I agree with the other guy, storage of Hydrogen is challenging, but we were able to store Helium underground, which is probably just as hard to contain.
But, if this concept does show promise, you can bet that the Left will stop it, as their objective is to SHUT DOWN THE COUNTRY, not actually find options other than carbon-based fuels. If Hydrogen is relatively cheap, it simply will not be permitted.
Sorry, but that’s who they are.
“I agree with the other guy, storage of Hydrogen is challenging, but we were able to store Helium underground, which is probably just as hard to contain.”
There was/is so little helium around (byproduct of nuclear isotope decay in the earths crust like Uranium) that the Germans had to use hydrogen in all their zeppelins and the US airships had to have ways to SAVE helium when the gas cells over-inflated instead of venting it.
SO that isn’t a good example.
The quantities of hydrogen to use it as talked about - as a power source like this, would be 8 magnitudes larger (million/billions of tons).
They already have ideas about pumping CO2 from fossil fuel power plants back into underground wells like old oil wells, but costs alot of extra overhead and may have significant limits on capacities
Portable liquid hydrogen is cryogenic, pressurized hydrogen requires dangerous/heavy pressure containment or a too-large volume
Use AT a big REMOTE power plant operation even has the problem of long distance electric transmission having losses upto 90% over thousands of miles
-
the “leave the carbon behind” also sounds like they will potentially have megatons of black toxic (impurity filled) sludge to dispose of for a system like this in the scale it would have
I saw an interesting sign near the liquid hydrogen storage facility at the George C. Marshal Space Flight Center: "Warning! No smoking. Violators will be vaporized."