[member=122]Mav[/member], generalising the case whether the debate is economic, technical or scientific isn't valid. There is no one answer to suit all cases, some may imagine there is, but that is the problem it's imagination not reality.
The case for fossil fuel sourced hydrogen as a foundational source for a hydrogen economy is a prime example. Many want to paint it as the one and only path forward, and so assert that is a good enough reason not to pursue hydrogen in total as a solution. It's a flawed argument, based on a false premise, a conspiracy wanted to justify a political position. I don't know anybody in the industry making such assertions, in fact pretty much everyone I talk to claims the exact opposite, that the plan is to migrate to clean hydrogen sources as rapidly as possible. This makes the papers you list a bit ludicrous, the figures might be accurate but they are creatively twisted for political purposes.
Whether you like it or not, hydrogen economy is here to stay, it's one of only a handful of viable energy storage and transport solutions for a large sector of the modern economy. Given you are wealthy enough you can install a converter / generator at home right now and be free of the grid, recharge your EV and also heat your home, with power reserves far beyond those economically achievable by the best cost equivalent batteries or other alternatives. Flow batteries might one day become available, but at this time there is no available option although they are being worked on.
Hydrogen makes up about 75.2% of the matter in the visible known universe, it will never run out, it's also the ultimate source of the light harvested by SolarPV! :o
PS; Repeating, hydrogen from methane is already done at scale, with minimal greenhouse emissions, the fact that it isn't been done on a wider scale is the real environmental crime. If it was subsidised like SolarPV and given the same political will it would proliferate rapidly.
The case for fossil fuel sourced hydrogen as a foundational source for a hydrogen economy is a prime example. Many want to paint it as the one and only path forward, and so assert that is a good enough reason not to pursue hydrogen in total as a solution. It's a flawed argument, based on a false premise, a conspiracy wanted to justify a political position. I don't know anybody in the industry making such assertions, in fact pretty much everyone I talk to claims the exact opposite, that the plan is to migrate to clean hydrogen sources as rapidly as possible. This makes the papers you list a bit ludicrous, the figures might be accurate but they are creatively twisted for political purposes.
Whether you like it or not, hydrogen economy is here to stay, it's one of only a handful of viable energy storage and transport solutions for a large sector of the modern economy. Given you are wealthy enough you can install a converter / generator at home right now and be free of the grid, recharge your EV and also heat your home, with power reserves far beyond those economically achievable by the best cost equivalent batteries or other alternatives. Flow batteries might one day become available, but at this time there is no available option although they are being worked on.
Hydrogen makes up about 75.2% of the matter in the visible known universe, it will never run out, it's also the ultimate source of the light harvested by SolarPV! :o
PS; Repeating, hydrogen from methane is already done at scale, with minimal greenhouse emissions, the fact that it isn't been done on a wider scale is the real environmental crime. If it was subsidised like SolarPV and given the same political will it would proliferate rapidly.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"