Why is the public discussion about "different" green hydrogen not broad?

The discussion about the cost of hydrogen production can easily be followed in the public space. However, it is not broad enough to say that it covers the entire range of topics that should be covered.

For example, centers that aim to make hydrogen production more economical we can find in Europe, e.g. in Belgium (Hyve consortium), UK (Pembroke Net Zero Centre). In Asia, such centers are in Korea (a Korea Gas Safety Corporation hydrogen equipment safety test center with North Jolla Province). In Australia, funding for projects to make renewable hydrogen a more businesslike product is handled, for example, by the Renewable Hydrogen Deployment Funding Round.

But it should be added that it is easier to find joining forces to make electrolyzers more cost-efficient than to find initiatives for alternative hydrogen technologies. The centers listed above mostly affirm this principle.

However, for example in the UK BayoTech and IBMS Group announced an agreement to launch the UK’s first renewable hydrogen project using biomethane. [1] (Agaz.info)

Nevertheless, the lack of more information about the different ways to produce green hydrogen leads us to believe that the dialogue about different technologies for producing green gases needs to be dramatically improved. This especially includes analyses of their technological competitiveness and place in countries' energy policies.

A lack of change in this area may, in the long run, lead to decisions that are not fully economically justified. This may be especially true for the European Union.

[1] https://agaz.info/2021/05/25/uk-bayotech-and-ibms-group-announced-an-agreement-to-launch-the-uks-first-renewable-hydrogen-project-using-biomethane/