Daryl

No, the main geological resources of hydrogen are NOT from oil and gas. Read the links. Natural occurring geological sources of unbound hydrogen gas (not in association with oil and gas) are plentiful enough to provide our energy needs for hundreds of years, and Canada has the appropriate geology to have a substantial amount of these deposits. Also, you keep completely ignoring that the ammonia sent to Europe from the Maritime provinces is primarily from the electrolysis of water using non-fossil-fuel energy. You WANT it to be from gas and oil wells only because that is what fits your narrative, your dogma, and your proselytizing.

Okay, I understand now.

There are three versions of history, yours mine, and the facts.

And you are equating geological sources with just oil and gas? Well water comes from a ‘geological source’. Are you skeptical about the claims of the benefits of well water? Are all wells just a pretense for greenwashing the oil and gas industry?

Like I said, proselytizing your dogma. Trying to distort and obfuscate so that everything falls in your dogmatic proselytizing.

I would miss not having read the hundred other books that I could have read instead, and really wanted to read

I have a really, really difficult time with alternative history, having taught the real thing.

I am not sure I could ever get through that book, so I won’t even start.

I have no problem with those who bring factual considered qualified material to the table. I have a big issue with posters who bring spurious facts and points to the table just to push some dogma or other. You are anti-hydrogen just for the sake of being anti-hydrogen, without any consideration of the facts.

You are not trying to have a discussion, you are trying to proselytize. The export of hydrogen as ammonia produced by non-fossil-fuel energy input is quite clearly dominant in the future hydrogen energy strategy. You can pull up all the small tidbits you want to support your proselytizing, but be clear that is all they are, small tidbits, in the overall strategy.

" about joining the plan which foresees the nations on the continent spending $1.25 trillion on defence over the next five years."

Aye and there is the rub. The news media talks about how much Germany spends on defense and how much France spends and so forth.

That’s like talking about how much California spends on defense and how much Texas spends on defense and so on.

Wat matters is how much the European Union collectively spends on defense, just like what matters is how much the United States collectively spends on defense, not each individual State.

Collectively, the European Union is just as powerful economically as is the United States, and we should talk about the collective [United] European [Union] states when we compare them to the United States of America, not the individual countries (states) that make up the EU.

Americans have completely stacked the deck against the statistics comparing Europe to America, by insisting on treating every European country separately, but all of the States in America collectively. and then convincing the world the American way of comparative accounting is the correct one.

Yes, we can and are doing all that. We can also tap our energy resources and ship energy (via ammonia/hydrogen) to Europe, Japan, and Korea to help pay for all of those things.