Without question, hydrogen will be an exportable fuel of the future.

As will be, raw energy, piped via undersea, graphite cored cables. Graphene being both a superconductor and is 200 times stronger than steel!

But, particularly energy created by the burning of nuclear waste, burnt in MSR technology, where the possible margins will be huge, even at prices as low as 1 cent PKWH delivered. Using unspent fuel we're paid annual millions to take!

And as we burn then reburn it. Reduce the half-life to just three hundred years. With the tiny waste component around five per cent and eminently suitable as long-life batteries for unmanned space projects that end up in the sun or burn up with reentry.

Can anyone believe, any power reticulating authority would choose a much more expensive alternative, given the foregoing raw energy choice!?

I get that some folk don't want Twiggy to succeed! Given that could kill most if not all coal sales around the globe? And an outstanding brilliant result!
Alan B.

Cheap hydrogen would also support a local green steel industry and should Twiggy decide that's where he is going? That could generate enough billions from export sales to the world to more than pay for the hydro project!

And while I don't support committing taxpayer funds to support a foreign energy project, would continence some support for any domestic, jobs creating, green steel export project!

Given for every one dollar committed, there'd be at least two and a half returned to the economy via the usual economic flow-on factor!
Alan B.

The question on hydrogen is can it be cheap ?
My understanding is that the thermo dynamic rule is that when energy
is changed from one form to another there is a loss.
From a very hazy memory with electrolysis, ie electricity to hydrogen,
the loss is 30%. Is that correct ?
So we start with a 30%, or whatever it is, loss and then have
transport and all other losses in whatever the application intended.

Is all the hydrogen push just to avoid saying nuclear ?

Why is Jeffrey Young still here ?
Oops, that should of course be Jeffrey Wall. Why does Jeffrey not live in PNG where he could practise what he preaches for others to do ? Could it be that he was part of the crowd that steered PNG to where it is now ?

Yes, most energy conversions like electricity to hydrogen include some loss. Converting hydrogen to electricity in a fuel cell, as perfect as can be managed using current technology e.g., incorporates a 20% loss.

However, using my patent-pending method, the 80% recovery can be doubled through the same hydrogen production electrolysis mode to around 160%, with the additional 50%-60% channelled off to batteries or whatever.

I'll sell those rights rather than patent myself, given a patent is now the very best way to ensure somebody steals it. No names no pack drill but some nations are notorious for the blatant theft of other folks intellectual property. And I know you know who I mean.

Given the very best life expectancy to date of inoperable brain cancer, is 7 years from diagnosis, the statistical average, just 14 months. And given I've had six and a half birthdays since. Those who want it need to act with an offer too good to refuse, (50+ mill) save the new method/intellectual property be buried with me!

I require at least fifty mill to work on a vehicle that uses all the power produced to propel the vehicle forward. rather than spin flywheels or electric motors.

In fact, it could power VLT planes that use solid-state circuitry and electricity only. And where one could spend that aforementioned increase in hydrogen production in fuel cells, as the inexhaustible power source.

And way above the pay grades of all posters? So, I won't try to explain further except to the ultimate buyers, except to say. The science stacks up!

Once I've proven the new hydrogen production paradigm and the new propulsion system, both will be available exclusively to the west!
Alan B.