You'd likely send via pipelines or tanker trucks instead.

Hydrogen doesn't make sense to transport. You contend with cryogenics / boil-off for tanker trucks or ships. Pipelines you're dealing with poor volumetric energy levels (you use comparatively more units of energy to move one unit of h2).

Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away. It is the same story as with LNG.

I replied to your comment that was talking about transportation... i.e. not using it right away.

H2 has a daily boil off 5 times greater than LNG. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682...

Not only that, liquid H2 has worse energy density than LNG. So again, you're spending more units of energy to comparatively more less units of energy.

You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around. If that does become necessary, the solution is improved insulation. Modern materials can reduce boil-off to that of LNG's. In fact, LNG was once seen as impossible because of its boil-off concerns at one point.

You will need bigger tanks but the fuel is much lighter. It is a solvable problem.

>Boiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away.

>You can liquefy hydrogen on the spot. You don't need to move LH₂ around.

Why are you liquefying H2 if you are using it right away and or not transporting it? Liquefaction is to optimize for storage. You're all over the shop.

You liquefy H₂ for the density advantage, not for storage. You actually want to store hydrogen as a gas since it won't boil off.