I think you can have both technologies used for different things, you know the best tool for the job. Maybe you have a ton of electricity that you just have to throw it away or pay people to take it because batteries are still not as good, if you have too much electricity you could attempt to transform it in chemical energy and store that.

I am not sure why some people think there is a Hydrogen conspiracy that is attempting to sabotage electric energy, the issue is with batteries and storage.

The issue with storage is being addressed and being fixed rapidly with battery and other technologies while hydrogen has been promised and invested in by governments for 50 years with very little results.

Some technologies with far more promise see almost no investment because the continues dream of hydrogen is always being hyped up and then governments give money to the fossil fuel or car industry to work on hydrogen.

Its far more sensible along every dimension invest money into battery and other grid storage system compared to making the highly inefficient transformation to hydrogen and back.

Not only is in inefficient, its also inherently expensive and inherently dangerous. Hydrogen sucks as a storage system and the only reason we pursue it so much is that it has been the intellectual darling since 'the hydrogen economy' came out.

Liquid Air, Liquid Metal, Redux Flow Batteries, LFP, traditional Li-Ion, Compressed air are all better technologies to invest in.

Governments put also a lot of money in green energy too so it makes sense to for them to put money in more "green" storage.

>Not only is in inefficient, its also inherently expensive and inherently dangerous.

Use best tool for the job. The natural gas I use to heat my home is dangerous too so I had to use approved professionals to install it, and I have to have approved professional come and check my installation every 2 years. When electricity would be better for my job I will use it.

Isn't a failure in logic to believe that batteries will get better and greener over time but for some reason hydrogen related stuff won't get better as well? Maybe chemists will find some efficient way to make a denser liquid fuel if we would invest enough in research.

Yes, just the best tool for the job and its not hydrogen.

Yes, hydrogen production can potentially improve. Of course, it can, if we invest infinity money into it everything can improve.

The question is with limited resources make choices about what the best couple of things are that we can invest in. In terms of basic research, some study on hydrogen is appropriate. But it is nowhere close to be the right system for grid storage, in the next 1-2 decade.

The problem is this, hydrogen is the older technology compared to these battery systems it has shown a far, far slower improvement curve. And an top of that, the cost improvement curve is even worse. Where should investment go, in places where we are making massive leaps on both the fundamentals and the cost, or to the system that is mostly stagnant.

We literally have totally new battery systems go from research to mass deployment while hydrogen with more overall investment has only improved a tiny amount.

>I am not sure why some people think there is a Hydrogen conspiracy that is attempting to sabotage electric energy, the issue is with batteries and storage.

You need to be on guard and skeptical about anyone critical of renewables, because there's been a coordinated and large-scale campaign by oil companies to push climate denialism and to pour FUD on any alternatives. And after 50 years, we're both out of time for the slow-and-steady approach and we also have technology that has major real-world adoption.

Good-faith actors are hurt by this, but there's no real alternative short of A) letting corporate campaigns control the agenda, or B) fixing our political system so corporate money isn't so effective at influencing politics. It's an unhappy situation with no easy solutions.

I agree with critical thinking, but the comment I replied was about using electricity generated probably by renewable that is stored as hydrogen. So the hydrogen cabal would use the renewable camp tech, the only people worried by that would be the batteries people(mining, creating, selling, recycling this batteries).

IMO electricity will be the better tool for most of the jobs but not all and we can't transition to electric over night.

>You need to be on guard and skeptical about anyone critical of renewables, because there's been a coordinated and large-scale campaign by oil companies to push climate denialism

So my argument that hydrogen is sourced vastly from fossil fuels is disregarded because I'm critical of renewables?

>I think you can have both technologies used for different things, you know the best tool for the job

Hydrogen industry is already a mature industry. Nobody is saying don't use hydrogen. The challenge is that people are proposing hydrogen in replacement of electricity and it's a needless extra step.

>Maybe you have a ton of electricity that you just have to throw it away or pay people to take it because batteries are still not as good, if you have too much electricity you could attempt to transform it in chemical energy and store that.

Certainly. The better use for said energy would be say desalination or many many other options.

>I am not sure why some people think there is a Hydrogen conspiracy that is attempting to sabotage electric energy, the issue is with batteries and storage.

I think you misunderstand. I care about climate change and people who think they are getting into 'green energy' via hydrogen will be wrong. The vast majority of hydrogen production is from fossil fuels.

I'm not suggesting 'green hydrogen' is a conspiracy in the sense that fossil fuel folks know hydrogen is still fossil fuels and are pretending it's green.

I'm saying there's a very huge chance that it won't be green and even if it is. It's no where near as efficient as other options.