[specialist]

Yes and: Colocating carbon capture with energy sources awaiting grid connections would uncork the backlog of new construction.

In the USA, there's something like a terawatt of proposed projects stuck in the interconnection queue. We simply cannot wait for the queue to catch up with the financing of these shovel ready projects.

ETFuels is one example of this strategy. Build next to cheap electricity, pump out e-fuels like methanol and ammonia. Today. And then H2 in the future, when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#d...

[AtlasBarfed]

"when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out."

You mean in like 20 years if we invest a trillion dollars today?

By then batteries may be three times as dense and 1/3 the cost. H2 cars are a dead end and a trojan horse for fossil fuels derived H2 and a political policy disruption strategy to delay EVs and alt energy.

A business strategy that involves a new infrastructure build while waiting for ... Other infrastructure to complete seems stupid.

I can already see it. The H2 transport vehicles get built, but shockingly doing green H2 gen is never cheaper than methane sourcing, so the green part of the infrastructure just becomes a very small scoped show pony.

H2 is a bad energy carrier.

I do support research and startups, but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs, which is a tell as to who is pulling the strings behind the H2 industry

[specialist]

Green H2 is needed to replace fossil carbon for carbohydrates and ammonia, for industry and agriculture.

Not every use case for energy can be electrified. Transportation is just 1/4 of our carbon emissions. There's also (categorically) industry, agriculture, and buildings.

> but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs

I can't speak to that.

There is no either-or. We need it all. Every battery (lithium, sodium, thermal, pumped hydro, etc). Every transmission (grids, pipes). Every source (e-fuels, wind, district heating, solar, nukes, advanced thermal, waves, whatever).

Arguing about the details is a harmful distraction. The time for pearl clutching, food fights, and concern trolling has passed.

Build, build, build.

[AtlasBarfed]

That implies unlimited switchover investment dollars are available.

H2 is trying to steal a slice of the pie from (now proven) alternative energy / decarbonization techs. Yes, there is potential for grid storage and other nice stuff from H2 research and expensive infrastructure. But you and I know where the value of decarbonization dollars are maximized in the next ten years: EVs, wind, solar, and probably battery grid storage.

You are technically right that H2 has the potential to address decarbonization in areas that EVs/solar/wind can't immediately deal with. We'll need this at some point.

But... like H2 proponents, it always seems to boil down to FUD in the end.

[specialist]

I do not share your scarcity mindset.

I'm not aware of any proposals for using H2 for grid storage.

--

Please checkout ETFuels.com. They are decarbonizing today. Their pilot project validated their tech stack and they've signed customers.

https://www.et-fuels.com/our-projects

Interview linked upthread.

Founder Anthony Wang discusses their (proven) tech stack, like electrolyzers and energy sources. How they compare with other H2 startups; ETFuels' launch MVP is methanol for shipping. He shares their intended roadmap, eg branching into methane and ammonia, and unlikeliness of doing pure H2 (for customers). There will be other startups for every niche and segment. eg pure carbon capture plays, make methane, colocate with manufacturers that need H2, etc.

IMHO, green H2's position on the cost-learning curve is almost "crossing the chasm". Roughly equiv to PVs in the '90s and batteries in the 00's. (Roughly. You get the idea.) The tech is fully validated, customers and financing are on board. The challenge now is scaling up. And lots of people know how to do that.

That means green H2 will start to move the needle ~2040 and be gang busters ~2050. (Recall that Obama Admin jump started batteries, BEV, and PV. These things take time.)

--

I'm grumpy that any money whatsoever would be used for non-green H2. That we're still subsidizing fossil fuels. That utilities and Big Oil are obstructing and sabotaging. But I'm not in charge. But please don't conflate those bad actors with the work that needs to be done.

Ok, I've spent too much time on this topic. I'm not even much interested in green H2; everyone's racing to discover better electrolyzers, just like with batteries. And that's just not my thing.

I'm way more excited about thermal batteries and advanced geothermal. Most end uses for energy is heat. So just use heat. Brilliant! Whereas H2 is best for decarbonizing fuels (e-fuels) and fertilizers. Until there's some kind of H2 power cell tech discovery, I think H2 as a fuel is a non starter. Besides, we can't even economically transport H2 yet. Those advocating H2 as fuel for automobiles are nutty or Japanese.

Again, we need all of it. More "Yes, And" less "Yes, But".

Peace.