2. Huge efficiency gains are to be had, in electrolysis, via catalytic action, needing only transition from lab to production funded by sufficient demand for the hydrogen.
3. There has been great success with direct solar -> H2, needing, again, only sufficient demand for the hydrogen produced to be made industrially practical.
While duty cycle of solar is under 50%, when there is not sunshine there is very often wind. So 50% idle capacity is unlikely.
Catalytic conversion of electricity to hydrogen will probably exceed 90% efficiency in short order, and from H2 back to electric via fuel cell is already over 90%.
Liquified and pumped into aircraft, nothing comes close to H2 for efficiency. Likewise, in rockets.
When we finally get sensible carbon taxation, 6x cheaper than CH4 will be easy to achieve.
That’s because the alternative process to electrolysis of producing hydrogen, the steam reforming, uses heat, not electricity. I keep talking about heat, because electricity from solar or wind is competing not with electricity from natural gas, but with heat from natural gas. Given typical conversion efficiency of 20-30%, this means that the heat from natural gas is at the very least 3-5 times cheaper than electricity from natural gas, and in fact it’s even cheaper than that, because you don’t need expensive turbines to generate heat from natural gas, reducing your capital and maintenance costs even more. EIA doesnt expect costs of electricity from solar to go below electricity from natural gas by 2040 at all, much less 6 times.
When we finally get sensible carbon taxation, 6x cheaper than CH4 will be easy to achieve.
Yes, if you put a finger on a scale, you can achieve any result that you want.
It’s not really about that, we don’t lack water or methane. The issue is rather about the energy required to produce given amount of hydrogen. Electrolysis requires 2-3 as much energy as steam methane reforming already if you just look at energy of chemical reactions, and moreover, steam reforming requires just heat, while electrolysis requires electricity, which again is more expensive than heat: we produce most of our electricity from heat, and the conversion efficiency from heat to electricity is around 20-30%, so it makes more sense to use all the heat directly instead of going through electricity production stage.