Well yes. But I'm also aware that H2 is a component in the synthetic production of those hydrocarbons. Using the H2 directly could prove beneficial. But if not, then we can always convert it into some combination of C and H and burn that instead.
Either way: producing H2 from clean sources (like this weird chemical solar panel thingy) is a good thing.
Adding hydrogen can fix both of these problems, enabling efficiency up to 150% (compared to the energy in the source material, not including the hydrogen). This is kind of a big deal, since for large-scale carbon-neutral production of synthetic hydrocarbons the bottleneck is the source of carbon. Hydrogen can be produced (nearly) carbon-free in unlimited quantities, but barring a breakthrough in DAC technology where is your sustainable source of carbon? And no, we don't want to replace pristine rain forests with biomass plantations.
I feel you are suggesting the reason is because it's an ideal energy transport mechanism, while ignoring the (not insignificant) fact that almost all the hydrocarbons we've used so far have been, effectively, free energy.
Or at the least, incur a cost that we have not yet had to contend with.
The reference to biology using hydrocarbons as its preferred energy store is one to fat, not fossil fuels.
That’s far from free energy. And life likely wound up that way because its precursors—hydrogen and carbon—are readily available, it’s energy dense both volumetrically and by mass, it’s safe and it can be converted into various forms of energy directly and easily.
Ultimately, the big unknown is the cost of synthesising Jet A. I think it will be low enough that it blows the hydrogen hypothesis out of the water, but I don’t have more than a hunch to go off.
Yes. Most of the available energy is in the hydrogen bonds, but if you want to 'tame' neat hydrogen by binding it to something else, from all the stuff in the periodic table carbon is pretty much the optimal choice.
> Ultimately, the big unknown is the cost of synthesising Jet A. I think it will be low enough that it blows the hydrogen hypothesis out of the water, but I don’t have more than a hunch to go off.
To the extent one of the inputs to synthetic Jet A is hydrogen, it won't be cheaper as such. So the question really is whether the added cost is low enough that the easier logistics of a room-temperature liquid fuel makes the total cost lower. I'm slightly hopeful that this will eventually be the case.
Carbohydrate != hydrocarbon.
> You're describing hydrocarbons.
This is technically correct, but at the right pressure, it becomes politically incorrect.
Right now there is already a huge push against fossil fuels, to the point that countries are setting dates for forbidding internal combustion engines in cars. Note that this will take effect independently of the source of fuel, fossil or otherwise. And methane, which is relatively easy to produce from bio-waste, it is a potent greenhouse gas.
For now, the public is divided. Nobody likes the consequences of global warming but nobody likes to give up the convenience of hydrocarbons.
Give it some time or add some more climate shock, and the public may change opinion to be against all fuels that contain some form of carbon, no matter the origin.
Technically it is quite possible to produce hydrocarbons today. In theory a government could mandate, for example, 25% green hydrocarbons in fuel in 2030.
In practice, nobody will do that because that is political suicide.
The good thing about the current BEV cars is that over the lifetime of the car they are cost effective. I will be disruptive for a while. But we now have enough experience with BEV cars to know that they are a practical solution.
Telling people that they can keep driving ICE cars in the future, without telling them that green hydrocarbons are going to cost a fortune and would prevent everybody except some rich people from actually driving ICE cars does not help.
Of course, that could all change if we can find a cheap way to make green hydrogen at scale. With current technology we need to get rid of ICE cars. We can always revisit that if green hydrogen becomes abundant.
Personally I would also be happy if all burning of hydrocarbons gets removed from cities. There is no reason to keep breathing exhaust gasses other than that the fuel is cheap.
Aeroplanes have no viable alternative right now, and the noise/particulates issue aren't as big of a problem unless you live near an airport.
Nobody wants to give up the convenience of personal transportation using automobiles. And for the United States, a good chunk of which was designed around that this is a serious problem.
Why would this be desirable?
/s, mostly
Silanes as Fuel for Aerospace Propulsion
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009TrSpT...7.Pa33S/abstra...
If this is a useful way to get H2 feedstock for producing ammonia, that’s interesting on its own!
Exposure to high concentrations of ammonia in air causes immediate burning of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract and can result in blindness, lung damage or death. Inhalation of lower concentrations can cause coughing, and nose and throat irritation.
The benefit of nitrogen fuels as a carbon-neutral fuel is that getting nitrogen from the atmosphere is a lot easier than extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
You're describing hydrocarbons.
The most-common element in the universe married to the most-common four-bonding element. Using solar panels to synthesize Jet A is probably a better path forward than redesigning every plane in the world to trawl a balloon or carry a pressure vessel.
There's a reason pretty much all of Earth's biology uses hydrocarbons as its fuel of choice.