c22

> Hydrogen ... currently takes more energy to make than it yields, and the cheapest and most common way is by reacting steam with methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

> It’s possible to make zero-carbon hydrogen by splitting water with electrolyzers powered by renewable energy. But in most cases, the process is too expensive to be economical...

and also says,

> A back-of-the-envelope calculation convinced him that the cost of stimulated geologic hydrogen could easily compete with hydrogen made from methane. “If we get the technology right,” he concludes, “this could be huge.”

It's pretty clear from reading the article that actual yields will be highly dependent on discovering ideal mining sites, but the fact that people are building startups to research and develop this kind of implies someone ran some numbers and thought it was worthwhile enough to be "newsworthy".

People can be relied upon to make mistakes. Any system that does not account for this fact and allows mistakes to "accelerate" is fundamentally flawed and requires redesign.

The url is literally popsci.com though so I'm not sure what gp expected.

As it should. It is not responsible to give millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to an intern and tell them to start passing it out to random people on the street.

The explicit hypothesis presented is that the list has changed.

Your AI employees will all cost more each year and you will have very little leverage over them.