Blaming this on just Trump or his administration is peak TDS.

Seems like science isn't really science when politics get involved.
Certainly on a complex subject like this is very easy to leave important factors out and bend the outcome of any publication.
It happens both with D and R governments, malicious people on both sides. Both sides.

That point may come. I'm no expert but I'm going with: at least not in the first 50 years.
Production of hydrogen is the problem.
By far most hydrogen produced today is made from fossil fuels and is equally polluting.
A much smaller part of it is made by electrolysis, which is very wasteful and results in hydrogen that is 3 times as expensive as that made from methane.
So with current tech we would need massive amounts of excess green electricity to make hydrogen a better option than ICEs and BEVs.
This is besides the issues of storing and transporting it.
Any company promoting a hydrogen powered product is purely doing so for PR, not because it's a good idea.

In C it's half. In F it's only 20%. Still sloppy journalism.
But there are bigger issues, the headline mentions hydrogen fuel but the article does not relate to actual hydrogen production.

The headline is misleading.
This research relates to making hydrogen fuel cells more affordable and practical.
Hydrogen fuel cells turn hydrogen and oxygen into water and electricity.
The production of hydrogen is still the bottleneck and the tech in TFA does not change that.

Just shut down Wikipedia for the UK.
You only need a few big sites to do the same to get the UK government to reconsider this dystopian law.

To be fair, the Apollo program had plenty of fails before it managed a successful landing.
Not in the least one where they burnt 3 astronauts alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. And it always will be.

Currently most hydrogen is produced by splitting up fossil fuels into hydrogen and CO.
The result is that it's just as expensive and just as polluting as those fossil fuels. If not slightly more due to the extra steps involved.

The alternative is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, electrolysis.
This process is clean if you don't account for how that electricity is generated.
Also, it's very inefficient. An EV with a battery would do three times as many miles as a hydrogen powered EV on the same amount of electricity if this is how that hydrogen was produced.
So the only way this makes sense is if we had an abundance of electricity.

Just tiny brushes moved around by a magnet.

People first.
I should be able to buy a self-driving car and schedule it to do taxi duties on Uber/Lyft when I don't need it.
This is no need to involve government incompetence or corporate greediness.

Paper straws are not a reasonable alternative.

They just bought them. The company that makes them is close to selling them for 10 years now.
https://www.saildrone.com/

Also, it's a stopgap.
Battery will drastically improve. Every decade we discover new battery tech that massively outperforms it predecessor.
This whole thing will be obsolete in just 10 to 15 years.

I don't buy the idea that government can fix problems.
At best it creates just as many new problems.

Either corporations want government because it works in their benefit, for example by making it harder for competitors to get into their business.
Or corporations do not want government since it stops them from doing whatever they want.
The fact that they don't all support the libertarian party shows which of the two it is.

What would be the problem?
The customers get lower prices, that's a win.
And if the surviving shop raises it's prices after bankrupting it's competition it will get undercut by others.
The only way you can maintain that monopoly is to also raise the barrier to entry for competitors with regulation like licenses.
The free market works on it's own and stops working when you let government turn the knobs.