EU’s hydrogen strategy needs ‘reality check’, say auditors

3 comments

1. For “hydrogen”, read “methane” because thats where 98% of hydrogen comes from.

   And it’s significantly worse for emissions because the storage, transmission and use of hydrogen is so energy-intensive and inefficient.

   It’s effectively taking bad fuel, making a much less practical and efficient version of it and then labelling it a good substitute for the first fuel.

   In short, it’s greenwashing bs and it’s designed specifically to keep the fossil fuel industry in business for as long as possible.

2. 10s of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure build out for a fuel that is mostly made through SMR aka steam methane reforming.

   It’s just the oil and gas industry, that’s it kids.

3. Hydrogen has some huge fundamental problems, mostly a very low boiling point.

   It’s actually a great fuel when produced at atmospheric pressure and used on site from tap water and grid electricity but it’s just horrible to try and transport around.

   Syngas is much better, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be used to make liquid fuels. Biomass sourced fuels are a much better solution than liquid hydrogen in almost every way.