Thank everyone.

Hydrogen replacing gas is thermodynamically extremely inefficient. That energy can do a lot of work before it gets down to 40-60 degrees for domestic thermal demand. All the Nordics are using heat networks for a reason. What you are watching here is the consequences of the oil industry corrupting science and engineering.

CH4 and NH3 biomass blending coal for flaming fuel instead of explosive or combustive fuels as we don't always need explosive or combustive thermal energy.

Very good compending of the most important ..to all..world

What a lovely discussion.

What about the Australian firm Star Scientific innovation of HERO (Hydrogen Energy Release Optimizer)?

Interesting discussion. Long way to go.

All those hydrogen fuel cells should go in cogen heat / electric stationary . I just can't see i pressure refueling stations, the battery charging stations still barely

i agree with H.E. Owen that carbon capture is part of the calculus this time

Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book titled The Hydrogen Economy. Very interesting. Thanks for the interesting information.

Methanol though, thats a fluid with a fuel cell ..... very nice

No to blue hydrogen, it's derived from Natural Gas which is a fossil fuel. Produce goods local to markets not half a globe away.

With the exception of aircraft and ships, isn't it easier to just electrify everything instead?

These are fine ideas but is there sufficient electrical power generation to devote all renewables to hydrogen ? By doing what is wished will need extra generation from all none renewable generators to bridge that gap . It is not for certain that Co2 is the cause of climate change but dangerous gases need to be avoided for the health of mankind !

Combustion engines running on hydrogen have no range as fuel tanks are too big. And fuel cells, just how much power can they produce for long periods? They will need batteries as a buffer, so really the best solution there is is to add hydrogen to electric cars to reduce battery size and slow charge the batteries for better range. Is this really practical or is it just a way to keep people going to the gas station?

The process involving sunlight and gravity coupled with rocks with trapped liquid hydrogen can be channeled through a powerful, giant aquifer and produced in floating storage tanks with the right parameters and design to obtain liquid hydrogen. With the judicious design of floating storage, consequently, safe sustainability and cost-effective less process.

I am surprised there are no comments. I am concerned with carbon emmissions, and their consequenses, as many people of the world are. The progress of the countries involved in this discussion gives me hope that this issue will be SERIously addressed and the planet will recover from this neglected issue. Mt country, (The United States) backed away politically from Carbon emmissions, but recent elections have seemed to support real concern. Hopefully, the USA will devote the effort to work with the rest of the world to bring balance back.

Would there be possible to publish the PowerPoint?

Doesn’t it takes more energy to create hydrogen than hydrogen can output?

the car of thr future will be a hybrid betweeb gydrogen and electris vehjcle

You can build hydrogen signs on wheels but probably more political

The burden of "de-carbonizing" seems to fall principally on those of us whose culture already predisposes us to feel a sense of guilt, - guilt about anything going. So naturally, the British are way out in front in this respect. Naturally, too, the real CO2 emitters, Russia, China and India, feel no sense of guilt at all about their own emissions. They would not dream of forfeiting their own economic interests, merely to save the world from the predicted catastrophe. But this reading assumes that the "greens" are correct. And I don't know that they are. We live on the ridge of an escarpment shaped graph, with respect to carbon dioxide. To the right of us (increasing carbon) is a gentle change to our climate, brought about by warming the climate with this one greenhouse gas. To the left of us (reducing carbon) lies ... ... well ... sudden death, because a world without carbon dioxide could not support life, at all. And there is actually very little carbon dioxide around - about 400 ppm, I think. Indeed, in the nineteenth century, agronomists recommended the burning of fossil fuels, purely to give agriculture a boost from a more favourable, carbon-rich atmosphere. "But", you ask "is not the world in danger of dying from excessive heat? Look at the drought in Europe. Look at all the forest fires. Are these not terrible events? Is this not a destiny to avoid?" I can only reply that that droughts in Europe and forest fires have ALWAYS been a feature of our planet. It is tempting to believe not just that global warming is unusual, and that it is OUR FAULT. Thus we come to believe that we must observe certain rituals to propitiate the god of climate - who actually looks a lot like Greta Thunberg. But can Ms Thunberg tell us the answer to the question: "What caused previous periods of global warming (the Roman and the Medieval). What caused previous droughts in Europe? There have been times in history, when it didn't rain for nearly a year.". The earth's climate has never been as precisely regulated as a pocket watch. Sometimes it warms a bit. Sometimes it gets colder - we enter mini ice-ages. In short it varies. And guess what. The earth manages to do this ALL BY ITSELF.

Thus far hydrogen is the only viable fuel source. It’s been held back in it’s development by big oil etc.

Sounds nice but still is a little in the fantasy zone....to obtain pure Hydrogen takes a lot of energy....not practical yet.

Water splitting is the chemical reaction in which water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen: 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O. Efficient and economical water splitting would be a technological breakthrough that could underpin a hydrogen economy, based on green hydrogen.