Best Of

Hi Shashi, To make an impact on Net Zero by 2050 requires a scale of operation that probably replicates the Oil & Gas industry investment to date. Clearly the XPRIZE PURSE will be totally unable to support such a level of investment across all suppliers of components that will meet the areas of Hydrogen, including Production and storage Cylinders, Fuel cells for deliveries of electricity, Residential systems together with local electricity storage panels, Forecourt gas and electricity energy delivery systems, ship loading, transportation of compressed gas plus decompression on arrival port. Then there is EV hydrogen and electrical propulsion systems and Industrial energy systems. The list of new and expansion of existing industries is extensive and the above is just part of what will be needed. I recently heard a VP of Shell Petroleum inform an audience that it will cost around $15 Trillion a year investment between now and 2050, so even a $20 Million XPRIZE is a drop in the ocean. Maybe five Billionaires can be persuaded to each invest $1 Billion to kick-start the necessary changes required to improve the air quality of our planet... but I doubt they would do so.. Climate Change will propel the Fifth global industrial revolution. The current XPrize company submissions are probably all going to be needed to meet the objective of net zero, so a grand centre showcasing all their products, systems and skills could become the go-to magnet for all countries interested in signing to meet Net Zero by 2050 pledge.

Hi Shashi, H2 Corp Ltd is based in the UK and our Partners Gaia Projects Ltd are based in Germany but our R&D centre is in Bangkok, Thailand. Covid 19 has caused our management and staff enormous travel problems these past 15 months with lockdowns and arrivals isolation at both ends of each trip. However our most difficult position is that we have received an investment offer from a major USA Bank involving $50 Million investment for establishing our primary manufacturing centre and a $1 Billion line of credit for the production and delivery of our Container based hydrogen production to electricity solutions which the Bank wishes to purchase from us for installation at their worldwide premises. Regrettably I cannot see us overcoming the current travel restrictions for most of the rest of this year so we are left with little alternative but to withdraw from a competition where the organisers are unclear as to the prize(s) they are offering. I think all parties are participating here for money to deliver on their projects and XPrize.org needs to specify the Prize they are offering. A simple rosette with 1st Prize on it is not going to get anyone excited.

For most buildings, the main requirements are lighting and HVAC. Buildings are already switching to more efficient lighting systems, which already use electricity. Thus, at least part of the building is already electrified. For HVAC, the common proposals are heat pumps and electric chillers. These would convert a major portion of the building workload to electricity, instead of hot water for heating and chilled water for cooling. Then there is the potential for micro grid applications to give the major buildings some resilience. The biggest problem is that buildings tend to be long lived. I bought my house in 1972. Over the years, we made additions, replaced the windows, added siding with additional insulation, replaced all of the appliances, and replaced the furnace in the basement. We are now more energy efficient than we were in 1972. However, it took us over 40 years to accomplish all of those things. Buildings are like that. MIT has a major program looking at buildings. I would not recommend taking them out of the competition. It just seems to me that they have a few more options than say heavy industry or long distance travel.
Relative to the question of timing, it takes time to develop enough data to start the design of a relatively small prototype. For the Carbon XPRIZE, we tried to accelerate that process by suggesting that within a year of being selected for the final round, the contestants could have their equipment designed, shipped, and constructed at the test site and then be ready for testing for perhaps an 8 month period. That was before the pandemic. Even so, teams were behind schedule for getting their equipment designed, fabricated, and shipped to the test sites. With the pandemic, and additional year was needed and, even then, several teams were not able to get their full testing requirements completed. Once the prototype is built, it has to be tested and run for some significant period of time. There will likely be problems encountered that will call for some adjustments. We just completed our judging after 4 years from the starting point. The Carbon XPRIZE had a fairly definitive goal. A team had to capture CO2 from power plant flue gas and make a useful product. The goals for this prize are a little more vague (ie electrification of heavy industry). I suspect that a little more time will be needed, maybe something like 5 years overall.

I find the following interesting:
Option 1: Three tracks in Semifinals, one team can compete in multiple tracks.
From this, I would delete
Track C: The Users | developing/modifying the conversion technologies
That track is unclear and vague.

In the case of
Option 2: Two conversion tracks in the Finals (teams can compete in both)
I think the ones which are actionable quantifiable challenges are:
For Track A -> Heat Generation for heavy industry
For Track B -> Electrification for heavy industry
The others in this track are already well researched and exploited in the market, but it is for the industry that I see a niche and potential opportunity for innovative solutions.

I would prefer option 2. In my opinion, the improvements that are potentially provided by Track A can be applied with more immediate impact. The potential for Track B will likely take much longer. With the possible exception of buildings, the other 3 applications will be exceptionally difficult to decarbonize without some kind of new technology that does not use some kind of combustion technology or fossil fuel. It should also be recognized that the more sectors become electrified, the more electricity production is needed and the more back up power is needed. That also implies more grid infrastructure and reliability. Finally, the key words in Track B are to "provide a detailed deployment plan accounting for technology depreciation". Whatever solutions that are proposed, the deployment solution will be the critical path to actually accomplishing the proposed goal.

Hi @Eti
In the short to medium term it's likely that a mixture of solutions will prevail - each depending on local scenarios, support and investment. (For example, see the Global Renewable Energy Network diagram.) Fuel can play a key role in this phase. Preferably in a fuel cell, but combustion is likely to continue to be a dominate feature. Aside from carbon issues, combustion is a significant contributor to outdoor and indoor air pollution (e.g. NOx, PM) - and so that's the reason for the preference to move away from combustion, when it's viable. "Clean" fuel is often used in the context of carbon alone - and often ignores that fact that combustion isn't clean, it's typically polluting.

So perhaps one aspect of the XPRIZE challenge is this early transition period: how do we keep existing systems running with as much of the existing infrastructure as possible.

The second aspect is the ultimate goal: electrification [which may include fuel in fuel cells]. In the future, it will be [theoretically] possible to support every use case by electricity alone - i.e. no combustion process [except perhaps for some chemical reactions].

My following self-defeating ramblings are left in, as it might inspire someone else to come up with a better solution :-)

Regarding options and tracks, perhaps allowing teams to just focus on one of the following might (or might not) work: energy carrier production; storage and transfer; or an end user aspect (e.g. transportation or heavy industry).

Until the challenge runs and teams apply we might not know what capabilities each team has but I suspect many would only be able to address one or two aspects of the above list, and getting teams to join up to produce a full solution might bring its own problems. So I wonder if separate XPRIZE prizes might be needed for each aspect: energy carrier production; storage and transfer; or an end user. The downside to my proposed approach is there would be a lot of prizes to award (and that might mean a huge budget); and a full solution might not result, or winning solutions are incompatible with other parts of the complete picture / infrastructure. The XPRIZE Foundation has a lot more experience of these aspects than I do, so I happily defer to their expertise on this :-)

Hi Sashi,
For me, although Option 1 is cleaner, it might not provide the integration you're after. Thus, Option 2 sounds more interesting and could generate more innovative scenarios. I would only add to Track A the lines that include "storage and distribution" to make it a complete package.

Hi Shashi, We took an early decision that we should specialise in just one specific area, the production of low cost green Hydrogen, and that to be in all the other specialist areas we would work with companies that have positioned themselves there. For us, the main external collaborative areas are the construction of high quality stainless steel cylinders for the production and storage of H2 gas and fuel cells for the production of electricity from our Hydrogen as they could be included in our plan to deliver complete Hydrogen production units installed in standard 20ft (50Kgs per hour) and 40ft (100kgs per shipping containers for easy delivery to where the hydrogen/power is needed, which may also include "Powerwalls " electrcity storgae and distribution to homes and businesses. Clearly to achieve global reductions of CO2 will require major investment and large scale production of all components. Consequently we fit in virtually all the options listed.
You have requested detailed production plans, where can we uplift our documents to?

Hi @Shashi and @Eti - I can't make up my mind between the two options, but here's the aspects I like from them...

Option 1: the energy carrier production [fuel or other potential energy form], storage and transfer, and end user aspects.

Option 2: Electrification for long-haul transportation, backup power, and sites (heavy industry and buildings).

Looking at all the aspects (in bold) above I'm wondering if they could be merged: energy carrier production; storage and transfer; and then end user aspects (for transportation, backup power, and sites).

There might be some overlap across some aspects, e.g. between storage and transfer and backup power, and sites.

Each aspect might have its own set of evaluation criteria, and some proposed solutions might have winning attributes across more than one aspect. [For example, an unforeseen breakthrough delivering an ultra-high energy density, light-weight, compact, low cost, safe solution might address all use cases.]

As you probably know I'm not a fan of combustion in the future - but I do recognise its immediate importance over the short to medium term. Compatible combustion systems allow current systems to continue without significant disruption and additional investment (from the end user perspective).

We acknowledge in this competition the importance of accounting for the entire lifecycle from the get-go in solution development. At the same time, in such a vast space of activity, we wonder if there’s room to acknowledge different types of efforts that can collectively move us closer to a preferred future state -- energizing the planet with green energy.

You can see the current timeline draft in this discussion.
Below are two options for additional tracks.
Where do you see the higher value - option one or two? Are additional tracks needed at all? Why?

Option 1: Three tracks in Semifinals, one team can compete in multiple tracks.
In phase I, following the fuel evaluation (track A), evaluation of 2 additional tracks (B and C).

• Track A: The (energy carrier) producers | developing the energy carrier (/green fuel)
• Track B: The Processors (logistics) | developing the preparation for energy storage and transfers
• Track C: The Users | developing/modifying the conversion technologies

Option 2: Two conversion tracks in the Finals (teams can compete in both)
Track A (the current competition): Transition the planet to clean energy and electrification. Immediate and long-term impact.

Demonstrate efficiency in:

• Combustion for long-haul transportation and back up power
• Heat Generation for heavy industry
• Electrification (best use case)

Track B: The Perfect Electric Cycle (horizon impact, make the best business case).

Demonstrate efficiency in:

• Electrification for long-haul transportation
• Electrification for backup power
• Electrification for heavy industry
• Electrification for buildings

and provide a detailed deployment plan accounting for technology depreciation