Yes hydrogen is has a pretty terrible volumetric energy density. In gas form stored at 200 bar, you'd need about 18 truckloads to math the amount of fuel in a s

Yes hydrogen is has a pretty terrible volumetric energy density. In gas form stored at 200 bar, you'd need about 18 truckloads to math the amount of fuel in a single truck load of petrol. In liquid form stored at a few degrees above zero it gets a bit better. It's "only" 2.5 times less dense than lng. Of course cooling and keeping the gas at that temperature is not free. It takes energy. And as it heats up, you have to boil some of it off. So, it doesn't store that well for longer time in liquid form. So, that makes shipping or trucking around hydrogen spectacularly uneconomical. Most hydrogen produced today is used onsite. Mainly for things like fertilizer production. Moving hydrogen around at scale is an unsolved problem. Gas pipes (after they are re-enforced) could work of course. But some of it would leak. And hydrogen mixed with air is not a good thing to have in your house. The same property also makes using hydrogen as a fuel in planes or shipping unpractical: most of your plane/ship would be taken up by the enormous volume of hydrogen you'd need to move it around. Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder is a good reference here. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic... In it he organizes different use cases by their economical value. Things like road transport and domestic heating are at the bottom of the scale (i.e. you could do it but it would be very inefficient and costly). Near the top are some of the more realistic things, some of which are already being done. Instead of moving hydrogen to where you implement those use cases (e.g. steel making), it would be more practical/logical to move the use case to where you can produce the hydrogen the cheapest. The bigger the energy need, the higher the savings. You basically compete on energy cost.