You ignore the fact that the words "fossil fuel" are NEVER mentioned in the article. The hydrogen in this article is being generated entirely from solar power. and electrolysis This will be just 1 non-fossil fuel way to generate hydrogen. You don't understand that fossil fuels are not needed to generate hydrogen. Furthermore, the US Geological Society has now discovered a vast reserve of hydrogen that's located underground that is 26 times the size of the reserve that's left of the planet killing fossil fuel. If only a fraction of this hydrogen reserve can be accessed, it'll be enough to power civilization for 200 years, .https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/energy/just-a-fraction-of-the-hydrogen-hidden-beneath-earths-surface-could-power-earth-for-200-years-scientists-find Both of these methods of generating hydrogen again DO NOT INVOLVE FOSSIL FUELS and they're further proof that my engineer father with bachelors and master's engineering degrees more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers was right about hydrogen being the solution.
In contrast, neither of the solutions which you support, nuclear power with it's toxic nuclear waste or carbon capture which is nothing more than a scam by the fossil fuel industry to keep burning fossil fuel are green. As my engineer father taught me, no one has figured out how to safely dispose of toxic nuclear waste which can damage areas of our planet that get exposed to it for centuries and no technology exists that can capture the amount of carbon that's dumped into the atmosphere of our planet on a daily basis by the burning of fossil fuels. Again, hydrogen is the green solution. Nuclear power and carbon capture are NOT green solutions.
= new reply since forum marked as read