[pfdietz]

A BTU of hydrogen requires more energy to compress to a given pressure than a BTU of natural gas, but hydrogen also has lower viscosity, so less recompression is needed. The point you raise does not rule out hydrogen pipelines.

[closewith]

It does, definitively.

[pfdietz]

If it does, then it also rules out long distance transmission of electrical power, as that is even more expensive. And the hydrogen advantage is even greater when one considers one can piggyback storage onto this system, as is done in natural gas pipelines. The electrical system would need additional batteries which are much more expensive per unit of storage capacity.

[closewith]

You are simply wrong on this. HVDC losses total ~5% for 1,000km, including step up and step down losses.

H2 will experience 20-30% over the same distance of natural gas line including compression and friction losses. DOA.

[pfdietz]

I said expensive. Total cost is the relevant metric, not efficiency.

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81662.pdf

It's a common mistake to think efficiency dominates all other metrics. It's never just efficiency.

[closewith]

Capex for H2 pipelines is higher than new HVDC, and opex is 5-10x HVDC per MWh-km so you're just wrong on this.

H2 makes sense for feedstocks but not energy distribution.

[pfdietz]

The reference I gave you completely disagrees with your statement. So, present a link justifying it or I will just go with the link I have.