Anyone referring to 2050 has no fucking better idea of the future than anyone else engaged in soothsaying.
I happen to know that it's 2023 thank you. I'm a grown up. As a grown up, and old man in fact, I happen to have been hearing predictions about the 2020's back in 1980, and before that in 1970. I take that realization as a QED on how useful vague "they'll figure it out" mindless crap. I've been listening to soothsaying for 50 years, including for the majority of that time, soothsaying about hydrogen.
It's always "by 1990" until 1990 comes, and then its "by 2000" until 2000 comes, and then its "by 2010" until 2010 comes...
...ad nauseum.
I was once so poorly educated I actually took this hydrogen shit seriously. In 1980 I was a gullible fool mostly because I didn't know shit from shinola about the topic and I had only a vague and rather insipid notion of thermodynamics. I would submit anyone predicting a grand future for this line of crap about hydrogen is either a gullible fool, a fossil fuel salesperson, or a sales bot run by a fossil fuel salesperson.
As for marketing, and this rather silly claim about "free speech," one can object to marketing, say, cigarettes, guns, and gasoline, and for that matter fossil fuels by greenwashing them as hydrogen. I object to the marketing of all of these. It's not about "free speech." It's about decency.
If I object to the marketing of Naziism, this doesn't make me a communist, although I am amused at this late age to be called a communist. It's been a long time since that happened, at DU no less.
The OP here was about numbers, not hair splitting rhetoric, or for that matter about "choirs." The numbers are clear, including the physical properties of hydrogen. There is no rational reason, none, to market hydrogen, based on its physical properties and its material incompatibility, all of which are easily measurable, well known, facts.
Facts exist and facts matter.
Somehow a round of soothsaying about fucking 2050 entered into the conversation with complete disregard for the numbers in the OP, with a vague ill informed "it has to happen" because, well, it's just so cool and magical people will magically discover how to make it workable "by 2050."
I invite anyone interested in how fucking stupid and inane soothsaying is to read any of the "genius" "futurist" Amory Lovins, who was pushing hydrogen in the 20th century, and the fact that marketing his soothsaying "ideas" has left the planet in flames.
In 2000, Vaclav Smil mocked the shit out of Lovins, specifically referring to his hydrogen nirvana:
Rocky Mountain Visions V. Smil Population and Development Review Volume 26, Issue1, March 2000, Pages 163-187.
The distance between March 2000 and December of 2023 is not hugely shorter than the distance between December of 2023 and March of 2050. A "hydrogen economy" was bullshit in 1980, bullshit in 2000, bullshit in 2020 and in 2023, and it will remain bullshit in 2050.
The reason is physics and nothing else.
Got it? No? Well that's not my problem.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read