comment: >
  
  Yes i agree hydrogen should be used if it can be used somehow, a lot of processes produce it and its usually better to have a mix of energy sources. However the hype around hydrogen is total bs, especially green hydrogen part :) its just populism for environmentalists who do not know anything about the technology..also i think it should never be one of the main energy sources as there are many problems that needs to be addressed just for eg energy efficiency of hydrogen usage is low, storage requires a lot od space etc.. ., with the  advancements in battery technology electricity is probably going to overcome its problems of storage and should be the main focus as we can achieve energy conversion rates around 90% efficiency.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 51%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  The leading energy production companies from Norway and Germany agreed on Thursday to set up facilities to provide Germany with blue hydrogen, during a visit to Oslo by German Economy Minister Robert Habeck.
  Norway's state-run Equinor and Germany's RWE will invest in new power plants in Germany that will initially burn Norwegian natural gas but will eventually move over to low-carbon blue hydrogen, and finally zero-emissions green hydrogen.
  "We need plants that are ready for hydrogen ... this decarbonized hydrogen should come from Norway," Habeck said in a joint press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere in Oslo.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: hydrogen^#1 Germany^#2 clean^#3 blue^#4 gas^#5 >
  
  the key part you missed is blue hydrogen by definition also must sequester the waste co2 produced. the natural gas used to make the hydrogen also isn't technically burned but processed. it's a cleaner energy source than simply burning natural gas. i think generally it's seen as a cheaper entry into hydrogen as a fuel source >
  
  I know about CCS, in fact I did a research project on CCS about 10 years ago, I helped OpenGoSim implement a CPR preconditioner here, and the original motivation had been to simulate CCS.
  Soon thereafter, the UK stopped funding research projects on CCS. Talking to people in the field at the time (I'm not a geologist, I'm a mathematician), they told me that CCS was unrealistic.
  I don't see why doing CCS for "blue hydrogen" would be magically easier than doing CCS for everything else, that would have to be explained to me. >
  
  The pipeline's agnostic to the type of hydrogen. They can and will increase the amount of green hydrogen as it becomes available. >
  
  Almost no green hydrogen is now available, and it will only become available to the extent that precious clean electricity is diverted to create it, which is probably unwise when we already need to double our power generation while also replacing fossil generation with renewables. >
  
  The pipeline isn't available yet either. It's all good :) The industry and infrastructure need to be made ready though.
  The main reason Germany needs hydrogen is its heavy industry. I think you might not be aware of how large this sector is. It uses about 60% of all natural gas in Germany. You can't run steel and chemical plants directly on electricity.
  Also, Germany will import huge amounts of actual green hydrogen produced from countries such as Australia, Namibia and Canada. The contracts have already been signed. Running electricity cables to these place would be a bit of a challenge. These imports are not taking away from cleanly produced electricity in Europe. The same goes for the exporting countries. Because of their geography, they have a massive surplus of available wind and solar energy.
  In the long run, the hydrogen pipeline from Norway to Germany will probably be used less and less as more imports of green hydrogen from overseas become available, but in the medium term, it's necessary for Germany to prepare its industry and infrastructure and diversify its energy security.
  As for right now, the non-availability of green hydrogen is not an issue because there's virtually no demand for hydrogen in the first place. >
  
  Bad idea, Hydrogen is and will never ever be energy efficient. Its okay as a short term solution, but in general Germany and all other european countries needs to electrify, and scrap their gas infrastructure entirely.
  Conversion to Hydrogen is like throwing 20-40% of the initial energy straight out of the window, and although it has a lot of practical uses (like being fuel for airplanes, ships, storaging and as a raw material in a lot of chemical reactions), but its simply not a good source of energy in general.
  And yes, even industrial heat requirements can be obtained with electricity.
  Edit: Imagine having a wind turbine with the production of 8MW, and instead of using those 8MW directly as efficient electrical energy, you want to create Hydrogen and burn that instead. This means that you need to first use energy to purify water, then perform an electrolysis process using electricity, cool the reactor, compress the gas, cool the gas again (this can also be required to be done multiple times) and then ship it off. So now your initial 8MW has been wasted and converted to something like 5MW of useful energy instead. The same goes for 'blue' hydrogen which is also inefficient.
  Edit 2: Electricity is also a far more valuble and versatile form of energy compared to gas, so there is that aspect as well. >
  
  You need hydrogen for certain things regardless. You cannot solve everything with electrictiy. 
  You can produce hydrogen with access energy that otherwise would be wasted.