> So the point is that you are simply wrong about your understanding of the issue. The intellectual community fully accepts the possibility of hydrogen as a wid

> So the point is that you are simply wrong about your understanding of the issue. The intellectual community fully accepts the possibility of hydrogen as a widespread fuel and a way to solve climate change. That is terribly naive and wishful thinking, I’m afraid. For even the smallest-scale industrial applications, hydrogen is almost invariably produced on-site, near or within the manufacturing cell consuming it. Even if Linde charged nothing at all for hydrogen, electrolysis would still win: no 10kpsi (good lord) tank, no inevitable 1% loss per month of high-pressure hydrogen, no extra insurance premium. If you’d dealt with hydrogen in industry, you might appreciate the problems with it. The static electric discharge from fingertip to ground required to ignite hydrogen is barely perceptible, and a ridiculously low atmospheric hydrogen concentration will burn with a very hot flame invisible in daylight. The proposition of the public driving high-pressure hydrogen tanks around is brain-damaged. If you want fuel, you should make methanol from your hydrogen - for the same reasons that, if you want hydrogen, you already produce it from water or natural gas or propane. Hydrogen has been an excellent topic for boastful press releases by car companies, corrupt nations, and fossil fuel producers murderously determined to continue the status quo indefinitely. It’s ideal for that, because there’s no danger of practicality.