22 ms·
How to Produce Green Hydrogen for $1/Kg
- pchristensen 3y agoI’ve been hoping one of Casey’s articles would get traction here. I love what he’s writing but I don’t have the context to evaluate how correct they are.
- nocoiner 3y ago> “(As an aside, it is quite obviously impossible to enforce universal adoption of more expensive carbon-free energy through, eg, mandatory carbon offsets, as higher gas prices are political suicide regardless of system of government.)” LOL, what? This sort of seems to imply that Venezuela, where gasoline is sold for Pennie’s per liter, is better governed than, say, the Scandinavian county of your choosing. I think higher energy prices are a perfectly valid public choice that a polity can choose to embrace if the costs and benefits represent an agreeable trade off.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stavros 3y agoWouldn't it imply the opposite, if anything? Scandinavian countries have more political capital to expend on higher fuel prices precisely because they're better-governed.
- nocoiner 3y agoIt might imply the opposite; I think a reasonable argument could be made either way. I think most likely the two propositions (energy prices and good governance) are orthogonal at best. But I think there’s very little support for the flat statement I quoted from the post. Higher energy prices are political suicide under any form of government? I think that’s quite obviously false.
- thereisnospork 3y agoSo really, really cheap electricity with a side of really, really cheap hardware[0] coupled with an absence of operations, maintenance, storage, or transport costs. Noting for the latter direct energy from panels must be used with a high locality to the panels themselves, which means a distributed collection and transportation for the produced hydrogen. [0]Plausibly viable, non precious metal catalysts typically have less than stellar lifetimes but there is a lot of fat to plausibly trim out of an electrolyzed.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoI too was missing the punchline of how they reduced the capital costs so much. The writing implied it was inevitable engineering, but the real world is seldom so simple.
- aaronax 3y agoCollection and transportation for natural gas, not hydrogen. Which is very easy to imagine since it is already widely done.
- angiosperm 3y agoTankage and sea-surface shipping are both dirt-cheap.
- ianburrell 3y agoI like how the Terraform's electrolyzers (80 kWh/kg) are less efficient than legacy systems (50 kWh/kg). He compares legacy with current electricity to their system with cheap solar when they need to be compared with the same input. Their problem is that solar power isn't cheap yet. The other big problem is that electrical transmission lines are way more efficient than hydrogen, which 30% efficient on whole cycle. It makes no sense to use hydrogen as energy transport. Cheap hydrogen production at every use point, airport, factory, port, would make sense.
- pbj1968 3y agoSo…20 minutes of my life later… and it’s a piece of plexiglass on his cutting board? Good luck, man.
- HPsquared 3y agoRhetoric 101, things need to be arranged in the proper order to make the most impact on the recipient. Saying "this is the single largest technology roll-out" followed by a bit of DIY on the kitchen table does rather fall flat. There are a lot of actual good points in the article, but the ending lets it down in terms of building excitement for the bold new future. But hey, it's engineering not PR.
- angiosperm 3y agoDriving costs down isn't sexy, but it is the formula for success.
- HPsquared 3y agoDefinitely. If you win economically, there's no need for PR.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mulberry_cat 3y agoDon't be snarky, did you spend 20 minutes without reading it to the end? That plexiglass cutout is an interview prompt for engineering hires. It's only a small part of their prototype.
- mchannon 3y agoMaybe it’s the author’s second language, but they lost me when they likened an electrolyzer to a resistor. They have little in common. Thermolyzer, maybe there’s something there. If they hired me, I could make their project pass investor due diligence and more importantly actually work. Oh well.
- passwordoops 3y agoThank you for saving me the time of reading the blog. HN for the win (again)
- jvanderbot 3y agoCasey writes to explain, not so much to showcase. Even his most marketty blogs seem like information-dense, well thought out physics courses rather than puff pieces. However, if you were not familiar with the writer or early stage of terraform, then yeah I could imagine some letdown.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoLikening an electrolyzer to a resistor IS 'puff piece' level writing.
- maxbond 3y agoWhy? Is it a reactive load?
- avmich 3y agoIn the past, in the non-existent country, surprisingly often the water was boiled by shorting mains via water in a vessel, oddly enough, used to buy beer. The electrodes used were frequently shaving blades. It's not exactly electrolyzer - mains were AC - but, if fuses (or usually their less fire-preventing replacements) held, water was heated - resistive effect. I think Casey is just simplifying things a bit.
- jvanderbot 3y agoI think it's fair to let that one tiny detail slide, and to read the rest of the article as is. And you may enjoy other articles he's written, if you can get past that detail you disagree with. I often take issue with the highly-reductive, "model a cow as a sphere" type thinking that seems like a phd-doctor trope, as well, though.
- cbhl 3y agoIf you liked this post, y'all may also appreciate the Terraform Industries home page, which is entirely written in monospaced text, written in <tt> and <br> tags. https://terraformindustries.com/ https://terraformindustries.com/
- sva_ 3y agoWhats this code at the top? 11;rgb:3838/0c0c/2a2a Also, at the bottom: > Why does our website look like this? At TI we believe we can change the world by displacing fossil hydrocarbon production at global scale. Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible. Our website embodies our cultural commitment to allocating resources where they solve the most important problems. Seems odd considering they have a WordPress running in the OP
- vermilingua 3y agoHow is that odd? They have chosen not to allocate resources towards building their own blog site, and instead have gone with what is, like it or not, the standard format for blogging. Seems exactly on-message to me.
- TylerE 3y ago> Like our website, our machines are simple > PHP/Wordpress. Pick one.
- 8bitsrule 3y ago> We want the cheapest possible power. What adds cost to solar power? Moving it from the array to another place.... Hydrogen distribution costs are also extremely high, but because Terraform is only using hydrogen as an immediate precursor we’re going to ignore distribution costs here.... by ~2040 ... nearly all grid electricity will be downstream of solar, providing energy to customers through parallel distribution networks of electricity, oil, and gas. He/she/it has created an inscrutably mixed-up paper sack of ideas to promote a never-defined end. Run this by a half-talented human editor and it might be possible to see what this 'visionary' is all about.
- numbers_guy 3y agoThe vision is to create a synthetic fuel that is cost competitive with fossil fuels, (without any subsidies/carbon taxes if I'm reading that right).
- brutusborn 3y agoMethane can be the feedstock for so many fuels and chemicals so it has a huge potential. I think a lot of the skepticism of this is due to skeptics associating methane with fossil fuels and having an emotional reaction.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoNo--he is quite correctly dumping all those other costs because the intent is to neither store nor ship the hydrogen, but rather directly use it to make methane. That's much easier to work with (it's also commonly referred to as "natural gas".) I don't like the pictures, though--there would not be a solar plant next to a water cracker next to a methane maker, but rather smaller scale components stacked together. The shorter the distance you ship it the cheaper--you put your panel right on top of the other equipment.
- bertil 3y agoI was curious how much fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing hydrogen (they keep assuming electricity is free but somehow not competitive with hydrogen). It’s increasingly starting to look like they anticipate having plants synthesize methane in remote areas (maybe near methane wells) and possibly have higher productivity from those setups than people would anticipate if they looked closely at the hydrolysis performance.
- aeturnum 3y ago> I am wary of exaggeration but I think it is fair to say that in terms of parts, factories, ramp rate, and energy consumption, this is the single largest technology roll out to occur in the history of humanity, and will cause the other so-called industrial revolutions to pale into insignificance. This reminded me of various[1] vox[2] articles on scientific reports over the past decade that reinforce the central truth and challenge of the climate crisis: we have all the tools we need to 'avoid it' (and have had them for some time), but it will take at least one, if not two, orders of magnitude more effort than any previous project with a completely global scope. [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewable-energy https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl... [2]https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-change-fossil-fuels-rewiring-america-electrify https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-...
- midoridensha 3y ago>we have all the tools we need to 'avoid it' (and have had them for some time), but it will take at least one, if not two, orders of magnitude more effort than any previous project with a completely global scope. Right, which is why it's simply not going to happen. It would take far too much effort, and also far too much cooperation between different nations that all intensely hate each other. On top of that, large parts of the the global population 1) don't believe the problem exists in the first place, 2) doesn't think it's technically possible to do anything about (i.e. they think it's mostly natural, even if it's real), or 3) think they shouldn't have to change their actions at all because they're mad that the rich countries got to burn lots of oil and then stick all humanity with the problems from it. The problem is beyond fixing. Even if, for instance, Germany manages to become 100% carbon-neutral, that isn't going to help much when the USA and China and Russia and India are spewing out so much carbon and refuse to stop. The thing to do at this point is to understand and predict well what's coming, so that we can take measures to mitigate the effects at local scales.
- sebmellen 3y agoI will continue to shill https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com
- getarofilter 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- somat 3y agoI am just being mean but kilogram would not be my first choice for measuring hydrogen.
- BenjiWiebe 3y agoKilogram is a measure of mass. The fact that hydrogen is buoyant in our atmosphere doesn't make 1 kg of hydrogen any less.
- credit_guy 3y agoHydrogen is generally stored compressed at 700 bar. At that pressure the density is 42 kg/m3, or one kilogram per 24 liters. Roughly one kilogram per one jerry can.
- p1mrx 3y agoThe thought of a jerry can at 700 bar is mildly terrifying.
- craig_s_bell 3y agoNo need to worry; Hydrogen's exceptional permeability means the gas will diffuse through the jerry can, into the atmosphere; thus lowering its internal pressure. We can make vessels which will contain increasingly high pressures; however their permeability is higher, vs. older materials. This is a central problem of hydrogen as a primary fuel... Better to burn it (or convert it into methane) where and when it is produced.
- credit_guy 3y agoI keep hearing this, and sometimes people claiming it's not true anymore, so I decided to look into it. Compressed hydrogen storage tanks are of 4 types [1]. Types 1,2 metal tanks, but they can be used only up to 300 bar. Their permeability rate is negligible. Type 4 is composite (e.g. carbon fiber) with a polymer interior lining. It operates at 700 bar (and various manufacturers state their product can work up to 850 bar). They have some permeability. Type 3 is similar, but with metal interior lining. Negligible permeability, but more expensive. I don't know how much more expensive, with these things all providers tell you to "call for quote". In any case, the only problem is Type 4. They are the affordable alternative to Type 3, and they are also in much wider use. There are some regulations and standards that govern them. Specifically EU 406/2010 and ISO 19881:2018 which prescribe a maximum steady state permeation rate of 6.0 Ncm3 of hydrogen per hour and per liter internal volume of the container [2]. To be honest, I'm not sure how to read this rate. Toyota Mirai uses such tanks (2 of them), so it can't be that bad. Each has a volume of about 60 liters, and holds about 5kg of hydrogen [3]. The more important thing is that permeability is a function of the surface area. A tank 1000 times larger has a surface area only 100 times higher, so the permeability per volume goes down by a factor of 10. Such tanks do exist and are commercially available. I'm aware of the Hexagon Titan XL that can hold 220 kg of hydrogen. The latest quarterly revenues of the manufacturer [4] show 57% year-on-year growth, so it looks like customers are quite happy with their offering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_tank [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319923005281?ref=cra_js_challenge&fr=RR-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031992... [3] https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2023 https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2023 [4] https://hexagonpurus.com/news/hexagon-purus-asa-results-for-the-second-quarter-2023 https://hexagonpurus.com/news/hexagon-purus-asa-results-for-...
- hx8 3y agoThis seems to fall into a category of pitches where someone knows a secret that will upend the oil industry. The engine that runs on water instead of gasoline is probably the most famous and blatantly grift version of this pitch. During the CRISPR hype cycle there was a pitch for using genetically modified cells that were better at producing ethonal to produce cheap bio-fuels. In this pitch, the secret sauce is using DC directly from solar cells in budget electrodes to produce cheap hydrogen fuel. I'm skeptical, but not immediately dismissive. I would like to see a prototype electrolyzer running directly off solar panel DC. This feels like a prototype that could be built for less than $1k in materials, and is probably the single largest impact thing he could do to improve his pitch deck.
- mulberry_cat 3y agoHmm, doesn't he have pictures of a solar DC rig feeding directly into an electrolyzer? Scroll about 40% of the way down the page.
- natch 3y agoI’m suspicious of articles that try to dazzle with numbers and end up promising vaporware. If they ever do get carbon capture working and scale up natural gas production (“hydrogen” in the title was just a head fake) the they still have to contend with the issue that ICE engines are just way less efficient than electric motors. If you have electrical power, which is part of their elaborate chain of stuff in their picture, just use it directly. We already have the cars and the batteries and the home batteries and the homes that can use it. Just scale that part up. Don’t double down on things that are less efficient and more dangerous.
- XorNot 3y agoBatteries are still expensive, and wear out. We are realistically not going to replace ICE engines in substantially less time then 20 years, probably closer to 50 or 100 even given penetration. What we can do is replace the origin of their fuel source, and the cheaper the better. You can synthesize methane into any liquid fuel you like. Now you'll lose energy in the transformation, but if the input energy is cheap and abundant enough - and can be stored well enough - then maybe that doesn't actually matter. There are large areas of the planet which get more then enough sun to provide all our power needs and would impact no one if we harvested there. But we can't get the energy out of them, and we can't store enough of it to cover the times we can't.
- angiosperm 3y agoCasey got two details wrong, both in his favor. First, solar will not use up land. "Agrivoltaics" provide farmers a year-round revenue stream without reducing yield appreciably (on some crops, increasing yield), while improving water retention and protecting livestock from weather extremes. Second, cost of the energy used will be zero. It will come not from bespoke solar farms, but from utility-scale production above immediate demand. Big producers will buy these things to provide themselves another revenue stream from zero-marginal-cost excess generation after their local batteries are charged up.
- jmspring 3y ago"Solar will not use up land"? Have you any clue how invasive large solar installs are? I know people involved in the surveying, prep, archaeology, etc. of large installs in central CA. There is a lot of churning of soil, a lot of land covered, a lot of native species disturbed, etc.
- jojobas 3y agoI guess he means land retains it current use (i.e. farming/grazing) and gets solar panels as well. Has been done, wouldn't vouch for "no impact", there's still less sun reaching the plants.
- jmspring 3y agoActually it doesn't ... the panels need wires / infrastructure to get the captured energy onto the grid, there is the need to infrastructure to hold up (if not mechanize) the panels. The process of doing this as can be seen in works down along highway 46 in CA is invasive. Yes, maybe the land can be used for some of it's original purpose but generally it is not. You see the same in Europe (Germany is where I am familiar) where large fields for vegetables, hops, etc have been turned into a mix of farming and solar capture and the areas don't overlap.
- jojobas 3y ago
- rgmerk 3y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but it seems like the plan is to use this hydrogen in combination with CO2 captured from the air to make methane. If so, the hard part is getting the carbon capture cheap enough, not the hydrogen. I crunched the numbers and you need around 13.6 kilograms of carbon and 4.54 kilograms of hydrogen to make enough natural gas to give you 1GJ of heat when combusted (this is how natural gas is priced in the metric world - 1 GJ is roughly 0.95 MMBTU). If you're extracting CO2 from the air, roughly 27% of the CO2 is carbon, the rest is oxygen. Doing the maths suggests that at current ballpark prices for CO2 direct air capture of $1000/tonne, the cost of capturing enough CO2 to make a GJ of natural gas is about $50. That's before you've done the processing to convert your CO2 and hydrogen into natural gas and oxygen. So let's assume an order of magnitude improvement in air capture costs. Even at $100 per tonne, the CO2 capture cost is around $5. When you combine that with the approximately $4.50 worth of hydrogen required, that gives an input cost of around $9.50. That's way more than domestic natural gas currently costs in the US, but it's in the ballpark that you could subsidise your way around that at scale, and the numbers look pretty reasonable compared to imported LNG in Europe and Asia. So to me this suggests that, if your business plan is to make methane, the hydrogen part is almost a sideshow to getting direct air capture costs down.
- pfdietz 3y agoOr, just use the hydrogen as-is, in stationary power plants. Hydrogen can be burned in combustion turbines just like methane; why add the extra step? At $1/kg, the fuel cost of a combined cycle power plant will be $0.05/kWh. Hydrogen is quite storable underground (just like natural gas). At this fuel cost, new construction nuclear is hopelessly uncompetitive, even for base load generation. And unlike nuclear, the hydrogen burning CC plants can be economically dispatched, turned down/off when renewables or short term storage are directly powering the grid.
- rgmerk 3y agoSure, if you're only using it as storage in a largely electrified economy. The attraction of synthetic methane is that it is 1) transportable in existing pipelines, including to millions of homes and small businesses. 2) usable in literally millions of existing devices 3) relatively easy to ship. None of those things are true for hydrogen.
- inasio 3y agoFor reference, the Toyota Mirai goes 100 km on 0.85 kg of hydrogen [0] [0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/many-evs-outperform-epa-estimates-in-this-real-world-efficiency-testing/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/many-evs-outperform-epa...
- puchatek 3y agoCars are the least interesting machines to benefit from a hydrogen economy IMO
- inasio 3y agoI don't disagree, but I think the above number is an interesting datapoint, I wish we had a similar way to compare range in airplanes (jet fuel vs H)
- squaredot 3y agoI completely agree with you. I point you to this interesting article from which I usually get my arguments https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/11/hydrogen-for-ground-transportation-and-heating-is-a-bad-idea.html https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/11/hyd...
- djaychela 3y agoWhich sounds great... until you find that to produce that much hydrogen takes 46.41kWh by electrolysis. My renault Zoe would do about 176 miles (283km) on the same electricity put straight into the battery. Hydrogen cars do not make sense unless the electricity is free, and even then there are lots of difficulties not present in a BEV.
- _hypx 3y agoYou cannot magically put electricity directly into the battery. There is a significant loss between production and powering the wheels. This is the biggest source of misunderstanding about the subject.
- petre 3y agoSince when is 80 kWh = $1? I want such cheap electricity as well.
- RandomWorker 3y agoEveryone loves to look at solar, but onshore wind is about 30$/MWh [1]. So we are very close to having that price tipping point. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy?time=2018..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy?...
- jakozaur 3y agoOffshore wind got also potential to match or beat onshore wind, as we scaled up turbines, mass produce floating ones with high degree of automation across the whole process.
- throwaway161718 3y agoThe main "breakthrough" the article seems to be pivoted on is: sacrificing efficiency of electrolyzer brings the capex down by and order of magnitude, thus making $1/Kg hydrogen possible. The whole downstream (to H2) value chain is a different economic argument, relevant to how they want the future to be.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoIs there a built-at-home kit or something I can hack on with this stuff?
- BLanen 3y agoThis is not green. This is basically an elaborate greenwashing scam, dependent on fossil fuels. As usual with hydrogen.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoI don't understand how this relates to the article which is about solar powered electrolysis of green hydrogen.
- jakozaur 3y agoI didn't get why Terraforms focus on producing natural gas (CH4) instead of just hydrogen (H2)? Today we use a lot of CH4 to produce hydrogen primarily for fertilisers (ammonia) and oil refining. The first step should be stop using CH4 for H2 production, which is 65-75% efficient (steam reforming) and instead use green hydrogen. Today, hydrogen production is $155 Bln / year market that may take even a decade to transition. Simpler and more profitable than synthesising CH4. One more trick, would be to connect partial solar to grid at lower capacity to benefit from price surges (e.g. evening). E.g. 100 MW solar, but with grid connection of just 1 MW to profit from when grid electricity is expensive. Also please do not worry about transporting or storing hydrogen. Just produce ammonia and sell it on the market. Till we decarbonise ammonia production (1%+ of global CO2 emission), we don't have to worry about that.
- brutusborn 3y agoThis saves on infrastructure since we already have CH4 pipelines, power plants, vehicles etc. If we stop and just produce hydrogen, we need to redesign every single pipeline and plant. Also H2 has the downsides that it is extremely explosive and not very energy dense. Only upside I can think of is that hydrogen is so light that leaks don't tend to pool around the plant.
- jakozaur 3y agoYou argument holds true if you want massive distribution. I believe 100% green ammnoia is first step and for that I just need green H2. No need to redesign anything.
- brutusborn 3y agoI don't think so, the only real limit is reusing existing infrastructure. I think you could put ammonia through most pipelines so that isn't a concern, but you will have to replace generators/engines if you want to use it for storage and produce power from it.
- Sunflower98 3y ago
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoI must assume that people with this level of investment have thought of this but, today in many places overnight energy costs are low. Given the trajectory of wind costs and deployment, this seems only likely to continue. So where are the sums for running the system off behind the meter solar when the sun shines, pausing production for a few hours as net load peak occurs, then starting again with grid supplied off peak overnight power? I think a naive conparison would be misleading as low rates at night for consumers are often accompanied by slightly higher prices during the day to nudge usage out of peak times, but I'd assume there's still some saving to be made.
- popol12 3y ago> Do we want a future where Europe pushes through mandatory low quality carbon offsets on airfares, further restricting the privilege of high speed travel to the richest of the rich? Or do we want a future where cheap carbon-neutral aviation fuel expands access to globe-spanning travel opportunities for hundreds of millions of people while also enabling a renaissance of supersonic transport? That’s a false dichotomy. I don’t want any of these, I want airplane quota per capita and stopping travel growth to preserve earth and its biodiversity. Fuck growth. There’s enough planes in the sky.
- h1fra 3y agoI don't have the knowledge to fully understand this article but recently saw this video (from B1M) that does a great job at explaining what is Green hydrogen and why it matters. But most importantly why it's almost impossible to do it cheaply right now. https://youtu.be/T7Fk8kJ_ETQ https://youtu.be/T7Fk8kJ_ETQ I'm amazed at the size of the solar farm, the cost and the impact it could theoretically have (but hardly doesn't right now).
- konschubert 3y agoThe central thesis is that low capex matters more than high efficiency in a world where solar is cheap.
- yurikoif 3y agoThis. Many comments talking about how e motor is superior in terms of energy efficiency just failed to realize. Cost and energy density matters the most in transportation, and cost is down when solar is abundant so hydrogen makes more sense
- Joel_Mckay 3y agoAlgae biodiesel could be put in regular trucks, is carbon neutral, and uses existing infrastructure. Additionally, Algae will be the only thing robust enough to survive >50'C temperatures, as hot lithium batteries also start to have issues. Hydrogen has poor energy density (needs very large storage volumes), is expensive to handle safely, and still hits the equivalent of $13/l for petroleum gas. The field trials already profiled the degenerative nature of fuel cells, and problems with Hydrogen embrittlement. I wager Goat Carts are the future, as most civilizations had them in their past. They are also far more radiation tolerant than primates. =)
- tim333 3y agoAlgae biodiesel has so far, I think, been nowhere near cost effective.
- Joel_Mckay 3y agoIndeed, but genetically engineered agriculture technology scales quickly at negligible cost. Note, people have already cultivated food-grade Spirulina for many years. Cost effectiveness is just part of an optimization problem, that will be constrained by desirable traits: temperature resistance, replication rate, and viable fuel content. In many places, uncontrolled algae blooms are already a naturally occurring issue in the run-off from large cities/farms. There are several firms already working on this biotech. Note, a algae biodiesel would solve the issues with clean efficient generation, energy density, repurposing distribution, and repurposing storage. Thus, a Goat cart is a safer bet. =)
- woadwarrior01 3y agoI read it until I got to this bit: > But in essence, electrolyzers are glorified electric resistors, with no more intrinsic complexity than a kettle that boils water and costs $15/kW, including free two day shipping from China! That's patently false! Resistive heating and electrolysis are two completely different effects. Also, resistive heaters don't have to deal with issues like galvanic corrosion, that electrolysis involves.
- tim333 3y agoI have higher hopes for 'white hydrogen' which is drilling for it in the earths crust https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/12/prospectors-hit-the-gas-in-the-hunt-for-white-hydrogen https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/12/prospect...
- laputan_machine 3y ago> ...which we use as a precursor chemical to make cheap synthetic carbon neutral natural gas in our Terraformer. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terraform https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terraform > to alter the environment of (a celestial body) in order to make capable of supporting terrestrial life forms. The abuse of English continues. It's like calling it a "Car", or "Computer", these words have specific, concrete meanings. If you want to have a 'cool' name for your product fine, but not an already existing concept you bastardise to use in your name.
- preisschild 3y agoAlso a very interesting way to produce cheap low-carbon Hydrogen is with very high temperature nuclear reactors, so you don't even need to convert to electricity and can directly use efficient chemical processes, such as the sulfur iodine cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle