I agree with most of what Terry has to say. he puts a good case with what appears to be well researched information. The problem I have with batteries is several fold. Firstly they take a lot of energy and carbon to manufacture. They are heavy and at present have a shortish life span. My point is Hydrogen can be used on a converted ICE vehicle instead of scrapping it for an EV. Surely the carbo gain outweighs the the carbon use. In any event I am sure there will be many possible solutions put forward in the near future.

Cheers Concrete

Domestic demand for water in the UK is about 1.5% of total rainfall. That required for hydrogen production is ~1.5% of domestic consumption - overall completely and utterly inconsequential.

Most rainfall 98%+ either evaporates to begin the cycle again, flows into rivers and then to sea, soaks in and replenishes underground aquifers etc. Even that used directly for farming ultimately finds it way back into the water cycle.

Hosepipe bans are are due to the variability of rainfall over the year. So it is unsurprising that in some years given weather variability that bans are needed in some areas.

The problem is not lack of rainfall but infrastructure needed to store and pump it, and maintenance to reduce leaks. If it were more important the investment would be made.

BTW I am an advocate of batteries not hydrogen or "green methanol" but we should get the facts straight whatever our conclusions.

Rainfall is not equal over the UK - many areas regularly get effective droughts (and not just in summer), and we currently have no distribution system capable of pumping excess water from rainy areas like Scotland to drier parts. Far worse in many other nations or parts thereof (e.g. California).

I agree, and have said many times on other threads, that hydrogen 'extraction', storage and distribution would be a big challenge to say the least, because it needs to be stored under high pressure and significantly cooled - both hazardous, expensive and very energy intensive.

We'd need huge amounts of PV and wind turbines to cover that, plus sufficient backup in case (as it often does) the wind doesn't blow, blows too hard or it's nighttime. That in istefl is a huge problem - the space and infrastructure, plus the effects on locals and the environment/views and use of (already under pressure) cruicial farmland space we need to be more self-sufficient on food pruction.

Moving hydrogen around (and safely) is also a logistical nightmare and something that has as yet not really been looked at, plus the safety and security of that and storage (a great target for terrorists, etc). The last thing we need is another Buncefield or Lebanon incident but with hydrogen under pressure - especially if it were near natural gas pipes.

My general issue with a lot of the 'green' ideas doing the rounds and been heavily pushed for, especially at the moment, is that they aren't thought through other than concepts or on a small scale in favourable locations and often with significant amounts of taxpayers' money being recklessly thrown at such projects, which always seems to end up in very rich people's pockets with little long term gain for those nearer the bottom of society.

We had similar 'knee-jerk' policies in the past, like 'the dash to gas' for electricity generation and going to diesel on cars, and both have casued significant long term problems in society (making heating homes very expensive because gas is more rapidly running out and pollution/health problems associated with diesel particulates and the effects of dieselgate on prices and reliability of 10-15 years worth of cars).