...suggested that nuclear power could be used to make hydrogen. I was on MIRT then but recused myself since I oppose fossil fuels and efforts to greenwash them, but there are people here, regrettably, who have bought into this 50 year old thermodynamic nightmare and scam.
When I pointed out that it was a terrible idea to waste clean energy, of which there is but one form, nuclear energy, to make hydrogen that any sane person would oppose, that person began running antinuke crap here along with fossil fuel ads that marketed fossil fuels as "green hydrogen" which essentially doesn't exist.
Hydrogen has horrible physical properties, and the 50 year old cults claiming it's sustainable and "green" are doing great damage, and I think that many of them realize as much but market this crap anyway.
An Exxon ad that's a little more obvious than the slick ads run here:
It is essentially a natural gas ad, without mentioning that hydrogen, a filthy fuel in the rare cases it is used as fuel, has been made from natural gas from almost a century, coupled to exergy destruction and making climate issues worse. The greenwashing is only hidden to a minor extent, since they mention in the ad that Baytown will use natural gas to make hydrogen, a little less slick than the hydrogen ads run here about 'China" where hydrogen is overwhelmingly produced from coal.
"Green hydrogen" is essentially "Green Exxon," basically an appalling bald lie.
I note that natural gas actually has superior physical properties to hydrogen, a higher temperature critical point, less metal embrittlement risk, higher viscosity and lower explosive limits, which is not to say that natural gas is acceptable - it isn't - but merely that making hydrogen from natural gas to fuel, well, anything, is a very, very, very, very stupid idea.
= new reply since forum marked as read