Um, not that the "drill, baby, drill," fossil fuel industry efforts to rebrand it's product as "hydrogen," gives a flying fuck about the environment, but let's assume that this wasn't bullshit, although clearly it is.
In a time of extreme global heating, with seas rising, would it really be a good idea to burn a dangerous gas whose product is water?
As I pointed out in another thread involving the tiresome and endless hydrogen bullshit, here advertised with slick but dishonest videos, has a long history of selling wishful thinking to gullible people.
Here's a swell history of the last half a century of hydrogen bullshit:
A Historical Analysis of Hydrogen Economy Research, Development, and Expectations, 1972 to 2020
A fun excerpt:
In 2004, HyNet Project [15] reported there would be half a million to one million FCV in Europe by 2015, while the Fuel Cell Commercialization Conference of Japan (FCCJ) [16] projected five million FCV in Japan by 2020 in their 2002 roadmap. However, IEA only reported over forty thousand FCV on the road globally in 2021 [17]. The latest interest wave has arisen as governments and energy companies have put hydrogen forward as a major candidate to decarbonize the economy, with extra momentum for post-COVID-19 recovery efforts...
Exactly 21 years ago, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, in week 19 of 2004, was 380.69 ppm. This morning it was reported (a daily reading from yesterday) it was as follows:
May 14: 430.69 ppm
May 13: Unavailable
May 12: Unavailable
May 11: Unavailable
May 10: 431.25 ppm
Last Updated: May 15, 2025
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2 In the last 21 years, all of it filled with hydrogen bullshit not any different that the barely disguised Exxon ads that run here, that's 50 ppm. So much for fuel cell miracles. (If one was aware of the chemistry of fuel cells, it's even more obscene, but that's another point.)
= new reply since forum marked as read