It's worth noting that Jacob Leachman, a researcher at Washington State University, wrote against the Nytimes piece referenced: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2021/08

It's worth noting that Jacob Leachman, a researcher at Washington State University, wrote against the Nytimes piece referenced: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2021/08/19/bias-and-green-vs-blue-hydrogen/ https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2021/08/19/bias-and-green-vs-blue-h... To make sense of a few things, first, what are the different types of hydrogen production (from Leachman's piece): ‘Black’ hydrogen is produced from coal or oil with the highest associated CO2 emissions. ‘Gray’ hydrogen is produced from methane with steam reformation resulting in approximately 7.2 kg CO2 for every kilogram of hydrogen produced (this is the color associated with the vast majority of industrial hydrogen produced over the years, which nearly entirely go to petroleum refining and ammonia fertilizer production). ‘Blue’ hydrogen is produced with CO2 emissions but those emissions are captured and sequestered in some way, like geological storage or concrete. ‘Pink’ hydrogen is produced with no CO2 emissions but from a nuclear reactor and the associated nuclear waste (for what it’s worth hydrogen will fluoresce a beautiful pink in an arc lamp, just about the only color hydrogen ever actually is). ‘Green’ hydrogen is produced with no CO2 emissions, typically from electrolyzing water via renewable energy like wind or solar. From the OP arstechnica piece about Chris Jackson: "Jackson continues by saying that blue hydrogen is “at best an expensive distraction, and at worst a lock-in for continued fossil fuel use” which would derail goals that the country and the world have set for decarbonizing the economy. He takes particular issue with the fact that oil and gas companies have asked the UK government for decades of subsidies while also claiming that blue hydrogen will be inexpensive to produce. “If the false claims made by oil companies about the cost of blue hydrogen were true, their projects would make a profit by 2030,”" From Leachman's piece: " For what it’s worth, all you’ll see is green hydrogen in my CSA short course or on my blog, because that is the future I’m training professionals for. But you won’t see me slamming the door shut on ‘blue’ hydrogen either. The green hydrogen route with liquefaction that I’ve been pushing for over a decade now was long ridiculed using many of the same arguments as those against blue hydrogen above. Both the press and journal articles make the same mistake of casting as absolute extrapolations of the status quo without consideration for the limits of physical law. Those limits of physical law mean that if something is not forbidden, we will eventually find a use for positive means. What we really need is more research on ways to produce hydrogen (of any color) more efficiently with less global warming. Until we finally fund hydrogen research equivalently with batteries and electricity, all of this negative bias about hydrogen is turning my hair gray; no, let’s call it silver." (via https://twitter.com/hydrogenprof/status/1428359262506393602 https://twitter.com/hydrogenprof/status/1428359262506393602 ) Keep in mind the research funding is seemingly dependent on grants and funding from oil companies.