I work professionally developing Liquid hydrogen fueled transport power technology.
So your job depends on believing the projections about how H2 costs will come down?
It’s very practical for some applications, particularly aircraft and ships that I expect will transition to hydrogen in next 2-3 decades, and possibly trains and agriculture.
[...]
This is likely the only realistic route to fully renewable power for human civilisation—producing in cheapest sunny or windy areas and using at high latitudes/through winters.
[...]
so a more convenient dense and long-term easily and cheaply stored energy carrier such as Ammonia or synthetic hydrocarbons made using future cheap hydrogen feedstocks may be a better option.
It’s possible that direct production of synthetic hydrocarbons will be more effective than going through H2 production. Given that we already have ships that can drive well if you fuel them with gas, it’s possible that all the money invested into trying to get ships to run on hydrogen will be wasted.
“So your job depends on believing the projections about how H2 costs will come down?”
I wouldn’t waste my life on something I didn’t see as likely—I have no shortage of opportunities in a wide variety of greentech fields. Hydrogen is the most efficient fuel storage ‘battery’ with 40-50% round-trip energy storage possible. Other synthetic fuels are less efficient but may be necessary for longer term storage or smaller applications. For shipping and aviation however LH2 is the clear and obvious winner.
Desert pv will likely come down in price to consistent ~$0.01-0.02 in next decade with impact of AI on manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs (a few large pv installations are already contracted in this cost range). And electrolysis and liquefaction tech are on track to yield the stated $1.50/kg (learning curves are magic). That ‘stranded’ desert pv power needs to be delivered to far distant users and hydrogen pipelines or shipping provides most realistic option for doing that.
Capturing carbon for synthetic hydrocarbons is not a trivial issue/cost. And their round trip energy storage efficiencies for synthetics hydrocarbons are worse than for hydrogen. There will still be some applications where they make the most sense. Ammonia might work too, though it also needs hydrogen feedstock and is often lethal when inhaled.
But in general I see a pretty clear path to renewable hydrogen undercutting fossil fuels on cost in the next decade or two, and from there a likely rapid decline in their use - so reasons for optimism about energy part of our civilisational tech stack at least, without breakthroughs in nuclear being needed.
Hydrogen is the most efficient fuel storage ‘battery’ with 40-50% round-trip energy storage possible [...] Desert pv will likely come down in price to consistent ~$0.01-0.02
If energy prices come down so much, the round-trip efficiency is not central.
You need much larger storage tanks in both ships and airplanes if you go for hydrogen than if you use denser fuel.
And electrolysis and liquefaction tech are on track to yield the stated $1.50/kg (learning curves are magic).
If that’s true why are the subventions for its production so high? What sources do you find trustworthy for those costs in an environment where plenty of the players have incentives to make people believe in a certain future?
So your job depends on believing the projections about how H2 costs will come down?
It’s possible that direct production of synthetic hydrocarbons will be more effective than going through H2 production. Given that we already have ships that can drive well if you fuel them with gas, it’s possible that all the money invested into trying to get ships to run on hydrogen will be wasted.
“So your job depends on believing the projections about how H2 costs will come down?”
I wouldn’t waste my life on something I didn’t see as likely—I have no shortage of opportunities in a wide variety of greentech fields. Hydrogen is the most efficient fuel storage ‘battery’ with 40-50% round-trip energy storage possible. Other synthetic fuels are less efficient but may be necessary for longer term storage or smaller applications. For shipping and aviation however LH2 is the clear and obvious winner.
Desert pv will likely come down in price to consistent ~$0.01-0.02 in next decade with impact of AI on manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs (a few large pv installations are already contracted in this cost range). And electrolysis and liquefaction tech are on track to yield the stated $1.50/kg (learning curves are magic). That ‘stranded’ desert pv power needs to be delivered to far distant users and hydrogen pipelines or shipping provides most realistic option for doing that.
Capturing carbon for synthetic hydrocarbons is not a trivial issue/cost. And their round trip energy storage efficiencies for synthetics hydrocarbons are worse than for hydrogen. There will still be some applications where they make the most sense. Ammonia might work too, though it also needs hydrogen feedstock and is often lethal when inhaled.
But in general I see a pretty clear path to renewable hydrogen undercutting fossil fuels on cost in the next decade or two, and from there a likely rapid decline in their use - so reasons for optimism about energy part of our civilisational tech stack at least, without breakthroughs in nuclear being needed.
If energy prices come down so much, the round-trip efficiency is not central.
You need much larger storage tanks in both ships and airplanes if you go for hydrogen than if you use denser fuel.
If that’s true why are the subventions for its production so high? What sources do you find trustworthy for those costs in an environment where plenty of the players have incentives to make people believe in a certain future?