Remember, TSMC do chip lithography with a light source that is generated by firing a laser at in flight drips of molten tin metal. The metal releases a wavelength of light that is then able to etc ultra precise lines on wafers for chips.
That technology really didn't exist anywhere 40 years ago.
In many ways the plumbing problems of hydrogen are lower bars to get over. And worrying about a lack of infrastructure is also not a big issue. There's lots of engineer's who'll easily transition out of the LNG industry into great jobs working on these problems.
Those are all engineering challenges that are broadly constrained by money. I was pointing out that it's pretty common that those types of problems get solved when there's a will.
the tide is turning, there's active research into everything you've listed. I'd bet on these problems getting solved.
> engineering challenges that are broadly constrained by money
You’re comparing semiconductor manufacturing, a domain so concentrated one firm (ASML) produces the world’s cutting-edge instrumentation, and so quick-moving our modern paradigms for growth (Moore’s law to venture capital) emerge from it, to building an international piping and shipping system for a novel fuel that speculatively competes with batteries. Nobody is asking if, given infinite time and resources, these problems could be solved. It’s whether the solution would be competitive with what we have. Unfortunately, this blind optimism is baseline for I’ve seen for hydrogen.
Not all problems are solvable. I don't know enough about physics/chemistry to know if the problem is solvable, but I do know there are other unsolvable problems. (faster than light travel is a common one that people think more engineering can solve)
I'm sure people are working on the problem, but the laws of physics limit them.
Hydrogen is not really an engineering problem, its an investment problem. And its simply put a gigantic amount investment for a minimal amount of gain.
There are so many, way, way, way more useful investments you can make. How about doing useful simple things that we are sure can be done successfully and we know for sure will save a lot of CO2 and emission.
Stuff like railway electrification.
If you want to have long range trucks be a thing, electrify the highway with trolley wires.
Hydrogen trains have already shown that they can't compete with electrification traditional or with battery. In trucks they are currently getting their ass kicked by battery trucks. So neither for trucks nor for trains does hydrogen really make much sense.
So why exactly should we invest in a gigantic hydrogen infrastructure. For the maybe 1% market share in trains and trucks?
And its not actually easy to reuse LNG infrastructure.
> And worrying about a lack of infrastructure is also not a big issue.
This is disproved by literally 5000 years of human history where huge infrastructure investments are always a big political problem. And even if projects are clearly of huge benefits they are difficult.
In terms of hydrogen infrastructure, nobody can make a case that it is actually worth it in the first place.
> There's lots of engineer's who'll easily transition out of the LNG industry into great jobs working on these problems.
Or we could make those engineers work on useful stuff like batteries, railway electrification, nuclear, metros and so on.
Railway electrification in the US is a political problem. US freight rail has tiny margins and relies on quantity for profits. Freight rail regularly delays maintenance and upgrades until unavoidable for cost reasons. The US gov't is loathe to make American rail less competitive and force it to electrify, so they continue running polluting trains.
Us freight does not have tiny margin, they pay a large dividends and have spent 100s of millions in stock by back.
> Freight rail regularly delays maintenance and upgrades until unavoidable for cost reasons.
They are gradually running down the infrastructure built 100 years ago into the ground and maintain at the bare minimum while making large profits.
> The US gov't is loathe to make American rail less competitive and force it to electrify, so they continue running polluting trains.
Electrification would make it even more profitable then it already is.
Pretty much every single study done on electrification shows that it pays for itself in a pretty reasonable amount of time. Given that this is something that would still be useful 100 years from now, the US government forcing all first class to invest in this would be of huge benefits both to them and to the US as a whole.
> Hydrogen is not really an engineering problem, its an investment problem.
The problems stated by the OP are mostly maintenance problems. What is even worse, because you don't just pay once and they go away; you have to keep paying and they will come back if you ever lose focus on handling them.
The problem that constraints fusion is investment capital. You can't expect results while resting below the "fusion never" track: https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png
The world produces 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen every year. I assure you there are materials compatible with hydrogen, or else this would not be possible.
Remember, TSMC do chip lithography with a light source that is generated by firing a laser at in flight drips of molten tin metal. The metal releases a wavelength of light that is then able to etc ultra precise lines on wafers for chips. That technology really didn't exist anywhere 40 years ago.
In many ways the plumbing problems of hydrogen are lower bars to get over. And worrying about a lack of infrastructure is also not a big issue. There's lots of engineer's who'll easily transition out of the LNG industry into great jobs working on these problems.