As per the article, there’s a bunch of hydrogen projects starting, but they often aren’t “green” hydrogen that’s made from water or whatever like people normally assume and instead is made from fossil fuels. On the one hand it means we will have an already built out and hopefully working hydrogen infrastructure for when we get “green” hydrogen figured out, but on the other hand it’s not really much better than just burning fossil fuels (sort of, in some cases - it’s complicated) if it’s not “green” hydrogen so it’s kind of a putting the Kart in front of the Mario situation. All the new subsidies say they’re for “green” hydrogen projects, but the companies involved really want that relaxed because making “green” hydrogen right now instead of the other colors is really hard. Also since it’s all fossil fuels based production it’s fossil fuel companies doing it all, which are notoriously just honorable and good in all ways and would never do anything that could harm the public; so there’s definitely no reason to be concerned.
TLDR: it’s not the hydrogen it’s the everything else when you make hydrogen.
Also, it’s the hydrogen too because there’s no economical and reliable way to store hydrogen except in the form of hydrocarbons, so the whole concept is self-defeating.
Technically that’s not a public health issue. And you can reliably store hydrogen for a day or two without too much leaking out, which does make it economical and reliable in rocketry and maybe aviation.
Public health? Of hydrogen? Other than explosive concerns, what’s the issue?
As per the article, there’s a bunch of hydrogen projects starting, but they often aren’t “green” hydrogen that’s made from water or whatever like people normally assume and instead is made from fossil fuels. On the one hand it means we will have an already built out and hopefully working hydrogen infrastructure for when we get “green” hydrogen figured out, but on the other hand it’s not really much better than just burning fossil fuels (sort of, in some cases - it’s complicated) if it’s not “green” hydrogen so it’s kind of a putting the Kart in front of the Mario situation. All the new subsidies say they’re for “green” hydrogen projects, but the companies involved really want that relaxed because making “green” hydrogen right now instead of the other colors is really hard. Also since it’s all fossil fuels based production it’s fossil fuel companies doing it all, which are notoriously just honorable and good in all ways and would never do anything that could harm the public; so there’s definitely no reason to be concerned.
TLDR: it’s not the hydrogen it’s the everything else when you make hydrogen.
Also, it’s the hydrogen too because there’s no economical and reliable way to store hydrogen except in the form of hydrocarbons, so the whole concept is self-defeating.
Technically that’s not a public health issue. And you can reliably store hydrogen for a day or two without too much leaking out, which does make it economical and reliable in rocketry and maybe aviation.
So, not economical enough for domestic or industrial uses, and battery storage of energy can last longer?
Yes.