Don't get me wrong, there is legitimate scientific aspects to green/blue/black classification, but those don't matter, because what is being discussed here is in the fantasy land of news media. Anything "green" or "blue" in hydrogen is something far off in the future and they will use fossil fuels in the "short" run. Almost like, it is an "aspirational" green power source. Green, as in, someday theoretically it can be green.
For SPECIFIC industrial use cases, I welcome hydrogen as a possible step off of fossil fuels, you know, someday. Fertilizer, steel, etc. And I like the discussion of reusing existing natural gas turbines and other equipment but... anyway, don't get your hopes up.
They tipped their hand with the "100%" figure. Hey guys, look, we violated the basic laws of thermodynamics! That's why the reporting on hydrogen is so hair-pulling, everything is smoke and mirrors and obfuscation and fake numbers and miracle technologies, so even where there is legitimate potential and uses, I completely distrust it.
I mean, I have to go to goddamn reddit to get a discussion of the "100%" figure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/10rvo8x/comment/j6...
100% is for Faradaic efficiency.
"Faradaic efficiency only looks at the efficiency of charge transfer and is not the same as the energy conversion efficiency. The latter is usually meant when speaking of "efficiency" of hydrogen production and it will likely still be ~60% for this new process.
Fucking ridiculous.
TLDR The title is highly misleading."
Fuck your latest "magic hydrogen technology" of the day.