Cheap, green hydrogen would be a breakthrough in clean energy

Sure we can, but a) all processes synthesizing hydrocarbons start with hydrogen, so you'll need cheap green hydrogen to begin with, and b) it takes a lot of energy.

I can get behind the round-trip inefficiencies if it gets terribly cheap, but I can't imagine how storage and transportation can ever be economical.

We are trying to contain the most volatile substance in the universe. It needs incredible pressure just to be manageable and even then, it freaking diffuses within the steel walls themselves, leaking and making it brittle over time. It's not hard to imagine single protons wandering by in high pressure H2.

I mean, it's doable, but economical? It's hard for me to believe it ever will be, no matter the scale.

> This is such generic analysis all it serves as is just a big-name-person blog post that can be linked to as an example of status-quo conventional wisdom.

I thought the same thing, but reading through the comments here makes me realize how many people seem to be completely unaware about the hydrogen discussion.

I didn't know that. It certainly is safer.

Ammonia production, as I already mentioned in another reply, currently requires natural gas as as source of hydrogen.

Regardless of its use as a way of storing energy, it is already a very important industrial ingredient. Namely for fertilizer production.

As I see it, the only major problem with the current technology is that it might not be adaptable to new sources. New plants would have to be built.

I see exactly NO explanation about clean hydrogen production:

- electrolysis demand so much energy that there is no point in using it, yes we can even use p.v. power to made hydrogen, only issue: with a large stadium of panel we can produce less than a pencil volume in H. Natural H reserves given it's atomic size sound a bit sci-fi to me;

- since we can't store it safely we need to use it almost directly, witch is doable in fuel-cell but since decades we fail to see real practical applications on scale.

Long story short: yes if we can produce hydrogen in a clean way in quantity and we can store it the Green New Deal is solved, actually we can't. Similar thing for p.v./eolic for electricity: if we can find hyper-cheap, hyper-effective, hyper-capable batteries the renewable revolution is solved, again we can't. Lithium is the best we have now and is far to be usable on scale.

Honestly, considering myself a REAL environmentalist, witch means someone who really care about nature, not simply dream about sci-fi like tech on advertisement, the sole practical Green revolution for a spring grass green, not a dollar-green, I see are:

- nuclear fission, since we have it, we can enlarge it, it's already working and can give us nearly enough energy for almost needs, waiting for something better, perhaps fusion if it ever arrive. To be safe and usable enough it MUST BE a PUBLIC ONLY scenario;

- mountain hydro as much as we can, p.v. and eolic for SMALL plants, like individual homes or to give extra power when possible to small community;

- pushing electric logistic witch means nuclear ships and electric trains powered by public NPP, eventually receiving p.v./eolic surplus where possible;

- pushing AT MAXIMUM new modern homes constructions to need FAR LESS energy to keep them comfortable;

- pushing as much as possible electrification of industries, for some is easy (aluminum, glass for instance) for some next to impossible so fare (steel, ceramic etc) trying to favor via taxes the electrified ones, like "aluminum products cost less than iron one, use steel only if is REALLY needed";

- gas for the needed interim because so far we have not enough nuclear and we can't create new one quickly. Methane is the least pollutant of all oil&gas products we have available in sufficient quantity with sufficiently spread infra.

The rest is nothing grass green, just suicidal propaganda to milk money keeping the ship running toward rocks.