It's always good to sleep with one eye open. According to the...

It's always good to sleep with one eye open. According to the IEA, by 2020 natural gas is on track to account for 22% of the global energy system, with biomass/biofuels on 10%. As 2%, the "other renewable energies" include wind and solar.



We know that natural gas infrastructure is already very well developed globally. Wind and solar are about 11 times smaller, but developing quite rapidly nonetheless.

When we see headlines about electrolysis catching up with SMR, many reports only consider the relative cost of H2 production itself. There's usually no mention of the additional renewable infrastructure that will be needed to support electrolysis, but somebody has to pay for it.

A big advantage of Hazer plants is that these can bolt straight onto existing gas infrastructure. How many wind farms, solar arrays and elecrolysers wouldn't need to be built as a result of Hazer technology?

Another take on the same study featured in your link suggests electrolysis could still lag behind SMR+CCS on cost in a decade's time. It doesn't really matter either way when Hazer comes along.

Going back to Hazer's preliminary economic analysis from February 2018, we can see that Hazer should be able to trounce SMR on cost before the CCS component is added, and at relatively low graphite prices in most scenarios. Likewise, it would leave electrolysis standing.

But even better about Hazer is that it's aiming to tap into the biogas area, removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the same time as producing hydrogen and graphite for sale. As long as there's human activity on Earth, easy sources of biogas will be available.

If there's no long-term, competitive future in any of these options, I'll eat a hat shop.