Notice how they don't use the word "net." How much CO2 is produced to create the electricity needed for the electrolysis process that crates the "green" hydrogen? That's the rub. If it's a coal or gas plant, the net CO2 output for a given kilowatt can be higher than if gasoline is burned especially if one adds in the CO2 output to transport the hydrogen gas.

electrolyser process?

Hydrogen cells seem to always turn out to be greenwashing.

It isn't very clean or renewable if you have to burn a bunch of coal to power the process and often more than is produced by the cells.

Hiding the greenhouse upstream doesn't help.

to create the process.

The second one made mention of "concern" about not being able to fully capture emissions from natural gas.

Touting China as being ahead is even illuminating the problem, they are almost certainly burning coal and since there is no magic operating the end result is a net loss of usable energy, just with no emissions for the end user. Greenwashing.

Burning coal to produce electricity to make green hydrogen. What a win for the climate?

What happens when they sun sets? I can't seem to find any mention of what they do when the solar farm outside isn't producing power.

Do they have battery banks to carry them through the night?

Does the entire plant just shut down?

Or do they draw coal-fired electricity from China's grid to keep running 24/7?

That is, at least, my opinion. I kind of regret recusing myself when I was serving on MIRT.

It's very clear, and very well known, with not too much digging, whence hydrogen comes, resulting in exergy destruction of already problematic dangerous fossil fuels.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

The repeated robotic Potemkin videos are part of the greenwash the dangerous coal dependency of hydrogen in China, and the dangerous natural gas dependency of hydrogen elsewhere.

The goal is to sell coal and gas by rebranding them as "green" hydrogen," albeit, again, with exergy destruction and therefore environmental destruction. The pitch is assisted by the commonly held belief in this lie, that hydrogen is somehow magically "green," but the fact is that it takes about 20 EJ of energy, which is overwhelmingly dirty to make 10 EJ of hydrogen, were it used, stupidly and destructively, as a fuel rather than being used as it is overwhelmingly used, as a synthetic tool for industrial products, chiefly ammonia, on which, quite frankly and unavoidably, the world food supply for 8 billion people depends.

Facts matter.

It's kind of slick operation here, and a slick operation elsewhere, just skirting, here, under the DU rules for not engaging in commercial promotions, although what is being promoted is the general fossil fuel industry and not necessarily a specific fossil fuel company; perhaps its funded by a corporate consortium.

The salespeople and the salesbot - which is sometimes managed by a human logging into its account to foil the Turing test - can be recognized by having no other interest in promoting the lie that hydrogen is "green," no personal interests, no political interests, and no serious environmental interests. It's the same damn promotional videos again and again and again, all them, of course, dishonest in nature.

The vast majority of hydrogen for energy in the USA, around 95%, is produced through a process called steam-methane reforming. This method involves reacting natural gas (methane, CH4) with high-temperature steam, separating the hydrogen atoms from the carbon atoms. It's currently the most mature and cost-effective way to produce large amounts of hydrogen.

-Airplane

But it would be best to use existing technology to just consume the methane, aka 'natural gas', in a fuel cell.
From our own government

Fuel Cells Fact Sheet
Fuel cells are the most energy efficient devices for extracting power from fuels. Capable of running on a variety of fuels, including hydrogen, natural gas and other traditional gas and liquid fuels.

As you ramp this up, the dependency on existing power generation increases because the juice to put into the cells has to come from somewhere.

All the same emissions are there, they are just less public facing.
The portion we would try to pretend away is found in the lost efficiency between whatever is being burned to power the hydrogen cells and the end user cruising along.

There is no free lunch.

That was the point, if the hydrogen is from natural gas maybe just use natural gas or propane with those backup fuel cells directly.

with a loss of efficiency.

It would do less damage to just use NG at the user end.

This Hydrogen from natural gas thing is a big scam. Fuel cells can use Natural Gas directly to make electricity at much greater efficiency than any processing of hydrogen. Again fuel cells aren't just for hydrogen they can use other gaseous fuels.