Green hydrogen is made from water using electrolysis.

No one has interest in hydrogen cell vehicles outside of gas and oil who make hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

We both know the patent office is not capable of doing their job correctly. They give every megacorp every patent they want, because they're captured.

Just look at Nintendo's recent patents... There are THOUSANDS of examples of prior art, yet they still got their patents.

It's up to the patent office to reject it then.

But the approach is just applying old ideas to a different also old idea. That's by definition not novel.

Devil's in the detail I suppose. We don't know if anything like this exists for a turbodan engine.

Same difference for my point. It's been around for many decades, thus making it definitionally not novel.

Space rockets were only invented in the late 1950s.

Patenting an idea that is otherwise obvious is a bad thing in relation to its adoption rate...

Hydrogen combustion is NOT NOVEL what so ever. Space rockets have been pre-heating their fuel since the fucking 1940's...

Okay so there are drawbacks and benefits to each fuel type:

• fossil fuel e.g. gasoline, diesel, propane - all are cheap as hell because we drill it from the ground. All add carbon to the atmosphere that was not there for millions of years

• eco/manufactured fuel e.g. bio diesel, eco propane, and hydrogen - these are more expensive because we have to do the exchange from stable molecules to less stable fuels and back. The energy concentration is high for having to carry the powersource. Also all carbon/hydrogen used is taken and given from/to the existing ecosystem. Hydrogen is the most efficient of these as it 1) cleans air as you use it 2) generation only requires tap water after you have the equipment, and 3) you can "burn" in your house without co issues. Bio propane requires co2 capture which is slow and the reaction to store it is less efficient than hydrogen.

• batteries e.g. Teslas. These are heavy and require rare earth metals to achieve the energy density and shelf stability. For example a cyber truck has 8,000 lbs of only batteries before considering any frame or engine because it is expensive from an energy standpoint to start and stop inertia. Also, car crashes tend to be fatal and expensive to fix because crashes are prevented by overcoming kinetic inertia.

Of these, the best long term and portable and safe and clean fuel source is hydrogen. I would prefer to not pollute the air literally next to me or my kids while not driving a death trap, so in my use case ( and hopefully my neighbors') i want hydrogen residential vehicles.

The only places in the world I’ve heard that sentiment is North America. Everywhere else is taking hydrogen seriously. It has challenges but the benefits are substantial.

That's your opinion.

They are only doing this because they are spending out Japanese government research money, hydrogen has no future in non commerical vehicles.

From a technological perspective nice.

From an ecological and economical perspective it probably does not make sense.

Reason is, ammonia is a key component of chemical processes in itself and still relies heavily on fossile energy sources to produce it.