There's the small problem of actual density with hydrogen. Petrol is 8000 times more dense than hydrogen at normal temperature and pressure. At 700 bar pressure hydrogen is still 1/20 of the density of petrol. Compressing it for practical transportation uses energy and it still needs a whopping amount of space then.
Indeed. Considering the pressure vessel required also, compressed hydrogen it roughly twice the volume of its petrochemical equivalent although it's mass it less. Obviously this is mainly a problem for transport. Their is no fundamental engineering problem in placing larger, lighter fuel tanks in aircraft but the design and build costs for a new generation of planes with the same performance envelope of the current crop are staggering.
Much more likely - if it happens at all - is that current planes on shorter routes will be modified.
But the barriers to entry on all of this are huge and momentum at the moment exists but it is very small.
Sorry I'm not having one of those in my back yard.
You are far from alone in your view there. The planning and appeals process is one of the reasons why it takes such a long time to build things
Maybe if it can be more efficient but certainly preferable to nuclear
Given the ability to store hydrogen, it is a good partner for wind - to provide a constant rather than intermittent energy source and reduce further the requirement for fossil fuel backup generators
Fukushima was very much a management issue because they had warnings about the design of the reactor as well as the tsunami. Also note how it was a tidal wave that caused the disaster and not the nuclear power plant itself. Again, no points to the anti-nuclear argument. For the sake of keeping this thread on subject I will be more than happy to have a discussion in a general discussion thread about nuclear energy, but I assure you that most arguments against it are heavily fear-mongered or not at all grounded in reality.
We can argue the toss about whether it was a design issue or a management issue - probably both. The earthquake was the largest every recorded in Japan and it, and the 40 foot Tsunami both exceeded the design tolerances of the plant. The reactor vessels survived both intact but cooling systems failed. As you say off topic.
As for the subject of hydrogen, I feel like when it comes to railways the actual goal should be electrification. I feel like hydrogen, battery and bi-mode units have become cop-outs. Rather than make the long-term investment into electrification that will eventually pay for itself it seems the railways in this country want short-term gains by only investing in ultimately more complicated rolling stock. If anything, hydrogen and bi-mode should be stop gaps but I highly doubt that's how they are actually being treated.
I'm for electrification in principle but I am curious why you would consider hydrogen or batteries as a cop out. The end result is much the same.