It's called sarcasm.

Hydrogen is the solution for sure. Most abundant element in the universe and clean combustion producing water but it's too volatile. Has anyone developed a safe form of fuel cell or container that wouldn't ignite in an accident when exposed to open air?

Pesky details...

Oh yeha, LH2 is no different from any other fuel when exposed to the air and won't burn without an ignition source. It also tends to self-limit its burn in tank ruptures due to evaporative cooling; that said, an intial rupture-ignition scenario does tend to play out like a giant blowtorch...sooo...straight-line burn vs. spreading pool of gas/diesel fire...you'll have to make up your own mind which is worse.

Seriously, they found that a steel vessel filled with corn cobs actually held more natural gas. Didn't drive up the price of corn cobs.
That science experiment using electrolysis to separate hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than it produces. Cheapest place to extract Hydrogen is from (wait for it) hydrocarbons. Natural gas waste is only water if you don't buy the CO2 is destroying the planet lie. There was a time when liberals talked to their houseplants to give them more CO2. Then CO2 broke bad.

Read it all, follow the links. You've been conned.

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-committee-launches-investigation-of-fossil-fuel-industry

https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/fueling-the-climate-crisis-exposing-big-oil-s-disinformation-campaign-to

Wow Xiao. You think everyone but you is an idiot. I worked in science and everything I wrote is scientific fact. Sorry to hurt your super smart feelings.
The only science that proves global warming cooling climate change is global warming cooling climate change. the planet is not dying, plants have to have CO2 to live. Without carbon utilizing plants animal life dies. The satellite temperature data set covers only around 30 years, you can't project whether normal temperature variation is a normal 1 million year cycle or not with such a limited data set. Google the hottest recorded temperatures (Death Valley 1913 134 d F.) and especially the coldest recorded temperatures on earth. At Vostok Station in Antarctica the coldest and official low temperature reading was recorded in 1983 at minus 128.6 degrees F. Satellite readings say the coldest is minus 144 degrees F, but that isn't allowed as an official record. Why do people then get hysterical over 30 years of satellite temperature readings?
Never ever been warmer? Where I live in the Rocky Mountains, the high record temperatures from December to March were almost all set in 1903-1907. On February 27, 1907 it was 90 degrees here, we got to a high of 38 degrees F this year. Most records were set in 1903 when the total number of gasoline powered cars in the US was less than 35,000 nation wide. Correlation does not equal causation.
Most CO2 is present at the bottom of the troposphere, amazingly where plant life exists, not at higher altitudes where it would cause the "greenhouse effect". CO2 is 1.5 times as dense as air. Outer space is minus 455 degrees F, we don't exist without the "greenhouse effect." Look up health standards for CO2 exposure at the OSHA website. OSHA doesn't get worried until parts per million get over 10,000 (Climate disaster is coming at 400 ppm- plant life cannot exist at less than 300 ppm) and as for the average temperature of earth increasing from 51.4 to destructive 51.5 degrees? Average the hottest recoded temperature with the lowest record and I can say the average temperature of the earth is 3.4 degrees F. Figures don't lie but liars can figure.

"Wow Xiao. You think everyone but you is an idiot."

Nope, that's your imagination telling you things. I assume that most people are intelligent and at least somewhat well-informed until they prove themselves otherwise. On that note...

"I worked in science and everything I wrote is scientific fact."

And yet, you apparently don't know that OSHA's 10k CO2 ppm limit has absolutely nothing to do with CO2's insulative properties and everything to do with poisoning thresholds in humans. Well...that or you do and you're dishonestly throwing out unrelated data in attempt to conflate the two, muddy the waters. It was you who said "figures don't lie but liars can figure" was it not? Which brings things around to your pointing to anomolous recorded freak temperature extremes (weather) mistaking it for steady, long-term changes in average temperatures (climate). Having "worked in science", that's an important distinction of which one would think you'd be aware; again, either you aren't or we're back to the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" axiom you established.

Moving on, since you "worked in science", certainly you must be aware it's scientific fact that CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in 1859 --long before all the political nonsense and oil industry's deliberate misinformation campaigns. No doubt you're also aware in 1896 Arrhenius was able to scientifically determine via lab experiments that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature over Europe about 7-9°F (4-5°C) and bring on a new ice age. Additionally, you must be aware that if a decrease in CO2 can lower temperatures in an experimental atmospheric chamber, the opposite will raise temperatures. Further, as you've indirectly laid claim to scientific erudition, you must also be aware that the Earth is a mostly-closed system AKA a giant atmospheric chamber with extra variables.

It's not insulative properties, go back and review your propaganda. It reflects heat, or as climate changey scientist say- forcing. CO2 is not poison. It doesn't become life threatening until people in confined spaces are exposed to 40,000 parts per million- one thousand times more CO2 than is "destroying" the planet. CO2 is not precisely 417 ppm, there is a range (first clue of manipulation of data). It has been measured as high as 2500 ppm downwind of rain forests, and as low as 20 ppm at the poles.
There is no "average" temperature of the planet, in real scientist it is always delineated in a range. Climate farce says we have to stay 50.5 degrees or DISASTER!!!! If we stayed 50.5 degrees nothing grows and the whole world starves to death.
CO2 is not uniformly distributed through the atmosphere, it is most concentrated in the tropics and equatorial zones, where plant life is most concentrated, funny how that works, plants need CO2 and that's right where it is most concentrated. Most CO2 (of 417 one millionths of the atmosphere is within 250 feet of the surface, temperatures in other layers of the atmosphere are not affected by CO2 whatsoever, the troposphere is only about 7 1/2 miles of our atmosphere, and CO2 is mainly in the bottom 250 feet, where the plants are.
If the planet is so fragile that CO2 levels cannot vary more than 30-50 one millionths of the atmosphere, then the planet is too fragile to support life, we don't exist. The earth is floating in the most hostile environment in existence for over 4 billion years and life thrives in spite of it.
And one million species extinct because of CO2 by 2029? Since AOC repeated the claim 35 species are thought to have gone extinct. Mainly orchids in Thailand. Whoops, 78 new species were discovered in the same period. Damn that CO2!!! Read the Great Reset website. Those are the guys wanting everyone to shit their pants over an essential natural element. If you are in fear they control you. If you are in fear, they can persuade you that the only solution is bigger government that they control. It's all lies.

And you still can't say how much energy it takes to extract hydrogen from the ocean. Aren't you worried about destroying nature by extracting ocean water? What about the whales????? Oh, I can hear the shrimp crying.

Oh my, are you saying a manmade substance won't disrupt the balance of nature? I can see that one whistling over your head.

Proof you know nothing about cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli or any other plants we eat.

"The planet is not dying, plants have to have CO2 to live."

Of course the planet's not dying, it's just being made increasingly inhospitable to most terrestrial animal life. Yes, plants need CO2 to live and many are well able to withstand -if they have adequate water- temperature extremes which will kill most warm-blooded animals. Why? Because they create their own micro-climates through transpirative evaporation. Let that sink in for a moment; you understand what it means, correct? In case the answer is no, it means that plants, a non-sentient life form, beneficially alter the Earth's climate locally through sheer numbers of them all doing the same thing. That's science fact. Conversely, what happens if enough sentient life forms are doing the same detrimental thing -someething like, say, burning a fuel that produces CO2- globally? Anyway, fortunately for plants and unfortunately for mammals/birds, rising global temperatures will result in a hotter, wetter Earth so plants will generally be fine.

"Where I live in the Rocky Mountains, the high record temperatures from December to March were almost all set in 1903-1907. On February 27, 1907 it was 90 degrees here."

Common deflective whataboutism employed by deniers: "One volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gas than all the cars (present day numbers) in the world combined do in a year." Mhmm...that's 100% true; they can and do. 1902-1905 Mt. Pele erupts continuously. Unusual high temperatures recorded worldwide starting 1903, continuing until 1913-ish (plant life can absorb anomolous CO2 increases but it takes time and a minimum of ignorant primates destroying the attenuative machinery faster than it can replenish itself).

"Correlation does not equal causation."

Interesting proposition...so although getting punched in the eye is correlative with development of a black eye, it does not equal causation of development of a black eye, then? Actually, that's not fair of me; it's true that correlation does not NECESSARILY equal causation but that argument falls flat in light of CO2's known insulative properties, its known status as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, its known atmospheric ppm increase directly correlating with steadily increasing rates of fossil fuel consumption and average temperature changes over time.

Of course, none of your arguments change with the fact that the oil industry figured out human-influenced climate change is real or that it spent decades deliberately misleading the public and lobbying Congress for favorable legislation.

Let's postulate that your vapid intellect is caused by camels in the zoo. After all most zoos have camels. Come on, strawmen arguments are so passe.
Repeat after me. 417 one millionths of the troposphere is CO2. 417/1,000,000ths. There isn't enough surface area of CO2 to reflect heat. Physics. It would reflect an equal amount of heat back to space. It doesn't stay CO2, plants sequester the Carbon. 98% of life on earth is plant. Turn on your tap water, CO2 is released. Part of the water cycle, CO2 is trapped in rain and snow and ends up in aquifers. Sea levels have been higher, inland seas transgressed and egressed the area I live in Western Colorado/Wyoming/Utah 9 times, the science of geology tells us, and it did that worldwide. CO2 levels have been higher, when the plant life that created our coal deposits was alive. It takes 25 feet of decaying plant matter to make 1 foot of coal after thousands of years of pressure and heat from earth deposited over it. There are 400 foot thick coal seams in northern Canada. Oil and coal are nature's perfect storage solution for solar energy, since it all comes from ancient plant matter.
Look up the articles on proof of global warming caused by mankind, my favorite is the ancient forests that were revealed when glaciers melted because of 380 one millionths of the atmosphere being CO2. Yeah, those forests were trapped in ice 10,000 years ago and now driving cars melted off the snow. Maybe we can plant a forest again since it warmed up to what it was 10,000 years ago!
We don't have records how much coal has been used by mankind, but we have meticulous records on how much oil we've produced since 1856, when the oil industry began. If you calculate CO2 emissions at the dirtiest levels for 100% of the oil produced to date, it equals 8 one millionths of the atmosphere, but we don't just use oil for the dirtiest uses, much of it is used for chemical feedstock with no CO2 emissions. Strawmen scientists say that plants can tell the difference in manmade CO2 and natural, that's why plants will use volcanic eruption CO2 and reject Toyota CO2. It's basic logic- every science disproves climate change science. That's because climate change is a totalitarian tool to create irrational fear over something that is so innocuous and essential for life (we are all carbon based lifeforms). You can deny the truth all you want. That doesn't change reality. If not for CO2 this planet would be a frozen pellet and no life would exist here.

No xiao, I was involved intimately in the climate changie terror debate, wrote several thousand pages of research, had over a million views on a peer reviewed internet media outlet. When I presented the extreme tonnage of CO2 discharge from oil as a maximum of 8 ppm, I simply asked if that was so much that nature couldn't absorb it, since it is also clearly much less than the 48 ppm increase they were fearful of at that time (398 ppm) The public answer given was that plants do not absorb manmade CO2 (which comes from natural sources- oil and coal are 100% natural) and that the earth would continue to increase in manmade CO2 until DISASTER!!!!!
Ever heard of Dr. John Christie? A brilliant statistician and professor. He was on neither "side" of the climate debate, he simply analyzed weather events and found that the catastrophic projections were not happening. He presented his findings at a conference simply to advance science, not to be a "shill for big oil" (oh how I love that name calling). Climate fake scientists tried to destroy him, not his research, him personally. He swore he would never do another study on the climate because life is too short and he was better using his time in support of real science. Ever hear of Dr. Roy Spencer? He and other researchers conducted studies that show water vapor is a greater driver of temperature than anything else in the climate.
So did you really think about your micro climate non-sentient beings blather? Do you realize how utterly unscientific that is? My guess is you live in a large, heavily industrialized urban area. I'm guessing that you haven't had much opportunity to spend time in the natural world.
You do know the Mauna Loa Observatory is just below the summit of a dormant volcano that seeps CO2 to the surface right? When I pointed that out they said they adjust for that in their world destroying readings, even though they tout the observatory as the purest of baseline observation stations since it's in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Since you avoid it, (like all climate changies) how did trees grow under 10,000 year old glaciers if it wasn't warmer in the past? That's still used as proof that fossil fuels are warming the planet, warmer than it's ever been.
Think. Get out of your city and observe the real world. Fly over this planet and realize mankind is minute. Recognize the geologic history of this planet has been far more "destructive" than mankind could ever be, that destruction made life possible.

A much better way to lie in true NASA style!

It would have been very nice to have a reasoned and civil discussion with you. I really don't mean to be trite, but my first comment was regarding a question about safe tanks to transport hydrogen and I added one of the biggest hurdles to hydrogen production on a massive scale. I know you don't think much of my experience, but we used truckloads of liquid hydrogen on projects that are too detailed for a meme site. The most economical extraction of hydrogen is from natural gas (CH4), it produced the necessary volume at the lowest cost.
Prior to the demonization of CO2, cities were converting buses to natural gas as a green alternative. Natural gas can be burned very efficiently with the only waste being CO2 and water vapor. We have furnaces and water heaters that burn natural gas so efficiently (96%) that we no longer need metal flues. CO2 is not a pollutant in the classic definition of the word, it's a byproduct.
In a college class on solar energy 40 years ago, we were required to read "Rays of Hope" by Dennis Hayes, the director of the National Solar Energy Research facility in Golden, CO. He made a very compelling case for decentralization of our energy sources and for "doing more with less". I spent my career accomplishing that- doing more with less. I worked on fluidized bed electric generation plants, in various aspects of energy, all of which required continuous education and working with some of the world's foremost scientific minds. We've done heavy research to find that tweak in the Law of Thermodynamics that efficiently produces cleaner energy, and had a number of incremental improvements in process as a result. It all adds up.
Meme sites are the last place to generate meaningful conversations, but I still use comments to educate where I think I can. I don't approach science as a political cudgel, I don't state lies to advance a political agenda. I am greatly offended when science is perverted for self interest (ie. more concentrated power for the elite). I commend you for questioning me, I'm not impressed that both of us resorted to insults. It shouldn't be that way, but that is the polarized world we live in right now.

Here's a picture of your super duper reflectors

Not still trying. I get a lot of views of every response I make. I'm planting the seeds of truth. How's your 9 volt battery thing working out? Walmart is having a sale on Duracells right now, maybe you want to buy another one just to have one for reserve. You know. prepare for population growth and increased hydrogen demand.

Yup, there are stainless steels, plastic and ceramic linings that can overcome the embrittlement problem. Fuel cell tech being pretty much in its infancy for non-stationary uses (fragility) and the majority of existing vehicles being IC type, it's more economical to retrofit existing machinery for hydrogen.

Xiao, analyze where we will get hydrogen. From Reference.com-
"Only 0.000053 percent of air is composed of hydrogen, making it the ninth most prevalent gas in the air. Nitrogen takes the lead, making up 78.084 percent of air, more than one million times more space than hydrogen. Oxygen also makes up a large part of air at 20.947 percent."
(CO2 is 0.000417)
The "abundance" of hydrogen is tied up in various compounds such as H2O, and CH4, in fact the "abundance statement" also includes the presence of hydrogen in the universe, hydrogen we will never be able to harness. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to break those molecular bonds of hydrogen we do have access to. That's just real science. The limitations defined by physics makes hydrogen an extremely inefficient source of energy. Why place all your hopes in an energy source that takes more energy to produce than it yields?
Embrittlement of tanks is irrelevant, we have made safe tanks for gases for decades. Gas Laws of Physics describe the physics controlling gases such as pressure, temperature and volume which govern how much a tank will hold, engineering determines how to safely handle those qualities.
If tanks were the only problem for hydrogen we would have been using it decades ago.

So sophisticated!

What are you going to do when you destroy the planet by releasing too much oxygen from the oceans when you get your HYDROGEN? OSHA defines anything above 23.5% oxygen as dangerous.
The problem with breathing air at increased oxygen levels is that over time it can damage cell membranes, collapse the alveoli in the lungs, cause retinal detachment, and seizures. Hyperbaric chambers are only used for short term treatment because of this. Oops, that's science. But then you don't give a rat's ass about real science.

Go for it. 9v batteries pollute landfills. Ha hahahahahahahahaha. You just want to destroy the planet. How non-sentient!

Xiao, I can't list every scientist I've debated or the forums in which the debate happened, but to just quickly give you one reference-regarding plants distinguishing manmade CO2, one source would be the Global Monitoring Laboratory at NOAA. If you search Carbon Isotopes on their site (gml.noaa.gov) you'll see that info. At one point in the presentation we were told that all the Carbon 14 in the organic matter that makes up fossil fuels (radioactive, used in radiometric dating) had decayed away. Then the presenter went on to describe how they can determine CO2 from modern day burning of fossil fuels by Carbon 14 measurements. Interesting statement given that she just said all Carbon 14 isotopes had decayed away in fossil fuels. I had just presented on calculations of the total amount of CO2 released from burning oil. We have very accurate records on oil production going back to the beginnings of the oil industry in 1856. I generously accepted the assumption that all oil is burned (it is not- most provides a chemical feedstock) and I generously calculated at the "dirtiest" tonnage discharge of CO2, which is a limited amount of the oil we refine and consume. I showed all oil could have put into the atmosphere was 8 parts per million, then suggested that amount would have been readily recycled in natural photosynthesis. This is where I was told that plants could distinguish between manmade and natural CO2. Never mind the very low rate of Carbon 14 attributed to oil consumption. The case they made was that manmade CO2 would continue to increase in the atmosphere because there was no natural remediation, eventually turning earth into Venus. I can't list names here, it wouldn't be ethical on my part.
Dr John Christy,a world renowned statistician and I believe he is retired now as a professor at Colorado University. He had no dog in the CO2 fight, and strictly looked at the numbers regarding more catastrophic storms occurring because of man made climate change. He presented his findings at a conference with the sole intent of helping improve modeling of the climate. His numbers showed a decline in catastrophic weather.What happened then was shameful. Rather than looking at his data and adjusting models accordingly, they placed him in the "shill for big oil" camp where he had never been and sought to destroy him personally and professionally. It was so disturbing to Dr. Christy, that he vowed to never present research to another conference regarding the climate.

Alright Xiao, I ran your Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level stats on the posts you didn't delete and man are you smart (granted I didn't delete my comments that you repeated). So now that you have solved the hydrolysis energy problem with the 9 volt battery solution, I am really excited to hear your solution for the acid or alkaline solution that is required for hydrolysis. And cations, brilliant people have struggled with that, so your brilliance is long awaited, finally we have answers to make hydrogen energy a reality. Lecture on good sir, lecture on! Finally! All the environmental issues with hydrolysis have found the human being that has the knowledge to solve the mysteries of the ages! Bravo! Bravo!

And I almost forget to mention your superior meme slam abilities too. Golly, are you something special, move over Issacc Newton, science is bracing to take a giant leap forward! Tell us more! Solving the problems associated with cations and anions is truly groundbreaking! Are you leaning toward saline or distilled water? Non-reacting salts or acids or base electrolytes? It's amazing you've overcome the environmental issues related to those things with a mere 9 volt battery. Tell me more, please. I have never met anyone who can absolutely redefine thermodynamics like you can.

Xiao- I live completely off the grid, 400 watt Sunpower panels, Outback Invertor and Charge Controllers, Fortress E-vault Lithium batteries- basically the best consumer system I could buy. All of my household appliances are the most efficient you can buy in order to utilize my solar effectively. The system I have produces about twice what I need for my household. I have a very intimate understanding of alternative energy. I built a number of the first passive solar houses in the 1970's and even pioneered a few innovations. And you? Serious question.
9 volt batteries work for a schoolroom experiment, but if they were powerful enough to supply the world with hydrogen, why not just use the batteries and skip the hydrogen. It takes more energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen than you get from the hydrogen, that's just pure science, straight out of physics. Using my excess solar electricity I couldn't produce enough hydrogen to power a car over 20 miles a week which would just be enough to get me to town, but not back. A 9 volt battery won't even come close. I started my comments with a study that found more natural gas could be safely stored and transported in a vessel filled with corn cobs, the same principle would apply to hydrogen. It kind of defies logic since it seems like the corn cobs would take up space that the compressed gas could fill, but it would take a deep dive in to gas law to explain it. The biggest benefit was it eliminated explosion hazards in collision tests. I don't know many people besides myself who have studied gas law (physics of gases) and I can't blame them, it's some out there stuff but was essential for the work I used to do. I took a physics class in college called Energy and the Environment where we did extensive calculations on every form of energy possible. The result is all energy has environmental implications. The environmental impact of manufacturing my solar system and the eventual waste it becomes at the end of its useful life is sizeable, and I knew that going in. Every energy system requires tradeoffs, that's just the way it is.

I should add, burning hydrogen is simply re-combining oxygen with the hydrogen or oxidizing the hydrogen. It takes energy in both directions, breaking the gases apart and recombining them. There are accurate calculations to determine the energy required and the outcome has been known for longer than I've been alive- it simply takes more energy than is gained.

Considering that you've already been caught lying, proved you don't really know anything about energy requirements of electrolysis of water, proved you don't know what makes an insulator an insulator, harped on the value of knowledge of Physics while demonstrating you know nothing of Systems Theory, there's not much reason to take anything you say as other than lies at this point. So... last opportunity to prove you're not all bullshit:

"I was involved intimately in the climate changie terror debate, wrote several thousand pages of research, had over a million views on a peer reviewed internet media outlet."

Firstly, scientists don't "write research" unless they're pulling whole-cloth fabrications out of their asses. They DO RESEARCH and compile a paper detailing their findings and methods.

Secondly: certainly, if the data you allegedly published is valid, you'd want as many people as possible to see it, would you not? Name the paper(s) you wrote

Thirdly: peer-review is not an anonymous process; name the peers who reviewed your work.

Fourthly: name the "peer-reviewed" website and the thing(s) you posted there. (side note -touting "peer-reviewed" in connection with an internet MEDIA outlet is essentially meaningless)

"Strawmen scientists say that plants can tell the difference in manmade CO2 and natural."

Where? Name your source. Name the scientists.

Any response that is not the names of your papers, peer-reviewers, the website and its contained postings of your writ, the names of "scientists" claiming "plants can tell the difference in manmade CO2 and natural" will be the end of this exchange.