[ben_w]

First link:

> Vassilenko cited the data that in 2022 the global green hydrogen market was valued at $4.02 billion

Second:

> Originating out of a reference economic model of the Green Kochi Hydrogen Hub (GKH2), the plan was prepared as a 50:50 public-private Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with a 150 megawatt (MW) electrolyser capacity, storage and evacuation infrastructure, renewable energy inputs, green ammonia production plants and off-take by industrial and mobility users, with a $468m CAPEX outlay over a 20-year project period.

Third said this, but there's a "but" coming:

> In 2022, over $240 billion was invested in more than 680 global hydrogen projects, marking a 50 per cent increase in investments compared to the previous year.

The document it linked to actually starts with:

> 680 large-scale project proposals worth USD 240 billion have been put forward, but only about 10% (USD 22 billion) have reached final investment decision (FID). While Europe leads in proposed investments (~30%), China is slightly ahead on actual deployment of electrolyzers (200 MW), while Japan and South Korea are leading in fuel cells (more than half of the world's 11 GW manufacturing capacity).

These would be a great start if not for the fact that we've been hearing about how hydrogen cars will replace ICE since before Tesla became newsworthy.

I want this to succeed, I really do — even if it only works for planes and some chemistry, that's fantastic! — but this isn't like Russia being at war, it's like pointing to the continuing existence of Cuba and saying "Look! Communism works!"

[_hypx]

I'm curious as to how you can read an article describing tens of billions of dollars of investments that have reached the final investment stage, and that it is growing 50% YOY, and then conclude that this is the same level of success as Communism in Cuba.

This is exactly the example of denial I am referring to. You are literally reading an article that describes exactly what I am saying, and yet somehow your conclusion that this is all imaginary. It is a near perfect parallel to those anti-solar people, who continuously denied the rapid growth of solar power even after witnessing years of it first hand.

[ben_w]

> I'm curious

My impression from you is that's rhetorical, not sincere. Is my impression correct?

If not, if you're really curious: Cuba's GDP is $107 bn, making it about x5 global green hydrogen.

(Edit: had previously said $250 bn, that's PPP not nominal)

> and yet somehow your conclusion that this is all imaginary

That's not what I said. I am denying it's "at scale" which is not at all synonymous with claiming "it's imaginary", it would have to grow by a factor of a thousand — three orders of magnitude — for me to say "Yay, finally! What took y'all so long?"

[_hypx]

Your rhetoric is utterly non-sincere. The idea that something needs to be greater than $100B, something very few things are, to be significant is utter bullshit. Not even getting into the part about 50% YOY growth.

[ben_w]

Why are you like this?

World annual investments on energy was about 2.5 trillion last year for new stuff plus 4 trillion going to oil and gas producers[0].

Here's what that looks like:

$22bn: ■ $6.5tn:

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■

Even PV, which is also growing fast and is much larger than your headlines for new investments ($22bn, and they won't all happen, and those which do are not all in the same year), is only about 6% of global electricity.

And worse, the quantities that matter are energy and power, which are again "that's an interesting proof of concept" level, not "wow, fantastic, this has really changed things" (much as I want it to).

What you have with hydrogen — and remember, I like hydrogen, and have made some myself even back when I was a single-digit age — is still smaller than the current annual production of just batteries, which you dismiss.

If the batteries were bad for the reasons you gave in some of your other comments, hydrogen would be a joke. I don't think hydrogen is a joke, but the evidence is that it's still niche rather than a general solution with all current tech.

[0] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022/ove...

[_hypx]

You need look into the mirror here. Why are you like this? Do you understand what exponent growth even is? At 50% YOY growth, it will catch up to everything else in a handful of years. And this is your source, not mine. You are basically rejecting the conclusion of the source you found.

PV is doing the same. It is also growing exponentially. There was a time when investment in PVs was also in the single-digit billions. Now it is a lot more. If something grows rapidly enough, it will quickly catch up to the competition.

Finally, you’ve picked a source that is fairly conservative on all this. I mean, Japan alone is exceeding that: https://japantoday.com/category/tech/japan-earmarks-107-bill...

Other countries will follow, so you can expect global investment to be much higher.

[ben_w]

> You need look into the mirror here.

Ironic given you keep parroting phrases from everyone you reply to with the same tone on your part.

And yes, the real meaning of the word irony.

> At 50% YOY growth, it will catch up to everything else in a handful of years. And this is your source, not mine. You are basically rejecting the conclusion of the source you found.

Nah, you're the origin of the string "50% YOY" as far as I can tell. (Or did you misread the bit where the 240 bn, which is the closest I got, was from a news story that did not correctly quote its own linked source document?)

My link, I just searched it, has this to say about 50%:

> Lithium-focused companies increased their spending by 50% to record highs.

I want hydrogen growth to sustain that rate. I don't see any reason to expect this to be sustained, but I want it to.

> Finally, you’ve picked a source that is fairly conservative on all this. I mean, Japan alone is exceeding that

(1) Over 15 years, (2) reaching 15 million tons per year, which is 1% of their average primary energy usage.

Again, this is like using Cuba as an example of how Communism will take over real soon now: not a good one.