3 ms·
but you get to keep a distribution infrastructure. I think that's the goal. They still want the 'fuel' company in the middle.
by sambull 2y ago
but you get to keep a distribution infrastructure. I think that's the goal. They still want the 'fuel' company in the middle.
- AnotherGoodName 2y agoI think it’s even more sinister honestly. It’s trivial to make synthetic methane today (basically the exact same process as synthetic hydrogen - electrolysis of water but in presence of co2 and a catalyst will make methane instead) and that’s a very common fuel source with a functioning distribution network already. So if the goal is to make green fuel why not just use supply the existing natural gas network with synthetically produced fuel? Why go to great lengths to ship and store hydrogen that’s really really hard to work with in so many ways? I think the answer is that there’s no intention of hydrogen being actually a green fuel source. It’s just going to be made from cracking hydrocarbons but it’s branding as green will obfuscate that. If they wanted to make fuel from electricity which is the implied promise of hydrogen they’d do that already. But they don’t. There’s absolutely no intention of being green here.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIt's because synthetic methane makes no sense economically. Similarly Hydrogen doesn't make any sense economically either, but because it's much more hypothetical the concerns can be hand waved away. Not so with synthetic methane.
- AnotherGoodName 2y agoI agree and that’s the point I’m making here to be clear. If it made sense they’d do it already. Electrolysis->methane and use the existing network makes no sense. Hydrogen with its custom network is an even larger step from making sense.