On the contrary, hydrogen itself is fossil fuel propaganda.
Obviously, an H2 economy has to be green H2 based. Pure H2 will always be cheaper than e-fuels, because the latter is more steps. An airplane costs 100x in lifetime fuel as its purchase price, and H2 will always be cheaper in addition to more range due to it being the highest energy density fuel.
Much anti-H2 propaganda has come from BEV stockholder base. H2 is not a threat to BEVs, and can help refuel them quicker/cheaper in public chargers, but in no way does it stop the people who understand batteries to make better batteries.
Obviously, an H2 economy has to be green H2 based.
It has to be that to be a good thing, but it doesn’t have to be that to exist. There are plenty of people pushing for spending $$$$$$$$$ on fuel cell cars and hydrogen fuel stations even when they’re just being used with cracked natural gas for no actual environmental benefit.
It’s like pretending your diesel car is green even though you’ve never put a drop of B100 in it.
Pure H2 will always be cheaper than e-fuels, because the latter is more steps.
At the point of production, sure. At the point of use, not so much, since hydrogen is so much more difficult/expensive to store and transport.
more range due to [H2] being the highest energy density fuel.
Energy density by weight, not by volume. It doesn’t do much good to have longer range if you can’t carry enough cargo because too much of the plane is taken up by fuel tanks.
It has to be that to be a good thing, but it doesn’t have to be that to exist.
It actually does. Making H2 from NG, for heat/transportation, is using NG with extra expensive steps. H2 already exists as a fundamental chemical (including Ammonia) for agriculture and rocket fuel. An H2 economy is for expanded use, and green H2 is only economic possible case.
It doesn’t do much good to have longer range if you can’t carry enough cargo because too much of the plane is taken up by fuel tanks.
Obviously, an H2 economy has to be green H2 based. Pure H2 will always be cheaper than e-fuels, because the latter is more steps. An airplane costs 100x in lifetime fuel as its purchase price, and H2 will always be cheaper in addition to more range due to it being the highest energy density fuel.
Much anti-H2 propaganda has come from BEV stockholder base. H2 is not a threat to BEVs, and can help refuel them quicker/cheaper in public chargers, but in no way does it stop the people who understand batteries to make better batteries.
It has to be that to be a good thing, but it doesn’t have to be that to exist. There are plenty of people pushing for spending $$$$$$$$$ on fuel cell cars and hydrogen fuel stations even when they’re just being used with cracked natural gas for no actual environmental benefit.
It’s like pretending your diesel car is green even though you’ve never put a drop of B100 in it.
At the point of production, sure. At the point of use, not so much, since hydrogen is so much more difficult/expensive to store and transport.
Energy density by weight, not by volume. It doesn’t do much good to have longer range if you can’t carry enough cargo because too much of the plane is taken up by fuel tanks.
It actually does. Making H2 from NG, for heat/transportation, is using NG with extra expensive steps. H2 already exists as a fundamental chemical (including Ammonia) for agriculture and rocket fuel. An H2 economy is for expanded use, and green H2 is only economic possible case.
fatter planes with fatter delta wings.