The best clean fuel is Hydrogen. Can be made by zapping water with electricity. From Hydrogen, a more storage friendly “dense” fuel is ammonia made entirely by combining Hydrogen and Nitrogen(air). Ammonia can be very easily disintegrated into Hydrogen with modest heat, and there are direct fuel cells that work with it as well. These are the best 2 clean fuel candidates. H2 is cheaper to make, Ammonia cheaper to store/transport.
More expensive, but possible, is synthethic oil/carbohydrates. Combining Hydrogen with CO2/CO that tends to be obtained from fossil fuels, but even if from air, using/burning the synthethic carbon fuels put the CO2 back into the air.
It is much cheaper to use cheap hydrogen/ammonia and redesign power systems (Fuel cells are 2x more efficient than combustion engines) than it is to clean the air, and spend more energy to do the chemistry. Methane is cheaper than kerosene/diesel because it is a shorter molecule.
Trucks and planes will spend at least 4x in fuel than their purchase price. Compared to $4/gallon diesel/kerosene, fuel costs can be reduced 75% with green H2, but would increase with synthethic fuel. Ships spend 8-10x their cost in lifetime fuel. Clean shipping fuel (MGO) is the same as diesel (but can increase costs to 16x purchase price).
Transition path is to Hydrogen economy is to make new designs purposefully for H2/NH3 for operational savings over hydrocarbons. Range extender self-powered trailers for EVs that are rented is an application, as is 1mw EV charging infrastructure. But H2/NH3 already have massive chemical/industrial applications that support local “synthesis”. Home fuel cells that power heat pumps and convert waste heat to “free domestic hot water” is a great system for converting massive solar farms in northern climates that barely keep up with winter energy needs but have massive summer surpluses to make H2 with. A domestic fuel cell would provide electricity of 6c/kwh assuming they need domestic hot water.
There is also a clean path of making H2 from natural gas (pyrolysis) that creates solid pure carbon suitable for graphite or nanotubes or more simply battery anodes. This is cheaper than water electrolysis up to $12/mmbtu NG. With a carbon tax (should be $300/ton) of $150, then converting all NG to H2 through pyrolysis makes sense.
The economics of entire NG business as usual industry converting to chemical/H2 use instead of combustion:
To raise the cost of natural gas (NG) by
$8/MMBtu under a 4% leakage rate and GWP80 (80x methane potency), the baseline carbon price must be set at approximately $68.34 per tonne **
CO2ecap C cap O sub 2 e
𝐶𝑂2𝑒**.
At this carbon price and a higher $300/ton specific carbon credit, methane pyrolysis gains a massive economic advantage, while “leak-proofing” infrastructure serves as the only way for traditional NG production to survive high-tax environments.
1. The Pyrolysis Premium
At a $300/ton carbon price, methane pyrolysis receives a “premium” or avoided-cost benefit of $15.92 per MMBtu.
How it works: Traditional NG combustion releases ~53.06 kg of
CO2cap C cap O sub 2
𝐶𝑂2
per MMBtu. Pyrolysis captures this as solid carbon. At $300/ton, the value of that avoided emission is $15.92.
The Total Advantage: When you combine the $15.92 credit with the fact that pyrolysis avoids the $8.00/MMBtu penalty faced by combustion-based users, the total economic “swing” in favor of pyrolysis is nearly $24 per MMBtu—rendering traditional gas heating or power plants entirely uncompetitive.
2. Leak-Proofing for “Business as Usual”
For a natural gas producer to return to a “Business as Usual” (BAU) cost structure while facing this carbon tax, they must invest in reducing leaks from 4% down to 1%.
The Cost Savings: At the calculated $68.34/tonne carbon price, reducing leaks to 1% drops the “leakage tax” from $4.37 to just $1.09 per MMBtu.
Total Tax Burden: Even with 1% leaks, the producer still faces a combustion tax of roughly $3.63/MMBtu. The total tax at 1% leakage would be $4.72/MMBtu—nearly 40% lower than the $8.00 penalty at 4% leakage.
3. Necessary Investments for 1% Leakage
To achieve and maintain a 1% leakage rate across the supply chain, the following industry-wide investments are required:
Pneumatic Device Replacement: Replacing all gas-powered pneumatic controllers with zero-emission electric or air-driven systems to eliminate intentional venting.
LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair): Implementation of continuous satellite and drone monitoring (e.g., MethaneSAT) combined with monthly optical gas imaging (OGI) inspections.
Dry Seal Retrofits: Replacing “wet seal” centrifugal compressors with dry seals, which can reduce methane emissions at compressor stations by over 90%.
Pyrolysis Integration: Directing “flash gas” and other vent streams into small-scale, modular pyrolysis units at the wellhead to convert fugitive methane into storable solid carbon and hydrogen fuel for onsite power.
Where LDAR is taxpayer funded, the paybacks of all retrofits mentioned are about 1 month. The $300/ton carbon tax figure is mentioned because optimistic air capture system “brochures” promise such a future cost. If you want to make green synthethic fuels that is the minimum input cost of the CO2 that will be released right back into atmosphere. So solar -> H2 is simply a far better economy, but incumbents incompetent in solar can choose to invest in air capture to improve on the $300/ton cost if they think that will pay off. It’s no longer BS advertisements about green efforts, it is fucking do it or die.
Just for last point formatting. It included some useless numbers though. Still underlying the point of industry continuity is important even if it must be forced into it.
The best clean fuel is Hydrogen. Can be made by zapping water with electricity. From Hydrogen, a more storage friendly “dense” fuel is ammonia made entirely by combining Hydrogen and Nitrogen(air). Ammonia can be very easily disintegrated into Hydrogen with modest heat, and there are direct fuel cells that work with it as well. These are the best 2 clean fuel candidates. H2 is cheaper to make, Ammonia cheaper to store/transport.
More expensive, but possible, is synthethic oil/carbohydrates. Combining Hydrogen with CO2/CO that tends to be obtained from fossil fuels, but even if from air, using/burning the synthethic carbon fuels put the CO2 back into the air.
It is much cheaper to use cheap hydrogen/ammonia and redesign power systems (Fuel cells are 2x more efficient than combustion engines) than it is to clean the air, and spend more energy to do the chemistry. Methane is cheaper than kerosene/diesel because it is a shorter molecule.
Trucks and planes will spend at least 4x in fuel than their purchase price. Compared to $4/gallon diesel/kerosene, fuel costs can be reduced 75% with green H2, but would increase with synthethic fuel. Ships spend 8-10x their cost in lifetime fuel. Clean shipping fuel (MGO) is the same as diesel (but can increase costs to 16x purchase price).
Transition path is to Hydrogen economy is to make new designs purposefully for H2/NH3 for operational savings over hydrocarbons. Range extender self-powered trailers for EVs that are rented is an application, as is 1mw EV charging infrastructure. But H2/NH3 already have massive chemical/industrial applications that support local “synthesis”. Home fuel cells that power heat pumps and convert waste heat to “free domestic hot water” is a great system for converting massive solar farms in northern climates that barely keep up with winter energy needs but have massive summer surpluses to make H2 with. A domestic fuel cell would provide electricity of 6c/kwh assuming they need domestic hot water.
There is also a clean path of making H2 from natural gas (pyrolysis) that creates solid pure carbon suitable for graphite or nanotubes or more simply battery anodes. This is cheaper than water electrolysis up to $12/mmbtu NG. With a carbon tax (should be $300/ton) of $150, then converting all NG to H2 through pyrolysis makes sense.
The economics of entire NG business as usual industry converting to chemical/H2 use instead of combustion:
To raise the cost of natural gas (NG) by
$8/MMBtu under a 4% leakage rate and GWP80 (80x methane potency), the baseline carbon price must be set at approximately $68.34 per tonne **
CO2ecap C cap O sub 2 e
𝐶𝑂2𝑒**.
At this carbon price and a higher $300/ton specific carbon credit, methane pyrolysis gains a massive economic advantage, while “leak-proofing” infrastructure serves as the only way for traditional NG production to survive high-tax environments.
1. The Pyrolysis Premium
At a $300/ton carbon price, methane pyrolysis receives a “premium” or avoided-cost benefit of $15.92 per MMBtu.
How it works: Traditional NG combustion releases ~53.06 kg of
CO2cap C cap O sub 2
𝐶𝑂2
per MMBtu. Pyrolysis captures this as solid carbon. At $300/ton, the value of that avoided emission is $15.92.
The Total Advantage: When you combine the $15.92 credit with the fact that pyrolysis avoids the $8.00/MMBtu penalty faced by combustion-based users, the total economic “swing” in favor of pyrolysis is nearly $24 per MMBtu—rendering traditional gas heating or power plants entirely uncompetitive.
2. Leak-Proofing for “Business as Usual”
For a natural gas producer to return to a “Business as Usual” (BAU) cost structure while facing this carbon tax, they must invest in reducing leaks from 4% down to 1%.
3. Necessary Investments for 1% Leakage
To achieve and maintain a 1% leakage rate across the supply chain, the following industry-wide investments are required:
Where LDAR is taxpayer funded, the paybacks of all retrofits mentioned are about 1 month. The $300/ton carbon tax figure is mentioned because optimistic air capture system “brochures” promise such a future cost. If you want to make green synthethic fuels that is the minimum input cost of the CO2 that will be released right back into atmosphere. So solar -> H2 is simply a far better economy, but incumbents incompetent in solar can choose to invest in air capture to improve on the $300/ton cost if they think that will pay off. It’s no longer BS advertisements about green efforts, it is fucking do it or die.
Thank you, ChatGPT.
Just for last point formatting. It included some useless numbers though. Still underlying the point of industry continuity is important even if it must be forced into it.