I recently found I had to make a tech debt payment when Alpine replaced 'sudo' with 'doas'. Do I feel assured that it's better? Not really.

If a vulture (or other macro scavenger) consumes a carcass, essentially all of the carbon content of the carcass gets turned into carbon dioxide through metabolism. The overall biomass carbon of vultures changes hardly at all. If the carcass is left to rot, the metabolic processes of the bacteria and other critters yield carbon dioxide, probably more methane, and perhaps a localized increase in critter biomass carbon that could last for a while (perhaps a year at most?). Burial/composting could change the balance and timing a bit. But in the circle-of-life lifecycle analysis, there doesn't seem to be any great difference in carbon emissions from these different paths. It's not like the vultures are long-term sequestering carbon.

I'm all for letting vultures do their biosphere job, but exaggerating their role in carbon emissions seems misguided.

This system allows use of hydrogen as a fuel, but does not store its energy in molecular hydrogen. The hydrogen is stored as water, the energy is stored as aluminum, the gallium acts to prevent aluminum oxide building up and stopping the reaction. The buttons in their canister may well be safer than compressed hydrogen.

The AlGalCo website is fairly terrible and neither it nor the IEEE Spectrum article appear to address any hard questions, such as energy density, economic efficiency or whether there are other safety issues. So on the surface, this looks like any of a number of 'alternative energy' schemes that may or may not make sense, depending on details we've not been given - so I understand your skepticism.