re: Stated at CERAWeek: Hydrogen adoption will cost Europe, US more than $1 trillion

quote:

---

I don’t believe that people truly understand what it would take to build a nation wide hydrogen infrastructure. I don’t believe that the average person understands the mechanics of the hydrogen atom.

---

Okay then tell us. Hydrogen infrastructure for grid electricity, which I am on a project now for it, is no different than nat gas in that it can run on a combined cycle turbine which converts it to electricity. Nothing is different besides the turbine that can intake Hydrogen is more expensive, by prob 35-40% than the turbine that can intake nat gas. Both power up the grid that keeps houses lights on. Just different turbine, there's flexible ones too that can take nat gas or hydrogen that just came out. I believe GE is the manufacturer.

I've done the math for a large consumer of power that we are going to supply with power on Hydrogen vs Nat gas powered, powering the facility with solely hydrogen is about 40% more expensive per MWh. That is with the 45V tax credits as well.

Technology advancements making it cheaper will make the difference whether Hydrogen is widespread adopted or not. Also if naturally occuring reservoirs with Hydrogen can be produced like nat gas, that'd be a plus too for cheaper supply instead of relying on electrolyzers or ATR/SMR to make Hydrogen.

Electrolysis is another option which I am unfamiliar with but I know it is very expensive.