Thanks for posting this balanced view of hydrogen, given the standard scientific view of energy.

Adjustment of the latter, as has to happen, will make far more clear the case for green hydrogen.

The problem with the standard scientific view of energy is that it is fundamentally flawed in a way that seems mundane until the systemic effects are traced through.

Historically, it didn't matter, because the damage done by it might have seemed negligible.

But with time, it has become ever more significant, until now when it is clearly exponential, fundamentally related to the global energy problem, manifesting as systematic destruction of the planet, which we are tied into economically, until the flaw is put right, and the systemic effects are traced through, revising the scientific view of energy as necessary.

The fundamental flaw is that there is a mathematical sign missing from the general scientific view of energy.

It requires to be signed, to indicate its effect on the base of Joules on Earth.

If it adds to the base on Earth, then it is positive.

If it subtracts from the base on Earth, then it is negative.

Energy extraction from materials results in a net reduction of Joules on Earth, therefore any energy yielded by it requires to be negatively signed.

We might see this as a mathematical definition of destruction; the remova of Joules from Earth.

Similar analyses can be done on any form of energy "Generation".

So we should see that energy by extraction is not actually a source of energy, but a sink of energy.

So the only actual source of energy is that which adds Joules to Earth, which is the sun.

This is the only source that can be used to generate truly green hydrogen, something that truly adds to Earth, actual creation.

Changing the fundamental perception of energy to clarify it in this way will result in us reevaluating everything we do with energy, all business.

Anythng done with negative energy has to propagate to things with negative effects on the planet, and as long as we don't make this distinction, whilst positive energy contributes between 10 and 20 percent, relentlessly scaling up, driven by nature, the sum of this with negative business, as happens automatically if the sign of energy is ignored, results in financial inflation, since the thing of value, the positive business done, is not monetised at all, only business resulting from negative energy is monetised.

This is because money is issued only as promises to pay, which trace ultimately to the labor of extraction.

Since positive energy has no associated labor of extraction, money issued as debt cannot ennumerate it.

The only way it can be ennumerated is by money given for free, issued in direct response to the Joules received which are put to work for us, in the same way as nutrients within a plant are issued in reponse to the joules received by its leaves.

Sorry this might not seem directly relevant to your article, which is about hydrogen, but it might help you see a different view of hydrogen, it actually is the silver bullet of how to most effectively transport energy, but we need to sort out our view of energy in order to see it clearly, I would say, and every minute now counts, as to how much longer we want to continue with the system broken, because of nothing more than a missing mathematical sign from energy.