Economic failure means it wasn't profitable.
But is life ever really profitable, given profit is monetised destruction? The energy in proift is exclusively extracted from the planet, it's always a product of destruction. It has to be, this is more or less a physical law.
So profit is distinctly anti-life, its a product of destroying life, destroying information.
And its related to lies, dishonesty, because creation is reduction of entropy, which is information definition, whereas destruction, heating, is information destruction, which heats, rather than cools. The universe knows when we lie. Its screaming at us right now "Liars, liars, planet's on fire"!
Yet we use the criteria of "profitable" to determine if something is viable? Isn't this a little strange? Who or what taught us, trained us to do this, destroy the planet and all life for profit? It certainaly wasn't the environment.
Again, hydrogen comes into its own when created from solar, and this has nothing to do with profit, its what is survivable, what brings down temperature and entropy increase, what actually creates instead of destroys.
Monetisation of using solar like this, honestly, will require money is issued for free. This is what is required for honesty, otherwise, if profit is attempted to be made on it, it just ends up coming from the planet again, because it isnt possible to profit from the sun, it gives what it gives for free.
Looks like nature is finally forcing us to be honest :)
"Carbon-neutral" becomes a nonsense term, when we realise the temperatures measured are not about any blanket effect - the atmosphere is adiabatic, there is no blanket effect, the temperatures measure are direct measurements of increase of entropy - loss of life from the planet - desertification, loss of species, loss of life.
Do you know what the pressurisation of pipelines are? I don't think its very high, only a few psi, nothing like the pressures required to cause hydrogen embrittlement, so I would question your references there on that last statement.
Also it follows logically that hydrogen liquidised at low temperature will require that low temp to be maintained, to keep the hydrogen in liquid state, at low pressure, but does anyone know what the containment pressure of hydrogen liquidised at reem temperature would be? No, because no data exists for it, like I said, its been defunded by the fossil fuels industry, who "funded" nearly all hydrogen research in history. What do yo do with potential competitors? Starve them, genocide them, yada yada. Hydrogen was always seen as a threat to fossil fuels. They've done their very best to kill it, but things have to move on now, the thing we can't stand about fossil fuels is the poisoning of the environment, but this is independent of the global energy problem pushing up temperature, its a separate issue of fossil fuels, which is solved at the same time as solving all the other energy problems, all is solved by moving completely to solar, using distributed money fuel tree architecture, backed by solar indexed stimulus.
Its my opinion that we will quickly find a way to liquefy hydrogen at room temperature, and this will be storable in more or less standard aerosl type containers, at pressures much lower than embrittlement by hydrogen in liquid state.
I don't know if for certain, but it it wasn't possible, it would be the first gas we ever found to be like that, and why should it be? What physical reason is there, for hydrogen not being compressible to liquid state, at room temperature? Why can't we find records of it even being tried, in all the academic literature on it?
