The only close mindedness going around is your apperant fixation on Hydrogen as a goal in and of itself, rather than on producing and providng clean energy.
You are seeing what you want to see. And what I see is someone showing a complete lack of knowledge about material science.
> If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure.
The existing natural gas infrastructure will not simply "switch over" because it fundamentally is incapable of safely transporting hydrogen. You need different material properties in your metal to handle hydrogen (see hydrogen embritlement as one reason), to say nothing of the other equipment involved. These cannot be "switched over", they must be completely replaced.
This in fact is the thinking that's backwards: continue to think about chemical energy carriers and moving them around in pipes. This made sense when we started with chemicals (fossil fuels), but it makes no sense when our starting point is electricity. Simply store and more that electriicty around.
> Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen.
> Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production.
No it won't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it.
Further, if you're buying electricity for a negative price, you're getting it from a coal/gas plant which is decidedly not green. Or if you're lucky from a nuclear plant.
Very cheap electricity is a necessary condition for cheap green hydrogen, not an incentive for it.
Again, cheap is not free, and at the energy requirements needed per kg of H2, even cheap adds up quickly. Further, the equipment to produce, store, and transport it are not cheap, and are certainly not free.
> Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction.
All together now: the sun shines and wind blows even if you turn off your solar panels and wind turbines. Nothing is wasted.
> anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it.
Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true.
As for the H2 Science Coalition, they clearly are not. They are very clear that hydrogen has it's uses (and its own major decarbonization problems). But that it's simply very poorly suited to be "an energy carrier".