Fooling myself, that's funny. I didn't get to that before I applauded you fifty claps, more fool me.
OK firstly if you mathematically sign energy into Earth, positive from the sun, negative where we take it back out again, noting that when we take it out, the energy return, calculated by EROI does not take into account the energy lost by the planet, which vastly outweighs what we got.
This is the primary driver of temperature rise by E=MC squared, indisputable.
Where the energy comes in from the sun, the energy converted to anything by nature subtracts from the heat that would have occured if nature had not used it, this is the opposite effect of energy taken from the planet, it cools, again by E-MC squared, indisputable.
Create hydrogen from extracted energy, and the energy lost by low efficiency adds to what the planet lost already from extracting the enrgy used to create the hydrogen. So it adds to the heat already generated by extracting the energy to create the hydrogen, and you are right to identify that as something unsustainable.
But create the hydrogen from the only mathematically positive energy, the only one that can by used to truly create, like all of nature creates, by converting it to things other than heat, and anything at all converted to things other than heat is a triumph. Again indisputable.
Even 20% efficiency (Way below what it actually is), would still be a triumph, no matter what we do with the energy of the sun, other than just let it go to heat, its all creation, which does the opposite of destruction, destruction has to always raise temperature, whilst creation has to always cool.
This applies to all forms of extraction; nuclear, even fusion, the net result of them is destruction, and planetary heating.
The reason why you might never have heard this before is that science made a huge whopping mistake, by omitting to mathematically sign energy in and out of Earth like this, but it is extremely important to do it, to eneble all of it and the effects of it to be full audited., so that we can present indisputable information like this, so we can actually change the progression of temperature, from upwards to downwards. Hydrogen is key in getting to this.
All of this is indisputable.
You should see it changes completely how you should see hydrogen.
I can also tell you that much of what is thought to be known, even by "Hydrogen industry experts", is mistaken, because there has been a concerted attack against hydrogen for about thirty years, since it started being funded mostly by fossil fuels industry, even the modern "Reference" textbooks on hydrogen are full of subtle misinformation, all designed to make us think it's a non starter. Can you believe that in some of these texts, water remaining in hydrogen output from less than perfect 100% conversion (Impossible), is called "Pollution" in these texts? Since when did water become pollution? This is like saying water remaining in steam is pollution, its ridiculous. Also the boogey men of storage and trasnportation, all of that is well hammered out, the manufacturers of tanks and conduits all publish their specs for leakage and it is truly tiny. We put all of this stuff into hydrogen system models (I am a model based systems engineer by long practicing trade), and we simulate, and the results are pretty much bang on, what you simulate to work, builds to work.
Sorry but I am sick of hearing the misinformation about hydrogen repeated over and over, when actually it has god-signs all over it, if only people could see that.
Did you know it even converts to human food? Check out Solein. And widespread use of it would clean and circulate both air and water... what more do you need to remove all doubt from your mind about hydrogen?
