Talk:Hydrogen strategy

This entire document describes the topic solely from the point of view of advocacy organizations over represented among the sources. The points of view opposing a "hydrogen strategy" are not represented. The section "Economic impact and future outlook" is especially skewed. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The source

• Cheng, W., & Lee, S. (2022). How green are the national hydrogen strategies?. Sustainability, 14(3), 1930.

contradicts the claims in "Comparison of national strategies"

• We find that most national strategies are of the type “scale first and clean later”, with one or more regulatory measures in place. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

In my option the specific details in the hydrogen strategies of individual governments is not encyclopedic knowledge. Summarizing the concept of "hydrogen strategy" does not require exhaustive enumeration by nationality. The breadth of nations with plans, the ones that do not have them, and particularly notable plans could be briefly noted without undue content about each plan. These plans are ultimately just speculation, not knowledge and thus they do not need to be summarized here. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I deleted this content along with a bunch of stuff with fake sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@Clayoquot Hi. The content

• These plans are designed to achieve national objectives related to climate change mitigation, enhanced energy security, economic growth through the creation of new industries.

was sourced to a peer reviewed paper with 124 citations in Google Scholar:

• Andrews, John; Shabani, Bahman (2014). "The role of hydrogen in a global sustainable energy strategy". WIREs Energy and Environment. 3 (5): 474–489. Bibcode:2014WIREE...3..474A. doi:10.1002/wene.103. ISSN 2041-840X.

which says

• This paper reviews the role envisaged for hydrogen energy within the context of global and national ‘sustainable’ energy strategies, that is, strategies seeking to address climate change imperatives and guarantee energy security.

I think the source clearly supports

• These plans are designed to achieve national objectives related to climate change mitigation and enhanced energy security.

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The source

• Cheng, Wenting; Lee, Sora (2022-02-08). "How Green Are the National Hydrogen Strategies?". Sustainability. 14 (3): 1930. Bibcode:2022Sust...14.1930C. doi:10.3390/su14031930. ISSN 2071-1050.

clearly supports the climate change mitigation claim. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm currently travelling so I haven't had a chance to reply in the past couple of days. I'll try to reply soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi John & everyone. The claim in question is about what "these" plans are intended to achieve. When I removed the claim, the context had "these" referring to a comprehensive, government-led plan that outlines a nation's approach. The Andrews/Shabani 2014 paper could not have been referring to any comprehensive government-led plan because none existed at the time. Andrews and Shabani's paper is prescriptive rather than descriptive - it talks about a role that they, as the authors of the paper, envision for hydrogen.

One of the reasons the old Hydrogen strategy article (which has since been redirected) was misleading is that the role of H2 envisioned by sustainable energy experts differs vastly from the role of H2 envisioned by industry groups and some governments. The Cheng/Lee paper describes these differences well. The old Hydrogen strategy article conflated these things, thus greenwashing policies which could worsen emissions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. However I disagree. The Cheng/Lee review is 2022, contradicting your analysis. The entire thrust of this review is given in the title and it clearly implies that these hydrogen strategies are intended to be "related to climate change mitigation". Cheng points out they don't necessarily deliver, which is also said in the content. The roles of H2 envisioned by the experts or industry groups is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the objective of these strategies and that is clearly dominated by issues related to climate change mitigation. Why? Because experts like Andrews/Shabani made the case that such strategies could be an important tool towards that objective. It's not like 28 nations woke up one morning and all wrote strategies. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

My point was that the claim I removed failed verification to the source that was cited at the time. If you have a good source on the goals of hydrogen strategies and want to add a statement summarizing what that source says, I'd be all for that. BTW unfortunately the Cheng/Lee paper is in Sustainability (journal) which has been flagged as predatory, so I don't think that particular source will work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Since we are discussing reliable sources I think you should give your source for the claim that the journal "has been flagged as predatory". In fact there are varying opinions on this claim. I do not claim that the journal (or any MDPI journal) has a reputation that immediately makes papers notable (eg Nature), but rather that the 124 citations stands out. To be honest the claim we are discussing seems close to obvious. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I take your point that whether Sustainability (journal) is predatory is debatable. I noticed that Scopus recently re-evaluated it and found it acceptable. I looked for other sources that give a global overview of national hydrogen strategies and didn't find anything better, so if nobody else objects I think we can use it.

It's obvious that mitigating climate change is a stated goal of most or all hydrogen strategies but whether the strategies are designed to do this is controversial. I see you've put the gist of the Cheng/Lee paper over at Hydrogen economy, which is great. Let's continue over there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Since we are the only two here we could agree to move this thread if you like, not a big deal either way. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)