>Currently, industrial production of hydrogen relies overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to power the electrolysis process.
Currently 95+% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation (releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane as burning it), which also uses lots of heat (read: coal). With such an enormous factual inaccuracy, it's hard to take the rest of the article seriously.
That was a different person who replied, but their explanation is correct!
Furthermore, the distinction is much more than just pedantic. Hydrogen production from electrolysis (which theoretically can be carbon neutral) is about 3x as expensive as hydrogen production from steam reformation (which realistically can't be carbon-neutral). And I'll give you one guess which method all the hydrogen articles talk about…
When put in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that the whole operation is a fossil fuel bait-and-switch.
Currently 95+% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation (releasing just as much CO2 and fugitive methane as burning it), which also uses lots of heat (read: coal). With such an enormous factual inaccuracy, it's hard to take the rest of the article seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming