Re:After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit
by dehrmann on Saturday July 04, 2020 @03:40PM
(#23734428)
If you have cheap enough energy that you're making hydrogen, can't you also make hydrocarbons? Granted, at the efficiencies we're talking, their only real use would be air travel (and petrochemicals, I suppose).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit
by dredmorbius on Saturday July 04, 2020 @06:38PM
(#23735395)
Yes. That's remarkable more sensible than futzing with naked hydrogen molecules, though the challenges here have been great as well.
I covered the topic in a series of posts based on then-new research about six years ago. That's ... not developed much further:
Primary article: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/22k71x/us_navy...
Others: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=fischer-tropsc...
The main development since has been Foghorn, a Google (Alphabet) project attempting to develop the technology. It failed.
Re:After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit
by algo_trader on Sunday July 05, 2020 @11:12AM
(#23739259)
What is the oil-cost-equivalent of existing synfuel technology?
(for uses such as air travel)
IIRC at $150 oil these synfuels were already competitive?
Re:After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit
by dredmorbius on Sunday July 05, 2020 @01:22PM
(#23740270)
Varies by study, though upshot of the USNRL study wss that for net cost point-of-use (deployed carrier task force) it is competitive now (roughly $50-60/bbl cost of oil).
I'd argue that fossil fuel oil is grossly underpriced, by an order of about 10^6, but that's a longer discussion.
Re:After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit
by Erlich_Bachman on Monday July 06, 2020 @05:39AM
(#23746144)
That seems to have the added benefit of removing CO2 from the atmosphere (many potential processes, according to wikipedia get carbon from the air).