4 ms·
You'd likely send via pipelines or tanker trucks instead.
by _hypx 3y ago
You'd likely send via pipelines or tanker trucks instead.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 3y agoHydrogen 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).
- _hypx 3y agoBoiloff is not that big of a deal if you are using the fuel right away. It is the same story as with LNG.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 3y agoI 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/S2772656822000276 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.
- _hypx 3y agoYou 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.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago>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.
- _hypx 3y agoYou liquefy H₂ for the density advantage, not for storage. You actually want to store hydrogen as a gas since it won't boil off.