That's a very good point.
The use of hydrogen in many respects is far more significant than the use of lithium batteries as an energy storage mechanism. I think it's important—and I'm sure you know this—that hydrogen is largely unavailable on planet earth. It left a long time ago. We have to produce hydrogen the way we produce electricity. You have to use energy to store it in an intermediate form. Electricity is inherently a clean way to use energy, but we have to use energy to make it. Hydrogen is similar.
I would say, again, when you look at the physical resource and the economic requirements, the same conclusion one reaches is that, given the chemistry we have and the energetics we know on how to make hydrogen, at scales that a country needs, it will take a very long time to have a significant effect with hydrogen. But it will be more significant, faster, than batteries. A fuel cell with hydrogen is also very expensive, like lithium batteries, but far more effective. However, there are no means known to produce at the scale and the prices that society is currently willing to pay for energy. It's a very expensive path, with many technical problems. Hydrogen is hard to store. It embrittles steel. When you store it, it requires much more rigorous safety procedures than natural gas does. Roughly 99% of the world's hydrogen today, as you know, is produced from a process called “reforming” natural gas. It's basically a way to use natural gas more cleanly, but it's roughly twice as expensive as using natural gas to make electricity.