept proved right. I mean, of course those those batteries in the Tesla Roadster break pretty quick, but you know, the whole idea worked for in it had potential anyway to develop into something more. So you know, I think that's interesting. What Paul mentions is that this this electronics industry that developed these lithium ion batteries and then went into cars, you is I think a really, you know, interesting concept. You know, obviously, you're right, David in the sense that there has been both subsidies that OEMs and subsidies on the consumer side for electric vehicles and that continues and that's absolutely fair enough to achieve that the greater goal but you know, I'm, I think it's that pathway of you know, lithium ion development for electronics in the early mid late 2000s. And then, you know, Musk and his crew saying, hey, this this is going to work and it did
D: Well, it's that investing a lot of money, Tesla been investing a lot of money in batteries, right? Because basically, on the real roadster James, he was actually bought this history of Tesla was the it was the batteries, and the portrayal was on in UK, for lotteries engineering, the first actually portraying of Tesla creating based on the lotteries, he was subsidized by the UK government project, in which we that he was working on a Jaguar Land Rover basic research team, he was working in a particular battery pack as well, and that portraying on 2007. Right, that was when we started to bring that the things right. So basically, at the same time, I think it's, for me, it's just for me, I you know, you know, that I think I'm, I'm, I think history, as we talked initially, Paul is repeated, you know, for me, I always think that we usually assume as forgot over the history, and he always distinguish between versus edification versus hiring start remind me was the same battles, or the same conversations we were having before between diesel and petrol, right that they add, because at the end of the day, that one of the things we we might forgot he was a consumer, they want to have different types of capital, fossil fuels as well, because sometimes, as we said, humans don't learn. And we've seen that because we know we actually are waiting for the global warming for the last 50 years, and people don't learn, right. And there is a lot of people that are listened as well. And I think that's, that's something that is that is quite something that humans, we need to learn more about listening and listen to the history as well, and the potential thing of how we can do things better. But I think it's interesting conversation, right? I think we don't have much time. And now, but but I'm sure I really, really, really will love to actually visit you both in Toronto, and then grab a bite to eat and a good IPA there, and then keep having to discuss it with you guys. Because the thing is, is really interesting to understand as well how how the humanity will unveil on basically what we're doing with our power trains. And basically, I think, I think, if we can see one year's time how things are going as well, they'll be really interesting as well, because there's a lot of things happening as well in the hydrogen and electric. Right. I think Electric is really exciting. Now, Hydrogen, and we'll see if, as you said, Paul, the the the fossil fuel industry is prevailing, or basically the, the the humanity actually and the rest of the consumers actually decided that it's not good for us to to get to net zero. And I think that was a really good conversation. I think I'm really excited to keep moving with Byte Off as well. And having this conversation like with the one with Paul, why that is exciting. And thank you, Paul, for me the first one as well to supporting the podcast, right? To be with us and to share your your views that they're exciting and passionate about. And basically, thank you for your contribution to the podcast and your views. I have a really good fun. I don't know, you guys, but the intention of this is have real fun having a conversation. And I think it was a great conversation. So thank you very much.
J: Oh, sorry, Paul. I just wanted to echo those thoughts too. Great to have you, Paul. And, you know, this is a great fun to chew around. Just anything you want to say before we as we finish off.
P: Yeah, just just 1 thing to add. In these sorts of conversations in the interest of time, you end up or I end up in a situation where I have to make assertions about things that I understand and and that I've proved to myself by means of calculation and study and in some cases, my direct experience, which is like I said, I've been making and using hydrogen for 31 years. It's not a stranger to me. It's an old friend And I will have made assertions in the discussion here that sound like I'm just saying, Well, this is what I think. But I haven't had any opportunity to give you the support for it. So I encourage people to never believe anyone who just makes assertions, and instead, look to see what these things are based on. So come visit my LinkedIn profile, or visit my websites, spitfireresearch.com. And there you will find the basis for all of these opinions. They are based in fact, they're based in analysis. I don't claim to be infallible. But what I'm saying is based in some, some thought and some experience, and I encourage you to review it and see where I've gone wrong, and if I have gone wrong, then by all means, point out where I've gone wrong, and we'll have a discussion about it. That's the way that we get better about these things. We talk about it, we don't rest on our laurels, and we review the information and compare it against what science tells us. That's what I've done with hydrogen. I'm not drawing this conclusion lightly.
D: I think that's a really good message to our audience. First thing is always validate information. And then basically base yourself in science. So So basically, is the science is mathematical and physics. Is the company growing with the science right? In engineering. So basically, I think I think it's a good end up as well, Paul. So thank you, everybody, for being today with us. And then you want to take more information as well regarding hydrogen as all frame of 31 years, go visit Paul linkedin or webpage, right? And then, as I said, have a conversation with him if you think that some of the assumptions are not the right ones. Always believe in science. That's the thing that I want, I want to correct to our audience as well. So thank you very much, guys. And then we see you again in the next podcast for Byte Off.
J: Yes, thanks again, Dave. And we'll see you soon, mate.