Member Info for JeffMills

Also, not to overread it, but the way you’re dropping in these quiet digs at hydrogen — framed as reasonable “caveats” — starts to feel a bit off when you're talking to someone with even a bit of technical background. The logic doesn’t really hold up, and honestly… it’s starting to feel a bit fishy. Just me?

You’re not wrong about hydrogen’s lower volumetric energy density — no one’s denying that. But acting like that’s the fatal flaw feels a bit outdated. Companies like Airbus, ZeroAvia, and Universal Hydrogen are literally building aircraft platforms around those exact design challenges. They’re not duct-taping hydrogen tanks onto a 737 and hoping for the best — they’re engineering new airframes to work with hydrogen from the start. This isn’t news, it’s happening.

And sure, SAF is convenient — drop-in fuel, no new engines, no redesign. But let’s not gloss over the fact that making synthetic SAF requires more green hydrogen, plus captured CO₂, plus Fischer-Tropsch synthesis — all of which adds layers of inefficiency and cost. System-level efficiency? You’re looking at 10–15%, tops. Hydrogen fuel cells? 2–3x more efficient, with fewer steps and less energy loss.

You say SAF might not be much more expensive than fossil jet fuel "if produced at scale in the right regions." That’s a big if. Even the optimistic projections from IEA and ICCT still show 2–4x the cost for the foreseeable future — and that’s assuming everything goes right.

So yes, hydrogen has challenges. But so does SAF — especially if we're being honest about costs, infrastructure, and energy efficiency. Framing hydrogen as impractical while holding up SAF as the clean and easy alternative just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny mate.

I smell tuna...

Exactly Laurie. A $465 million loan to Tesla back in the early days — literally kept them alive..

Not that anyone’s asking, but I work in energy systems — not hydrogen specifically, but close enough to have to look at this stuff properly and understand where it does (and doesn’t) make sense.

But just to be clear Farenheit: you said “transport,” not “cars”. And transport covers a lot more than just passenger EVs — it includes heavy-duty vehicles, freight, aviation, shipping, rail, etc. If you're going to argue that hydrogen is being propped up by politics across all of transport, then it's reasonable to bring up the sectors where hydrogen actually makes a lot more sense than batteries.

So if the article you were responding to made broader points about “transport” — not just cars — then I’d argue the misunderstanding isn’t mine.

Fahrenheit451 .Am I right in thinking you mentioned to the group that you’re an engineer, or am I getting you mixed up? Either way — just curious, what kind of engineering background do you have?

The reason I ask is because I’d be interested to know your take on something pretty fundamental:

Are you aware that hydrogen has around 33,000 Wh/kg, while lithium-ion batteries typically sit around 200–250 Wh/kg when you account for the full system (not just the cell)? Jet fuel is about 12,000 Wh/kg for comparison.

That’s a huge difference — and it’s exactly why hydrogen is being seriously considered for sectors like aviation, long-haul freight, and heavy machinery. In those areas, weight isn’t just a factor — it’s often the defining constraint. Batteries just don’t scale well once energy demand and range go beyond a certain point.

So I’m genuinely curious — from your engineering perspective, how do you see batteries overcoming that energy-to-weight gap in those use cases?

Totally agree we need honest comparisons — but here's where hydrogen actually makes sense....

Imagine it’s 2030. You’re running a national logistics network moving goods across multiple countries — 24/7 operation, routes often over 1,000 km, tight turnaround times, and no flexibility for long charging stops. You’ve got access to cheap, abundant renewables but limited grid infrastructure at your depots.

What’s your zero-emission solution at scale?

Because unless you’re banking on megawatt chargers everywhere, with grid upgrades in every rural hub, and trucks sitting idle for hours a day — I’m struggling to see how BEVs beat green hydrogen in that case.

Batteries are great, until you hit real-world limits — like weight, range, and downtime. Hydrogen vehicles can refuel in like 3–5 minutes, don’t weigh half a tonne extra in batteries, and actually make sense for things like trucks, buses, trains, or anything running all day.

Also — storing energy. Batteries store power for hours, hydrogen can store it for months. That’s massive when you’ve got loads of solar and wind. Instead of wasting it, you make hydrogen and use it when needed. Try doing that with a battery.

And yeah, people love shouting about “hydrogen is inefficient” — and sure, you lose more energy compared to a battery. But guess what? In areas where batteries don’t work well, that efficiency doesn’t matter as much. Try running a long-haul truck or ferry on lithium — good luck.

And this idea that hydrogen’s only getting money because of politics? Come on. If it was just politics, you wouldn’t have basically every major energy company, automaker, and even aviation companies investing in it. They’re not all in some giant conspiracy. It’s because hydrogen solves problems batteries can’t.

No one’s saying we should all be driving hydrogen hatchbacks. It’s about using the right tech in the right place. BEVs and hydrogen both have roles — pretending it’s either/or is just missing the bigger picture.

Let’s not forget what happened with the 100MW FID last year — we secured the contract. That’s a fact. Meanwhile, Tuna is out here pushing this idea that only 4% of FIDs actually happen. But let’s talk real numbers: ITM has a 100% success rate when it comes to Final Investment Decisions. Not a single project that’s reached FID in ITM’s history has been cancelled. Not one.

First we landed Shell. Next up is Uniper. After that, we’re looking at the 500MW project, followed by the 300MW+ — all expected to move within the next 12 months. The momentum is real. The pipeline is solid. And ITM keeps delivering. He's getting desperate. Love it.

The 200% move so far? That’s just the warm-up. We’ve got a pre-FID 300MW deal just announced, with government backing no less — if that lands, the SP re-rates hard. Even at a conservative 40–60% chance, that’s asymmetric upside I’m happy to back. And if it doesn’t land? It won’t be the last contract — this is a pipeline story, not a one-shot deal.

Meanwhile, Spicy’s out here acting like 25-94p was all based on a handshake and 7MW — conveniently forgetting the fundamentals and potential catalysts. The guy was calling price moves on US tariffs a few weeks ago, now pretending he understands market structure. You couldn’t script worse takes if you tried. Imagine him watching it open at £2 on a 500MW FID — head would fully detach.

Up 214% since the low when Tuna said the exact same thing. Drops 6% today and here he is again, recycling the same nonsense. Reminder: he told us he held 67k shares while claiming it wasn’t even worth 25p.

Right — the entire global push for hydrogen is a scam, and only your shed and petrol can expose it. Energy conspiracies are wild these days.

People who are actually in the field rarely need to say it out loud..

Amazing how someone skims a couple blog posts and suddenly knows more than the people designing zero-emission aircraft and billion-euro hydrogen corridors. We should really alert the EU — their plans are doomed without his takes.

Yes, hydrogen needs compression or cryo-cooling — just like LNG, which we’ve transported globally for decades at -162°C. Japan already imports liquid H₂ from Australia. Germany’s building a 4,700 km H₂ pipeline network by 2032. Airbus is designing hydrogen aircraft. The challenges aren’t news — they’re being solved. Saying H₂ is too hard in 2025 is like saying batteries were useless in 2010.

Wild how people complain hydrogen needs special tanks — as if drilling, refining, transporting, and burning oil is some kind of free lunch. Physics applies to everything, not just the parts you cherry-pick

Imagine dusting off an old account from two years ago just to back yourself in a chat.

Spicytuna is the guy who told everyone not to touch it at 25p, calling it a bubble — then later claimed he was holding 67k shares and “back in the green.” You couldn’t write it.

One minute warning off new traders, the next flexing like he’s been long the whole time. Now he has 2 accounts, jesus christ what a creep.