(Note: Article may contain spoilers)
Without a doubt, for the second part of the adventures of eccentric detective Benoit Blanc, which hit the screens at the end of the year, the Oscar for the supporting role should go to hydrogen. The problem, however, is the misleading way it is portrayed, which we want to confront today.
We recently had the opportunity to see Rian Johnson’s new work. It transports viewers to a picturesque private island owned by billionaire and tech industry mogul Miles Bron (portrayed by Edward Norton), who, as every year, holds a special gathering for his friends. This time its backdrop is a carefully planned game in search of the host’s murderer.
We won’t go into the plot nor attempt to review a detective story (you’ll find plenty of reviews online), but we feel compelled to point out the somewhat twisted portrayal of hydrogen present in the film, which may influence negative perceptions of the new fuel and thus be detrimental to the growing hydrogen economy.
Klear – the new hydrogen fuel
You will ask, “why hydrogen?”. Well, a brand new, groundbreaking invention and an ace up the technological “visionary’s” sleeve is a form of solid hydrogen fuel from seawater with the graceful name Klear. A small hydrogen crystal kept in the rich man’s pocket is one of the reasons for the growing tension between the characters.
The fact is that Miles Bron has his five minutes here as he understands the potential of using hydrogen for sustainable development and its advantage of flexibility. However, Miles is not concerned about safety, instead, he is very concerned about money, power, and boosting his ego.
At the same time, there is no denying that some of the properties of hydrogen are misrepresented in the film. Hydrogen is already being used around the world, including in transportation and heating, and the scale of announced projects is steadily growing. It can be reduced to solid form, but this is not considered common due to existing technological barriers and unprofitability.
The more important aspects addressed in “Glass Onion” are the explosiveness and permeation of the new fuel. The image of hydrogen created in the film (see the final scene) suggests that it is an extremely dangerous fuel. This is evidenced, cited like a mantra, by the Hindenburg disaster. The accident cast a shadow over the widespread use of hydrogen for many years. There are many theories about its causes. Including the theory of a leak from which hydrogen escaped, or a catalyst for the explosion in the form of lightning. Today, the action of static electricity is considered the most likely. The myth of the Hindenburg is still firmly entrenched in the public consciousness, and its invocation evokes only negative feelings about hydrogen. And yet we know perfectly well that it is neither more nor less dangerous than other hydrocarbon fuels.
The second concern of the protagonists is the construction of a power plant based on Klear and the transmission of gaseous hydrogen to consumers and their homes. And more specifically, its leaks. Already at the outset, we must emphasize that most hydrogen leaks take on small proportions that do not threaten human safety. Large leaks occur less frequently, and the risk of such leaks can be mitigated by adherence to proper safety standards, the use of appropriate monitoring systems, and constant servicing of equipment and installations – just as is the case with well-known and widely used fuels. What’s more, smaller- and larger-scale hydrogen transmission via pipelines is also common in many parts of the world. In a word, another movie myth that does not reflect reality.
This isn’t the first time the film industry has reached out to hydrogen, but here it portrays it in a particularly unfavorable light. And yet it is a fuel that will enable the goals of decarbonization, a shift away from fossil fuels, and the development of a modern, sustainable economy. Aren’t these the positive qualities of this character?
