Antinukes just love "percent talk."
They always have and always will, all the while not noticing that the world is burning.
If I have two dollars and I increase my holdings by 100%, I still will not be Jeff Bezos with tons of money to destroy once prominent newspapers.
Speaking of "percent talk" when did the people selling electrolyser "green hydrogen" find out that electricity is 100% produced without fossil fuel combustion?
They didn't find out?
Why is that?
Could it be that it's because electricity is overwhelmingly produced by combustion of dangerous fossil fuels with exergy destruction?
If anyone wants to really understand anything at all about hydrogen in order to have an intelligent opinion about the subject, as opposed to a hand waving wishful thinking nonsense opinion of the subject, one can find the relative exergy destruction comparing the SMR process with electrolysis.
I personally spent time doing this and have wrote about it, supplying a selection of references on the topic, in this space.
On this planet as of 2026, steam reforming of methane is actually cleaner than electrolysis as a means to make hydrogen, which is still a dirty process. This is a function of the laws of chemical physics which are not determined by opinion but rather are obtained by the analysis of experiment.
In "percent talk," hydrogen production is responsible for roughly 3% of carbon dioxide emissions.
One doesn't need access to the scientific literature to find this "percent talk" figure although one can find it there, It's available at the MIT climate portal.
Despite all the prattling about "green hydrogen" over the last half of a century, hydrogen remains what it always has been, a dirty, if essential, industrial product.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read