...on hydrogen buses that they now can't sell and are thus rotting, they're replacing the hydrogen scam bases, funded by, um, BP - which should tell any serious person what they need to know - they're moving to electric busses.
Whether these will be cleaner than methane powered busses is an open question, since both electricity and hydrogen are largely made in most places from methane, about which antinukes couldn't care less.
For 2025 according to the electricity map, Great Britain, which imported 7.57%, 21.9 TWh, of its electricity from France, had a carbon intensity of 176 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh. Certainly the imports from France, with a carbon intensity of 31 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, made Great Britain cleaner than it might have been. Britain also produced 31.2 TWh of domestic nuclear power in 2025.
In most places, including where I live on the PJM grid, an electric vehicle, if one includes embodied energy, is worse than an internal combustion engine in terms of carbon intensity. In Scotland this may not be true. (We have electric buses in Princeton which where I live are worse than methane busses.)
Whether a vehicle's propulsion fuel is cleaner than methane or even petroleum is a function of local conditions. South Korea's carbon intensity is 423 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh, with dangerous coal and dangerous natural gas providing slightly less than 30% each. Probably, given the exergy destruction of fossil fuels when they drive power plants, a directly methane powered bus would be cleaner than either hydrogen or electricity. Korea has an active nuclear manufacturing base, and nuclear is responsible for about 32% of its electricity, 185 TWh. In theory South Korea would have the ability to match France, where an electric bus would have the lowest carbon intensity, although the moral stain of cobalt mining would still be entailed.
Thanks for asking.
= new reply since forum marked as read