Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.

I believe we’re still using more hydrogen to make industrial ammonia than that we produce from green sources, so I guess even if we only switch over ammonia production without worrying about fuel cells or hydrogen vehicles or power generation, we still come out ahead.

Then there’s the hydrogen used in oil refining that, iirc, is still mostly sourced from methane, but I’m hesitant to suggest we replace that with green hydrogen since if you want to be carbon-negative the oil refining will have to go down A LOT anyway.

Anyway, I guess my point is that hydrogen is an important commodity for all sorts of things. Before we start burning it for energy it’s easier to use it as is in industrial processes. The methane we save that way (that would be used to produce industrial hydrogen) we can burn as is in existing gas power plants.

But this is the kind of pragmatic common sense thing that gets no one excited.

Now we have a choice: focus on identity issues, or do what is right for everyone. Good luck, world.

The trouble with that statement is that it’s always the people in power deciding what “benefits everyone” and what is “identity issues”.

For example, you can make an extremely solid argument that a focus on disability rights benefits everyone, since most people are various kinds of disabled at various points in their lives and adaptations benefit everyone now (curb cut effect). Also, we are still experiencing a global health event that is leaving random people with serious long term health issues.

However, the discourse around it in the media absolutely not that. Why? Because power, that’s why. The people that pull the strings want to spend the money in other ways, so disability rights are framed as extravagant luxuries that only benefit a minority. Meanwhile they keep systems in place that lock disabled people in government enforced poverty while the companies that pay them below minimum wage get tax breaks.

They made the hard choice of where to put the waste and stuck with it long enough to build the facility. They call it “Onkalo”. It’s a creepy marvel of engineering.

The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/646230.stm

Unless you are in Britain, where they manage to have a costly regulatory environment and poor safety outcomes because THE PEOPLE TASKED WITH KEEPING US SAFE JUST STRAIGHT UP FALSIFY RECORDS.

Technically? Yes. Well enough anyway.

Politically? Only if you live in Finland.

There are a bunch. But solar panels have gotten a lot better in the last decades, whereas thermodynamics has remained the same. They are not worth the investment anymore.

Sorry to report, hydrogen is also hopeless. It’s cool tech, but making it work in practice is hopeless because it diffuses straight through every container you try and keep it in, and achieving reasonable energy densities requires cryogenic storage.

Also, developments have been stalling out relative to electrical solutions because of this and because of the heavy investment in electrics.

I can only see it really working in practice in niche applications where you will be close to cryogenic facilities.

My good friends Xenon and Samarium.

SMRs are DOA. They have been “the next big thing” for decades now. They need to shit or get off the pot.

Red hat I can live with. The problem is IBM.

… and my axe!

It’s really nice hardware. And for some segments of the market, it’s not even particularly expensive compared to alternatives of similar build quality.