What are; ''CO2-equivalent emissions,''?
Emissions either are or are not CO2, how can they be equivalent?

Hyrogen burns clean but it is also very dangerous to use as fuel or energy storage because it is explosive!
& there is actually no need for it!
All heavy diesel vehicles just need large scale production of biodiesel fuel & for energy storage there are already battery solutions of all sizes!

Sorry, but I can't accept their claim to be a CO2 reducer. The renewable energy sources providing power for this plant qualify, but there presently isn't a demand for this form of stored energy that will switch from fossil fuels to H2. It provides an option for switching from fossil fuel to renewable, but there are other options. Whether this is the best option is unclear.

Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC)?! So, to transport the "H2", it's attached to a carbon-based molecule. Say, isn't that like, oh, oil? I'll go with methane as that is the most effective "H2" carrier known.

Using Diesel tankers to transport their clean hydrogen?!

Nice write up Loz, and I can see that it may well be the largest CO2 emission reduction facility in the works - to the free world's knowledge. Yes, China may top it. Coupled with the Air-Liquide's Quebec plant it will mark a turning point for alternate energy production.

Worzel - "CO2 Equivalent emissions" may seem a conundrum. You are literally correct: "CO2" and "No CO2" are not equivalent, but the literal article discussed the replacement of literal hydrocarbon fuels thereby reducing CO2 emissions by an definable amount - an Equivalent amount. Just like steam engines with a horsepower equivalent that had no actual horses.

Whatever this thing does to mitigate climate change will be a very small fraction of Brazil cutting down the Amazon.

Instead of the LOHCs the plant could synthesize methanol ( from hydrogen and dissolved CO2) , which is easier to transport and can be easily modified into diesel-like fuel.

As people have mentioned, there are difficulties with things like this, such as the fact that the hydrogen will have to be shipped by diesel freighters, but if you build hydrogen powered freighters first, you'd just say, "But producing the hydrogen requires fossil fuels to power the hydrogen production facilities!"

One of these things has to come first. After hydrogen production gets going, then you can focus on building the diesel freighters. (Of course, some people are already trying to do this, and there is competition from non-hydrogen power sources, but the point remains that building a large network of supportive infrastructure has to start somewhere, and you can't expect the whole thing to get up and running at once.)

I think hydrogen is the future. I think it is better than battery electric vehicles. It is just my opinion.

Hydrogen is explosive but so is gasoline / diesel fuel. I saw a hydrogen leak in a car (video) and the flames went straight up while the gas leak in a gas car spread flames where ever the gas went (coated the ground under and around the car).