"Even with Hydrogen embrittlement, it's a thing, but the...

"Even with Hydrogen embrittlement, it's a thing, but the severity of it is highly dependent on the type of alloy steel used."

No one is denying that.
There are plenty of physical and chemical solutions that reduce embrittlement.
But none of them are economically viable.
Or else they would already have happened or would be being implemented as we speak.

"Hydrogen is in its early stages of development and it's not suited to every environment, especially with existing infrastructures more suited to electrification, but in many places around the world it's being adapted. Every day it's getting cheaper to transport and adapted to different uses. It can be transported in liquid form and also as ammonia, to cut down costs. There are thousands of different plants popping up around the world by the day."

No matter how much it is spun, besides the bespoke high-tech industries which are not input-price sensitive to hydrogen, there is zero evidence of it becoming a commercially viable, mainstream source of energy.

As opposed to "pure nonsense regurgitated from the echo chambers of climate deniers", that is a cold hard fact. The evidence of that fact is the continuing failure/cancellation of hydrogen projects.

Just within the past week, Trafigura announced it was not proceeding with its Port Pirie hydrogen project because it was not feasible, despite it being announced in the media with much fanfare 3 years ago:




The facts don't care whether anyone is a climate activist or a climate denier.
The facts are just that: the facts.


As for the paper you attached, while it is not possible to access its full contents, it is clear that the study dealt only with the low-pressure segment of the chain on the customer side.

But that's like being shown one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and claiming to know what the full picture looks like, because hydrogen embrittlement is a direct function of vessel pressure and most of the pressure regime in any gas transmission infrastructure will be at high pressures (up to 20,000 MPa) ,which is over 500 times higher than the 40kPa at the consumer end.

So that study fails to assess the maximum embrittlement pressure regime.

Also, it appears that it was a test conducted over just 7 days (see below) which is meaningless because while embrittlement happens relatively quickly (over a period of months), it's effect certainly cannot be discerned over a period of just one week.

So, that study - or what we can see of it that is publicly available - is really a nothing burger because it in no way measures the thing that counts, i.e., hydrogen embrittlement and leakage over full asset life-cycle.

But, as I say, even if you don't want to accept the facts presented to you by strangers on the internet, look at what is actually happening in the attempts to get projects going in the mainstream hydrogen industry (i.e., outside of the already-existent bespoke industries such as technology which are price-agnostic when it comes to hydrogen inputs).