But someone from an OEM/utility may know better on technology. However since both techs will require subsidies, their fate may depend rather on politics than technology.

From a technology readiness perspective, gas+CCS vs gas H2 should be close. CCS is more capex, H2CCs are more opex. In both cases, their development will also hinge on the availability of the H2 and of a CO2 transport infra. So overall, I'm rather agnostic as of today. 1/

That's where perspectives on "rational" will differ. I hardly see a power outlook to 2050 that does not require some sort of low-carbon thermal* - and CCS, biomass and H2 all have their operational / economic constraints. *because DSM has yet to show any significant materialization.

Plenty of gas plant operators, if sufficient subsidies are there + security of CO2 offtake (pipe / storage / local reuse). There are several CCGT+CCS projects in GB.

However note the cost of production is only one of the facets of retail prices: power procurement strategy, grid costs, retail costs/margins, and taxes are as important. www.marianne.net/economie/eco...

Following on last year's analysis for Marianne and Sébastien Grob, we updated our estimate of the average cost of production in France and now assess it at €75/MWh in 2023 - corresponding to a 20-25% over 2022 levels.

Consultants to the German economics ministry came to a very similar conclusion. They thus regard the "power to liquids" scenario as a "fringe scenario".