Canada

Yes it doesn't involve carbon capture, I was just replying to the comment that shipping needs carbon capture because of the fuel it uses. You don't need carbon capture if you change the fuel source which is entirely feasible for shipping.

Hydrogen is problematic, but all the points you've made are just typical disinformation on the matter.

First of all, hydrogen tanks don't explode. Even if you set fire on them, they'll simply leak and that leak will burn like a pressurized flame until the tank empties. Second, you can't really transport hydrogen in liquid form, as the boiling temperature for it is far too low (33K). They're always transported in gaseous form right now under high pressure, which is worse I'll admit. The energy needed to pressurize hydrogen though, isn't that much worse than LNG, since natural gas suffers all the same limitations as hydrogen as you've proposed.

In addition, the appeal of hydrogen isn't the energy potential per volume of fuel, but that it is quick to fill a tank compared to charging a battery.

The real downsides of hydrogen is that it is so small, it gets in between the molecules that make up any tank, making them brittle over time. Hydrogen tanks simply don't last very long, and are expensive to make if you have to replace them yearly. In addition, we haven't discovered a way to produce hydrogen at an economic level yet. The energy required to produce hydrogen far too high as it is, putting it at something like 20% or so.

Thus, the downsides of hydrogen isn't safety, but simply that it's very expensive from making it all the way to storing it.