Yes, in a neutral environment everything can be discussed and its a "healthy". The problem is that hydrogen was used as a discussion poison. It uses up air and

Yes, in a neutral environment everything can be discussed and its a "healthy". The problem is that hydrogen was used as a discussion poison. It uses up air and blocks talking about the important stuff. You cannot discuss every crackpot idea for everything always. I am tried of it. It only got traction in the first place because it was something that seemed to work "like people are used to" ie. tanking fuel at a fuel station and at the same time needed "development". This made it a nice way to show your car company was hip and with the times and at the same time didn't mean you actually had to build the things since more development was always needed. Battery powered cars were always too easy to create into whatever disapointing lackluster form they had at that time in history. For me unless you preface that you have an interesting use case for hydrogen or solved one of the fundamental inefficiencies in getting hydrogen and using it then I am not interested in hearing about it. Especially in combination with personal transportation. Oh and Green Hydrogen functionally does not exist. Ditto Blue Hydrogen (as in that CO2 sequestering probably doesn't work). That leaves grey Hydrogen from steam reforming and that how hydrogen is made from natural gas creating a lot of CO2. Shilling for Green Hydrogen basically means Shilling for grey hydrogen and that is the worst. I have some hope that pyrolyse will be used in the future instead of steam reforming because it seems you actually can sequester that carbon it creates but its less efficient by a lot vs steam reformation and emitting CO2.