As an example: transportation. More specifically, airplanes. Energy density is a bigger factor for some uses than others.
The idea that the shipping companies would pay for a premium gas like hydrogen is laughable.
Even with bunker fuel, fuel costs make up a large percentage of shipping cost.
There’s no way that’s happening.
Fuel aside, might be less of a retrofit than we think.
Cruise ships, RORO, off-shore supply ships and vessels with similarly dynamic operating profiles have started to use diesel electric.
Also starting to employ batteries to handle peak loads.
Biology found an efficient solution to storing energy with hydrogen, and its hydrocarbons. I struggle to imagine why hydrogen-powered planes are superior other than on marketing merits.
The only pure greenwashing is hydrogen push by fossil fuel companies who wish to continue having something to do with their methane. See Germany recently with their “hydrogen-ready” boilers.
Seriously, fuck you. You're a brainwashed BEV fanatic. And pretty much a climate change denier given your extremist position.
To end on:
> a fuel made from water
Except it’s currently not. And will not be made from water at anything close to the current price without major subsidies.
I don’t know where to get the idea that anything I say is denying climate change. Quite the opposite. We already have proven solution that work. We don’t have time and money to waste on trying out ridiculous ideas like “hydrogen as an energy carrier”.
It's not made from water, it's made from fossil gas.
All these schemes to increase demand aren't about making electrolysers to replace existing grey hydrogen, they're ahout selling grey hydrogen.
And if biofuels cost is a concern, synthetic fuels will be out of the question.
Ain’t no incremental improvement going to improve the density of a gas or a liquid. On top of that you talk of energy per mass, but what kills you for flights is also volume.
Hydrogen power flights are not feasible today. Even hydrogen busses are struggling to operate, to say. I thing of trains.
For starters you’ll need hydrogen at any and all possible destinations (plus any nearby airports if you’re diverted) since nobody is going to buy a plane that will likely get stranded.
Then:
1. Hydrogen’s energy/volume is far too low.
2. You can’t store it in the empty space in the fuselage due to pressure vessel geometry requirements.
3. You need heaters and coolers and all sorts of extra parts to operate something hydrogen power (hint: a hydrogen car is just an electric car with a small battery and a while separate hydrogen system frankesteined ontop).
4. Going back to that volume, you’ll need to store the hydeogren tanks inside the main fuselage, where the volume required is going to either eat into your available volume for cabin or cargo. OR, you’re gonna need a bigger cross-section, which will increase your drag.
To top all that off. Nobody is using green hydrogen. They’re using hydrogen made directly from methane (or god help us coal). This hydrogen has more GhG emissions associate with it than the methane it’s made from. Hydrogen itself also has a GHG impact since it will interfere with the processes occurring that remove other GHGs.
Synthetic kerosene is a technology that we have today and imho the most likely option because it is plug and play. Otherwise one would have to work out many modifications to fly directly on hydrogen, but that is also technically possible today, if one wanted to do it that way.
The technology for synthetic karosene is something we have today, expect it cost more 10x regular karosene and:
A) what’s the path to scale to bring that number down? Who isn’t going to pay that 10x price while it’s that high. Batteries had cell phones, then laptop, then cars and storage. Now it’s trucks, ships and planes are next up.
B) by continuing with combustions engines you keep the same operating costs that you have now. Whereas electrification gets rid of many of them (same way it did for cars).
Seriously, that claim is just bullshit. 55 Wh/L is worse than a lead-acid battery. That graph is straight-up lying.
I'm sorry, but that is simply far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. It's blatantly some made-up number that no one can believe.
Jet engines need to be maintained pretty much after every flight and that costs $$.
But the energy source that handles everything beyond that is much more likely to be biolfuels than hydrogen (or synthetics).
The cost it much better and the infrastructure is already there.
Obviously costs change the demand side of the equation - it may be that we wind up with very expensive airfare, and have a lot more somewhat slower modes (say high-speed rail) that can more easily use the cheaper energy forms.
That biofuels have costs that concern people is letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Any of the synthetic fuels or hydrogen options require an incredible amount of energy. Energy that could have been available to decarbonize the grid, or energy that could have been used for making clean water or any other pressing issues. The thing is, those costs are more hidden.