Sure, it's just that hydrogen is very dependent on solar and wind making lots of progress. The relative inefficiencies aren't going to improve much because of p

Sure, it's just that hydrogen is very dependent on solar and wind making lots of progress. The relative inefficiencies aren't going to improve much because of physics. The article provides a good breakdown of reasons why hydrogen is very likely to stay relatively expensive and cumbersome for the foreseeable future. I don't think Terraform has nailed that yet. They wouldn't be the first hydrogen centric company to gloss over a few inconvenient things like physics. With direct air capture, we're talking ginormous amounts of volumes of air that need to be processed. At ~400 parts per million CO2, there just isn't a whole lot of it around. Which means you need to drive some kind of mechanism that pumps enormous amounts of air through the system. Which presumably takes energy and costs money to build. So, I'd take these numbers with a big grain of salt until they have proven that they can get their cost that low. The hydrogen part alone is nice. 2.50$/kg is still on the high side but it's better than the much higher price points for green hydrogen. Natural gas is one of the cheapest forms of energy which is the only reason it is so popular. Green gas generated from green hydrogen is going to be much more expensive; even at these wildly optimistic numbers. Which raises the question who would buy it and why they would not opt for far more efficient and cheaper alternatives instead. Including some renewable energy ones.