[adrian_b]

Even if diesel fuel has only about 3/8 of the energy per mass of hydrogen, it has much higher energy per volume than hydrogen.

For a locomotive of a train, the volume of storage is a much more important limitation than the mass.

Moreover, after adding the mass of the fuel containers, it is likely that diesel fuel has also a greater energy per mass than hydrogen.

Hydrocarbon fuel can also be transported by pipelines.

So none of these arguments show any advantage of hydrogen versus the traditional diesel fuel.

[dragontamer]

The idea is to create a green fuel of the future, powered by Solar Panels and Nuclear energy, and wind and hydro.

-------

I do think that green-hydrocarbons have a potential future. Green diesel would be a biofuel. But Hydrogen can turn into a hydrocarbon through Syngas synthesis (eventually turning into Kerosene and other "green hydrocarbon" fuels).

If the chemistry works out, maybe that's the future. But experimentation with pure H2 looks promising right now.

[adrian_b]

I believe that as you say, converting the hydrogen obtained by electrolysis or photolysis into hydrocarbons via syngas is the most likely future solution for all energy storage problems where batteries are inappropriate.

Even if the energy efficiency of a storage cycle is lower than when using directly the hydrogen, the savings due to easier handling and storage are huge.

Moreover, that path will allow the reuse of all the existing infrastructure for hydrocarbons, whose replacement would require a very long time and very high costs.

[dragontamer]

H2 can be transported over natural gas pipelines. At least as high as 15% hydrogen / 85% Nat Gas.

Maybe that's not enough for the long term, but that mix/ratio should be sufficient to bootstrap the fledgling H2 industry.

If Syngas / synthetic diesel becomes more efficient in the future, we switch to that. I'm not against experimentation or tests.