>We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2.
That doesn't address the "easy and cost effective" part. Current estimates say that the energy required is 30% of the energy value of the hydrogen itself.
>But whereas liquefying natural gas only requires temperatures of -160°C, to liquefy hydrogen you need refrigeration systems capable of getting down to -253°C. That is an expensive proposition. Using current technologies the energy required is 30% of that in the hydrogen being liquefied.
https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/ma...
LH2 is the obviously correct fuel for future aviation. But probably few other places.
Transmission lines will be favored for up to 2000 km, ships full of liquified ammonia much beyond that. Far northern cities without reliable transmission lines will get regular ammonia shipments from solar farms in the tropics, just as they get LNG today.
It take a lot more energy to liquify hydrogen compared to natural gas. At least 10 kWh per kg. And storing/transporting it is expensive: you need to maintain cryogenic (-253 deg C) conditions.
Even the Space industry has given up on LH2 in favour of liquid CH4, partly due to all the costs and difficulties in handling it.
Liquefaction is the way. We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2.