It's your lucky day, Julian! We have a few videos that highlight the benefits of algae. You can watch them in the links below: Why the world needs more algae, not less: th-cam.com/video/bcyIbq3NhI0/w-d-xo.html How to make "plastic" out of algae and mushrooms: th-cam.com/video/KVOG-fG5bD4/w-d-xo.html
A big misconception about Hydrogen is that its NOT an energy source, but an energy carrier. Alot of people have been talking about it as the solution to our future energy needs without mentioning that we need an enourmous amount of clean energy/renewable energy to produce, store and transport Hydrogen. But Hydrogen still has its uses to clean up some industries!
Yes in transport that can not use batteries, it makes sense. The power consumption from production and use of Hydrogen is probably 3x. But for e.g. shipping and some transport it makes sense.
Though the 20% percent loss along the way is a big lie. The number is much much larger. Take the alternating current for example - even the way of us transporting electricity has losses. It's called alternating, because the current is alternating, which means, there are additional losses even when we don't even power anything with it.
@@brainthesizeofplanet Yes. And I fear that many people are not aware of how huge "huge amount of lithium need battery storage" actually is. Apart from the fact that you would charge batteries only once a year if you'd want to use it instead of hydrogen to store energy gained in summer for its use in winter. This is clearly a purpose for which hydrogen should shine ... even with a lot of energy lost on the way. As it seems at least to me there is no real good alternatives for this single purpose except hydrogen In many other cases there is actually a way to use electric energy directly also for chemical reactions, yet this is a completely different process than chemical reactions not involving electrochemistry .... you need electrode surface areas as opposed to reaction volume. Many metals actually are produced electrochemically, yet the amount of steel that is produced world wide is at a completely different order of magnitude. And another story is the need of very high temperature which is much more difficult to acchieve with electricity than with burning gases or fuel. Hydrogen is tricky in many ways so what I also wondered is if there is actually another way to store chemical energy??? That'll better be some kind of flow through reactor, as batteries have the very big disadvantage that they contain the energy material, whereas fuel cells and up to a certain level redox flow cells and alike store mostly energy carriers separated from their reactors. Redox flow cells though also store electrolyte which has a low solubility of products and has thus a lot of dead volume
Hydrogen storage is a big issue. If it's pressurezed, chilled or even liquified it still takes up so much space, leaks, embrittles containing vessels and costs so much to convert. Reacting hydrogen together with nitrogen in a catalytic chamber produces Ammonia, that solves much of the issues of containment since it can be stored at much lower pressures and higher temperatures with conversion efficiencies higher than those of LH2 and much higher energy densities. It can even be used directly in fuel cells just like H2. Thanks for the video, I would love to see your take on this.
NH3 is hazardous gas. If tank with H2 cracks nothing would happen. But if NH3 will leak, you will need to have make avacuation of nearest regions. And if this would happen on crowded region in city center or closed area, this would be catastrophic. Also NH3 is highly corrosive. Also NH3 dnergetically 25% less energy dens than H2 due to inert N2. If some how decompose CO2 and H2O to 3O, and H and combine to CH4. Like 2CO2+4H2O = 2CH4 + 4O2. And you get zero emission at the end, because you also produce O2 from CO2. Also NASA and some companies actively produce C2H5OH ethanole from CO2, burning it it is also zero emission.
I saw that in South Australia they are looking into using the excess solar energy produced to create hydrogen. if done like this is can be a very good alternative, and a very good export for very sunny countries.
Just using the excess solar for hydrogen is unrealistic. The hydrogen electrolyzers have to have a way higher utilization rate in order to produce hydrogen at a reasonable cost
Yea this is the way to do it. Setting up solar just to create hydrogen is losing a lot in the electrolyzation process (about 40%). But using solar normally and only powering an electrolyzed with the EXCESS energy produced is the best of both worlds.
@@ElRhino9 there will be situations where lots of renewable electricity can be produced but there aren’t consumers nearby. Like Australia. This is the opportunity to develop Green hydrogen. Where there is demand near production the electricity should just go to the grid
Nuclear is expensive and takes a while to build because of bureaucracy. In the USA it can take TWENTY years to build one. While other countries are building them in less than five.
Green hydrogen is a solution and a necessary solution, but not the solution. Nothing is binary, especially not in our complex energy systems. Let’s not either discard or solely focus on hydrogen, it’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how it’s being thought of in the real world
True, but with wind solar and tidal power all delivering electricity when it suits nature, not when it suits consumers there needs to be a way of storing this energy. There is a limit to how much pumped water storage sites are available and the (I believe) french experiments in the 1980s with high speed mag-lev gyroscopic energy storage weren't a success. But turning it into a liquid fuel that we can burn or put in cars is the perfect solution. If the energy is free and will go to waste it doesn't even matter how efficient electrolysis is.
the best use of Hydrogen is in its form as H2O, as in you dam a lake or river and make clean electricity with it. the "hydrogen economy" is such a ruse, please get a grip and face reality people!!!! Conservation could cut our problems in HALF overnight, we waste as much as we use. peace out
I am an energy systems engineer. I have a couple decades experience including hydrogen tech. In all of the system design evaluations I have done for all energy end uses and supplies... the hydrogen option is ALWAYS the least feasible, viable, beneficial, highest cost, highest Risk, and thus the least preferred option. There isn’t anything coming in the research pipeline that will change this. Somebody is hyping a bad concept as a solution. There is a word for that in the legal field.
in your opinion, in regards to fuel cells for vehicles, are there any options that make sense environmentally, economically, and with enough efficiency to be worth while? or are fuel cells just a pony they trot out when they don't have any answers?
Back up the truck a bit farther. Why do we have 1.4bn automobiles on the planet? Because it’s possible. Why? Unconstrsained supply of liquid (easily dispensed and stored at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures) fuel with 44MJ/kg energy content and engines that convert heat to work. Because governments spent unbelievable resources on roads and parking. Because of debt. Because Mechanical, Chemical. civil engineering education, research, standards made these systems safe, reliable, affordable. All of this spend is on the back of unlimited free high density energy - petroleum. Using less petroleum, and using the existing debt-financed assets and vehicles is 99% more likely than manufacturing a very expensive high pressure gas with low energy density, and all of the fuelling infrastructure and vehicles. The story of hydrogen for personal vehicles is just silly. Like magic beans. It is time to stop fairy tales and get to work on the Transition Engineering of lower oil use and production. Low enough to save the planet is about 80% downshift. That is a bit of innovative work to do. And a huge amount of land available for redevelopment, money staying in your city, clean air. Quiet. New local enterprise. Etc. once you look you can see so much opportunity.
Are there any fuel cell vehicle technologies that make sense? No not for you. Not for you to use to commute from your house in a suburb to work or to a giant shopping mall. Not for you to drive across the country for a fishing trip. No. It is an idea that we as studied some time ago and now it is known that the possibility of fuel cell cars being anything other than a distraction is so small it must be discounted. So what now?
@@profkrumdieck it sounds like you have given up on any alternatives because this is the way it has been for a long time and there is no point changing it. honestly I think we need to look at the problem another way. not "how can we make cars better" but "how can we make cars less necessary." and I'm not talking about public transportation, though that would certainly help. we need to do something about WHY people are commuting in the first place. though that is just my opinion.
My dad worked for an hydrogen company and he got fired cause he wouldn’t lie about the gas footprint of the industry. He went into petroleum to work on plant emissions and they used him to basically delay and distract. He then quit started an herb farm and quit paying his taxes, sold kratom and legal mushrooms till he died.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT the main problem the gas trapped in the Tundra of Russia and Canada is more lethal as it has 10 times the Potency of that particular gas : METHANE and is being released in vast quantities into our atmosphere
I think there was a good comment from an expert at the end there. It showed how these time-based goals are flawed. They create pressure and poor decision making. To me, it’s more about a balanced approach. Not panic. We have good sources of energy that we know. But we are also recognizing that we can evolve that and do better. We can do it cleaner. But can we be honest? Can we be balanced? Some companies seem to struggle with that. So, we need to proceed with wisdom, pure intention, and steady ease. It’s not really that difficult.
One thing that you didn't mention is that the hydrogen atom is very small in size, so when welding pipes the welds need to be perfect or it will leak, also since the energy content is low you need very high pressure tanks (special welding codes) also quite expensive, finally hydrogen has an invisible flame when burning and is orderless so it's hard to know your system is leaking and or burning.
In fact, you will have to add wall thickness to all piping as the atom will escape through the material. All piping we use for hydrogen is 316L. Also if temperatures differs to much the hydrogen will accumulate in sharp edges and cause brittleness. Will be expensive to design these systems. Codes for hydrogen systems are just a few years old now. A new career opportunity for piping engineers?
Even with perfect welding, hydrogen molecules will leak through intact pipes or storage container walls at elevated rates, because of their small diameter.
@@arvidsfar1580 seems like an excellent opportunity for new companies to develop these kinds of structures and metals. All hail true capitalism. And not modern-day fascism.
Overall, I think everyone needs to understand that the energy transition will not happen with ONLY one renewable energy, or green energy storage. Green hydrogen, green ammonia, fuel cells and what not will all be part of this transition, just like wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
@@booobtooober There are massive developments being done in terms of electrolysis efficiency. Nowadays, you can have efficiencies of up to 80% using a water vapor electrolysor. The idea is still to have the green hydrogen plants located in regions that have plenty of sun, wind or geothermals. Hydrogen can store that energy, and be delivered according to need later on. Pure renewables aren't able to do that right now. Also, don't forget that hydrogen is already being used in plenty of Heavy Industries which need to decarbonize as well, so I don't see why green hydrogen wasn't a viable alternative to these industries, since the technology of electrolysis is well known a d hydrogen is being used widely...
@@echelonrank3927 and where do you get this from? Gotta have somr faith. New technologies bring new opportunities for employment, even in the poorer regions of this world (if done right)
@@TWCHHK Don t forget that the good old solar and wind energy together with battery technology is getting better way faster then hydrogen tech. Why use electricity to produce hydrogen to power a car when it costs way less to directly use electricity to power it? Also, what are you saying renuables can t do right now?
This is surprisingly well balanced. TH-cam videos in my experience tend to be almost tribal about alternative fuels, either trying to big them up or debunk anything good that's ever been said about them. This is factual, accessible and unbiased. Well done to all concerned.
This is German public broadcasting. They are obligated to give a balanced view. I wonder why the videos don't have the notification bar below it, telling that it is a public broadcaster.
The US is racist country. Russia Russia needs 0.05 nm chip from China and India. China and India may provide supper carriers to Russia. NK may provide 20 million soldiers.
It is refreshing to hear this more complete discussion of hydrogen’s potential role in our energy strategy. Too many people are unaware that it takes energy to create hydrogen - that, on earth at least, hydrogen is an energy storage and transport medium, not an energy source. In effect, hydrogen is a battery alternative. The energy lost in creating, storing, transporting, and using hydrogen is significant. As with so many social media and regular media energy discussions, there was no discussion of nuclear energy. Generate hydrogen with nuclear power and the result will actually be emission free. No need to drink petroleum industry cool-aid.
There is plenty of discussion about Nuclear reactors. You speak as of no one is ever thought of it. The biggest problem is the LCOE of nuclear power runs around $.25 per kilowatt hour versus renewables with battery storage add around $0.025 per kilowatt hour. Even if we had unlimited funding and an unlimited number of nuclear experts and an unlimited number of locations to site nuclear reactors and unlimited clean water for the operation, we don’t have the 10 years to wait that it will take to put a nuclear reactor online. Storing the output of a nuclear reactor in hydrogen only makes it worse since that will increase the cost of that stored energy by a factor of four. Nuclear reactors are actually get in the way of other cheaper more effective solutions since a contract is written to use all the power a nuclear reactor can produce over its lifetime forcing us to keep this zombie alive even though we have sources of power that could be 10 times cheaper. I would place nuclear reactors in the same category as hydrogen transportation; they are solutions pushed us by governments and funded by the fossil fuel industry because they know they’ll not result in a significant loss of fossil fuel sales which at the end of the day is driving everything. The other clue is that to my knowledge no private investors have ever bought a nuclear reactor simply because they do not and will not make money. Only governments that are willing to extensively subsidise money losing operations will fund nuclear reactors.
@@aaronfield7899 You are probably thinking of a process where steam is used with natural gas to create hydrogen. It is unlikely that geothermal heat could produce hydrogen very efficiently but then there is no process that produces hydrogen very efficiently.
I lived fairly close to 3 Mile Island… be very careful what you wish for. As the scientists said there “when profit $ is involved, safety gets ignored”…
This was like jumping into “renewables” without calculating the long term effects of the extraction of rare metals, recycling of batteries, and efficiency of said tech, etc..which can lead to among other things to the energy crises like we have today.
"Rare metals" aren't actually that rare. And newer batteries are using little or no cobalt or nickel. Battery EVs are much more efficient than hydrocarbons and batteries are very recyclable.
Hydrogen ( green of course) has a place as an energy storage method to be used among others. There is no single silver bullet to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
So many things need to fall into place before this is reality. We need to be at a point where we have excess daytime green generation that needs to be stored. If there is no cheap battery storage, like used bEV batteries or some other cheap battery. Storage does not require expensive lithium batteries. If other storage methods turn out to be duds like gravity based storage. If there is more use for the hydrogen, like we actually do get market share of trucks, trains, ships, planes somehow. If all the above transportation technologies get way more efficient than they are today. If a distribution infrastructure happens which can safely and efficiently get the hydrogen to the load destinations. If nothing better comes along.
@@5353Jumper Not as long as so much money is wasted on cute little windmills and solar panels. A good windmill puts out rated power about 30% of the time, solar even less. Germany has thousands, their power costs 4X more and still not close to enough. They are going back to COAL!!! There's one answer, only one. Nukes. Build fission, and work seriously toward fusion. Wind and solar are close to worthless. Everyone knows it.
As always, the DW Team does a fine job of dissecting the issues, showing alternative technologies, and grounding it all in the real world of costs of production. I see the hydrogen future for humanity and this excellent presentation gives us a solid viewpoint for why that may be so. Zehr gut!
Look at a map of Korea at night. North Korea is very dark and uses very little energy. South Korea is lit up like a Christmass tree. Where would you rather live ? North or South Korea ? Energy usage gives us our standard of living.
Wow, I seriously had my own hydrogen video ready to release on Tuesday, but now I might need to delay it. Regardless, you’re spot on with everything my research found as well: Places hydrogen can be used: when made from renewable energy, maritime shipping, aviation, steel production (CCS needs to be applied though), and long term storage of energy. Places hydrogen can’t be used: when created from methane (even if CCS is applied), cars, home appliances, industrial process that use medium heat (think any normal oven)
@@aswad7368 I watched it. The only reason he has hydrogen power is for long term storage of energy so that he can stay disconnected from the grid during the winter. I explicitly mentioned long term storage of energy as a place where we should use hydrogen fuel. So it looks to me that we’re saying the same thing.
Hydrogen can probably also be used in heavy vehicles like cranes and tractors, as electrifying those vehicles would make them way to heavy and the necessary charging makes it almost impossible to have them running like 18 hours straight
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet We are almost saying the same thing, you have mentioned that it can not be used in cars(I awesome like a fuel) or not efficient enough, I say it can be used in cars in an indirect way. Solar power - > storage in hydrogen- > electricity- > Bev cars (of course it is not the most efficient way but in countries like Sweden where winter is long and solar power is reduced this is the best case scenario in my opinion) This enables green energy all year long so Hydrogen is a viable source of energy in my opinion
@@ElRhino9 interesting. This is the first argument I’ve heard about cranes. Sounds likely. Although some more stationary cranes like in a shipyard could likely be patched directly into the electrical grid so this is maybe more likely for mobile ones.
I think battery materials are limited and if they can't be recycled I think there will be a shortage. I think hydrogen has a great future as long as it's green 👍
battery materials are fully recyclable today and cheaper than the mining and refining system. co founder of tesla has a recycling factory already recovering 97% on the minerals. once all cars are battery driven there will be a closed loop system whereby no more mining will be necessary. this is already happening.
So wrong answer, the battery materials are recycleable with 94%, but the rest of the materials are NOT recycleable and guess, wich material they are? Yes, those materials are the most necessary for the battery! lithium, graphite, cobalt, and manganese will lost mainly all rechargeability after their first cycle before recycling, after that it takes ten time more time to charging than first fresh materials!😢😢😢
I just don’t see how hydrogen as a realistic fuel source is viable. Just from the point that water is made up of two very stable elements that take far more energy to split into component parts than you’ll never get out of it. And then there of course is a thing that you’ll need an entirely new infrastructure. The math just doesn’t work.
It has non-quantifiable tradeoffs and in that way, potential benefits; thats why we consider it at all. You can't factor in advantages like increased energy transportation capacity in vehicles or low refueling times when merely calculating net energy losses.
For many countries where the availability of renewable energy is limited, either by space or natural resource, it is reasonable to assume that green hydrogen is a pipe dream. Some countries, such as Australia have an abundance of natural resources including wind, in the North of the continent Easterly winds blow consistently for 6 months of the year. In that same area there is a 2000 Km coastline with tides of 7 to 10 metres complete with many chock points where tide races run at between 8 and 12 knots. Though there is little Government interest in investing, there are several private organisations working toward a Green Hydrogen environment. Australia is a unique environment that needs to work toward a hydrogen solution. Most transport relies on trucks, these massive 100 tonne vehicles travel between 1000 and 3000 kilometres and battery will never suffice. There are problems with batteries, repeated recharge cycles reduces their life expectancy, high ambient temperature reduces efficiency, lighting and air conditioning draw large amounts of power as do refrigerated transport, and the list goes on . The issue is not with creating hydrogen, but storage and transport.
NH3 is the future for shipping, it can be stored at approx -33deg centigrade an be use in existing diesel engines with some modification. Much less waste of existing materials.
why would you use renowable energy instead of nuclear? wind energy kills between 140.000 - 500.000 birds per year in the usa, just use nuclear, don't need space, clean and very efficient, also really reliable, nuclear energy is demonized to the point people don't want it when it's the most eco friendly solution we have at the moment, way less carbon footprint than anything, and remember manufactering solar panels is really bad for the earth.
I have noticed that the new version of fission reactors can be placed near facilities where hydrogen is used in manufacturing. The reactors can make hydrogen very cheaply and sidestep the need for electricity first.
Glad I watched to the end, because I was going to jump in with all the “cons” that came later on! It needs a paradigm shift: rather than viewing hydrogen from the “fuel” viewpoint, rather look upon it a a “storage” commodity. The same, but not the same. Use H2 where batteries just won’t do (aviation, probably bulk freight) yes, but it can also be used for supplying rapid grid balancing. Fully green H2 can be produced at times of renewable energy overproduction close to its storage and generation stations and the inefficiencies don’t include transportation and retail delivery infrastructure and in any case aren’t that important if the electricity is “surplus”.
Thank you for this. As a chemistry teacher for 42 years you would have to be a lunatic to use hydrogen as a fuel. I used to demonstrate the properties of hydrogen to my students. Fill a balloon with hydrogen and show that it is lighter than air. Then introduce a naked flame to the outside of the balloon and it goes off with a hell of a bang. Over 90 per cent of hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming of methane. Sorry but that produces 3 times the amount of CO2 for the amount of natural gas used. OK let's use electrolysis. Hydrogen is produced from the electrolysis of dilute sulfuric acid NOT water. How do you produce the electricity for the electrolysis. Here in WA 67 per cent of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels.By the way , when hydrogen is combusted it produces water vapour. Guess which greenhouse gas contributes most to global warming at over 50 per cent? Water vapour! Now don't get me started on so called "green technology" because it doesn't exist. It is driven by commercial enterprises for "profit". Capitalism at its best.
Best comment out there, 100% agree. This video contains so much BS, but forgot to mension, about possibility to use hydrogen just as hydrogen, not a fuel - direct into ammonia production.
Its just that (leaving short. war induced prices out of it), expensive nuclear cant compete with cheap new renewables, unless the taxpayer pays a VERY generous subsidy
@@ralphboardman7443 However Nuclear is far far safer when it comes to reliability. A Nuclear plant isn't going to stop working because there's no sunlight or wind. It _might_ be possible to go all in on Renewables and use the excess energy to store Hydrogen for the worst case scenario. Otherwise your only option is to over expand your infrastructure and (unless you're a very large country or in the EU) cut a deal with your neighbors to collectively overbuild and supply each other in a crisis.
@@FatheredPuma81 Of course its debatable trade-offs, but generally, locally produced power is said to be more "reliable" than a large, single point of failure vulnerability. That's where the cost of networking and batteries come in. The trends would seem to favour renewable and batteries over the huge investment of money and time for nuclear. For example many rural areas especially can't afford the long power cords
I don't trust nuclear to survive natural disasters or terrorist attacks/war targeting power plants. Look at the situation in Ukraine..ppl are worried Russia may intentionally or unintentionally attack nuclear power plants releasing radiation into the atmosphere
@@ralphboardman7443 What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is much cheaper than wind for example. And im pretty sure rural areas shouldnt have to pay themselves to be connected to it
whenever i ask a certain chemist his opinion on hydrogen he always mentions ammonia being the more practical way to store energy, might be good to look into that
Small Modular Reactors could provide on-demand hydrogen, even in remote locations. This would get us off carbon fuels AND batteries (you neglected to point out the huge environmental cost of battery production, or the fact that China has most of the world's rare earth minerals), and allow time for the further development of green energy, which cannot sufficiently meet demand in its current state.
Around 35 to 40% of the World's lithium is mined in Australia, with further large deposits in South Africa, the US, Canada, Brazil, Chile, and Cornwall in the UK..... So China certainly doesn't have *most* of that......
@@AkshatSharma1505 Thankfully there are new processes coming out for many of them which create little waste. Especially based on hypersaline fluids, found in some old oilwells.
@@AkshatSharma1505 Sure. There are companies in Canada, the UK, and Germany all building test plants using proprietary approaches, to extract lithium from lithium brine. In the UK, I think the brine occurs closer to the surface rather than in old oil wells. But the principle is the same. The idea is that they just extract it from existing brine in a minimally polluting process. The current alternative is extracting it from lithium rich rocks, which requires creating a slurry - kind of like the lithium rich brine, but also filled with other things - extracting lithium, then leaving behind the slurry remains in massive tailings ponds.
Very interesting subject. Green Hydrogen is something that here in NZ we should be making by the bucket load since the electrical generation industry is either hydro/wind or geothermal. Still have a number of coal and gas fired industrial sites(mostly Fonterra) due to their remote locations but only two gas power stations for residential output. New Geothermal sites are coming on line all the time but our biggest problem is lack of investment, seems a missed opportunity to me.
the thing is hydrogen has 0 upsides and was a fairytale to begin with, use mthane for example. you can make that and that has upsides like it actualy has storage capabliities, not like hydrogen which is terrible in every aspect. but at the end of the day battereis is where its at, they are clean, consume no resources, can infnitely be recycled, and first and foremost are insanely efficient, we are not just 80% efficient for the wholle chain but way over 90% already with battery electric cars. this can be applied to everything else as well. efficiency is what determines everything, power, safety,ecnomy, ecology, adoption, infrastructure etc. batteries are unbeatable period
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl Mathane though lower still have Carbon and is also worst as a greenhouse gas than CO2 to begin with. However, it can used at places when methane is obtained as a by-product. This methane can be burned and is actually better than burning fossil fuels including natural gas. Also, Hydrogen won't work on individual levels. However, when talk about industries where green hydrogen can be obtained on-site, it is a completely different ball game. For example, in steel industry it can be produced in-house using electrolysis of water and them used to replace the fossils fuels used to power the furnaces. Same is the case w.r.t the long haul transpiration industry, where batteries cannot be feasible due to weight,range issue. On the other side water can be easily filled andstired to produce on board hydrogen which can be used to drive the propellers.😊
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl I would like to also add that it's much harder to decarbonise the aviation and steel sector with electric, it just needs to be a blended solution?
NZs grid is really good. Agree there is an oppotunity there. It's absurd that in Australia we aren't aggressively pushing a switch to concentrated solar thermal power. Photovolatics are good short term, but present a long term end-of-life recycling nightmare that CST solar just doesn't have (since the heliostats are just plain old mirrors). With that and molten salt sotrage, plus east coast hydro we could easily power our home continent and export clean electricity either as H2 or via direct cable, given our proximity to Asia. We could build our heliostats and get rid of our coal and gas extractive industries completely.
Personally, I think that we should focus on creating methane from renewable energy. The tech already exists for industrial storage and transportation of natural gas. We could use carbon in the atmosphere and water to build methane. Hydrogen is difficult to handle, and frankly it's greenwashing. The time it takes for the technology to develop will be time that fossil fuels continue to be extracted and pumped into the atmosphere. High temperature nuclear power reactors could also create hydrogen, or green methane without emissions.
_"The time it takes for the technology to develop will be time that fossil fuels continue to be extracted and pumped into the atmosphere"_ That's the point. The people selling hydrogen is the same people selling fossil fuels. See, it's connected. Now if you can connect methane with fossil fuel too, maybe your idea have a chance.
The same as ethanol. All involved in this scam knew from the start that the trade off was no good and was just a scam. It all depends on which of your elected officials have what invested in where, who they owe favors to and why we should keep them in their current position.
Your argument is correct in the case of replacing fossil fuels for combustion engines especially as ethanol production would take farm land out of food production. Electric vehicles already perform better than these over hundreds of kilometres in most conditions so the future of ethanol as a fuel to burn is as limited as gasoline. Also, there is the possible scam of "blue" hydrogen as a front for fossil fuel producers to use as a stopgap during declining demand for their products. It is up to us to raise awareness and force elected officials go directly to the best alternatives rather than those that feather their nests.
No matter what process is used, the amount of energy needed to create hydrogen from water will always exceed the energy you get from using it. In other words: Energy out < Energy in.
@@brianheard4565 Even if solar energy becomes so cheep it's free (which is impossible as you need materials to harvest it) it will still require more energy to break the hydrogen free of its bonds to oxygen. The energy you get from whatever solar source used will exceed the energy you get back from the hydrogen. H20 is the lowest energy state which is why it's used to put out fires.
I read about H2 when I first entered college (applied science) half a century ago. H2 production cost was and is still higher than any fossil fuel. Came Elon Musk and his mission to accelerate the transition to renewables. That "accelerated" the pressure on the fossil industry to produce a new "face" in hydrogen - same profits but dressed as the lovely hydrogen. True, it's appealing (although reminiscent of the Hindenburg), but the 2nd law of thermodynamics also implies that every time you transform, transfer, transduce (trans = across, beyond) energy, you lose some. So photovoltaics win 80% of energy transfer to your wheels, to 40% with current H2. Costs? It cost Electrical is powered by solar panels and electrical outlets - found everywhere. H2 is complex, and only funded by big money interests to create the next dependency we pay for. Not blaming them, it was useful for over 100 years. But we need real clean solutions. Our sun powers life, sail boats, wind and water mills, tidal and focused light (Fresnel lens) for a very long time. Well, it's hard to beat the champion. Actually, the most humane, altruistic, generous and free supplier of energy throughout millions of years has been our sun. So the biggest problem mega-energy company have (including nuclear) is that sun-power is simple to harness, and freely available to all, including simple folks like myself. Thank you for your scientific review, that's not been tainted with general hypes. Cheers!
I saw in another video that that one big problem with Hydrogen is also storage. Being very tiny, its molecules escape more easily out of containers and storage loss is a big problem. I am no expert and would like to know more about this.
I used to own a large industrial welding supply and compressed gas company. We had a liquid air oxygen, nitrogen and argon separation plant. We sent our helium, hydrogen and acetylene tanks to regional fill stations. Didn't want those hazards around my plant. hydrogen is the smallest atom but it exists as a diatomic molecule which is a little bit larger than a helium atom. We had no hydrogen diffusion problems but we DID with helium. The standard fill pressure for ordinary gases is 2250PSI. I had my helium tanks filled to 2275PSI so they could sit around on the dock for a month or two and still had the helium I was charging for. My men were trained to gauge each tank sold before loading it in the customer's vehicle to make sure it hadn't sat on the dock too long.
What we've learnt from the EV boom is that most people aren't conscious of where their energy comes from. You can market a product like a shiny new BEV, but marketing the energy is more difficult, people don't really care.
Battery EVs are going to be a great value for commuting with a low "Total cost of ownership" once BEVs get to large scale production. Low fuel cost, scant maintenance, etc. The externalized costs like smog and climate change will not be tasked to the public like the goons in the coal and oil industry are currently doing. 🚗
2020 wasn't the first time a commercial sized plane flew on hydrogen. This actually happened in 1988 with the Tupolev Tu-155. Interestingly, due to practical issues with hydrogen on aircraft the project switched to using natural gas instead. This is telling. Whenever engineers are allowed to use a future aviation fuel free from political constraints they choose methane. This was the case with Tupolev but also the case in the US with Lockheed in the Carson study in 1980 and again with NASA/Boeing "sugar freeze" in 2012. Furthermore, studies have shown that water vapour released at typical cruise altitudes of commercial aircraft results in warming effects that are actually worse than emitting CO2. This is because it persists much longer at these altitudes. This ultimately should disqualify using hydrogen which would result in far more water vapour being emitted at these altitudes. I think the future of medium and long haul aviation lies with net zero power to gas production (methane) and/or with carbon negative biomethane. The other alternatives are either too expensive, too energy intensive to produce, bad for the environment or completely impractical.
@@dr.nico99 or put another way, burning hydrogen increases water vapour emissions by 50% compared to methane. It's a massive increase. Grewe et. al. 2017 "Assessing the climate impact of the AHEAD MF-BWB" (pdf available online) shows the additional contribution from water vapour from a hydrogen fuelled aircraft results in greater global temperature change than the CO2 emitted from other fuels. The authors conclude: "Clearly, a CO2 reduction is important, but a climate impact reduction requires addressing also contrail cirrus, water vapour and NOx emissions. As a result of the close cooperation between the disciplines, we found that the AHEAD aircraft fueled by LNG and bio kerosene, flying at FL 430, represents an adequate technology to reduce the climate impact and equivalent CO2 emissions."
While the idea worked on the Tu-155, it required a very large fuel tank that essentially took up a lot of the space in the fuselage, which defeated the idea in the first place.
I agree that hydrogen would be a terrible fuel if combustion is involved. I think a carbon-neutral version of conventional jet fuel would be a good near-term solution for trans-oceanic jet flight.
@@incognitotorpedo42 the problem with carbon neutral Jet-A1 and SAF is that they are prohibitively expensive. As the cost of carbon increases this will get worse. Airline business models simply can't tolerate paying much more than what they currently pay for fuel. Another solution is required for the long term.
I think discovering an efficient and safe fusion reactor for energy would be the game changer in the coming years. And everything would run on electricity with minimal carbon footprint.
I used to be a big believer in fusion, but the truth is, the materials necessary for building a fusion reactor will make it inherently expensive, and that doesn't even take into account the expense of producing the tritium fuel (assuming its D-T fusion). Fusion may only be viable when our energy needs exceed what solar and wind can provide, or in niche situations such as when there is little solar and wind based on certain geographies
The supply chain supporting "green energy" is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Converting electricity to hydrogen that then goes to fuel cells is a dead end solution for most applications, since it wastes way too much energy, that would be best used directly or stored in a battery. While there is lots of talk about batteries, the raw material supply is currently short for the current demand for high efficiency products, much less meeting a 80 fold increase in use to power transportation. Plus the environmental issues associated with production and disposal/recycling. The technology needed to go ahead with truly green energy is a quality, cheap, easy to produce non-toxic battery. That might be discovered this year, or next century. Until then we are wasting resources and creating needless pollution and suffering trying to reach a goal beyond our technological grasp.
You make an excellent point. The idea that we’ll some how pull “green” anything out of our collective backsides is emotional diarrhea. If I can again put it indelicately, physics is a &itch! “Clean energy” is simply not clean. Solar panels, electric cars, batteries, windmills that are necessary ON A MASSIVE scale are going to require strip-mining enormous areas of the planet, mostly in undeveloped countries. These “green solutions” are really about making millionaires into billionaires and making the wealthy elites wealthier and feel good about themselves at their cocktail parties. Fusion energy and the shorter range, new safer nuclear technologies have to be developed.
The major difficulty, with sole reliance on renewables, is balancing supply with demand. In countries with large amounts of renewables there can be periods when supply outstrips demand (or overloads local network capability) and during these periods it would make sense to use that excess to create green Hydrogen. There is a project in Scotland at one of the biggest wind farms to build an electrolyser with the H2 being used to fuel buses (I think). As ever a wide range of energy options will be required and H2 will play its part in one form or another.
Sorry, no. The major problem with "renewables" is the lack of energy density. Unless you can recreate the windmill farm using the energy from the windmill farm then you are stuck using fossil fuels. You cannot smelt steel or create Portland cement from the energy of a wind farm. End of story. Everything else is a LIE
Hydrogen is great for 3 applications : 1) fossil fuel de-sulfurisation (until we stop using fossil fuels) 2) fertilizers 3) Metal de-oxydization It can be used for specific very low volume transportation. High volume will be too costly, with too much losses, this is the biggest HYPE of it all. We should concentrate our efforts on : - Greening the production of Hydrogen for the 3 primary uses - Solving the Sodium batteries for cars & trucks, this is ongoing but needs more research money, much more promising than hydrogen - Returning to Wind powered ships - Electrifying rail networks and putting more and more cargo on rail - Replacing short hops planes by Very High Speed rail (360 Km/h minimum)
I did not know that H2 could be used (i am assuming) in place of coal->coke for steel production...this is exciting and impacts just about everything including "renewable" energy production. I am glad to see that you are looking at what the actual numbers and science are. People seem to be ignorant to the fact that oil/gas/coal are still needed to build electric cars, electrolyzers and fuel cells. We need to look at the entire carbon footprint of say an electric car from raw materials out of the ground to the scrap-heap. The only thing you ever hear about is the part in the middle...when the car is in operation. My opinion is that we should be developing more sustainable nuclear power such as modular reactors, thorium and breeder reactors (for instance to power a steel plant and produce hydrogen by electrolysis for the process or power chemical plants and oil/gas refineries). Hopefully fusion will become practical one day before we run out of uranium. To answer your question above I do not think we can every truly get to net-zero at least until we can find a way to make all the materials we need without any kind of fossil fuels which may be impossible or in the very distant future.
My understanding is Lithium mining is S America is much like COAL strip mining, and produces a lot of CO2 per pound to produce. So the CO2 to produce an electric car is much greater than that required for the production of ICE vehicles
A group of belgian scientist, Ku Leuven, is developing a solar panel that use the energy created by the sun to power a electrolysis process, and recent tests have found out that one of them could produce up to 250 liters of hydrogen fuel for cars in a day. I hope that they will continue on this path, because it would mean that we almost wouldn't need to pay for fuel at all by producing it at home.
It's likely that charging batteries with that sunlight via solar panels is much cheaper and 3X more efficient than making hydrogen via solar electrolysis.
@@ercost60 Actually, no. Free or uber-cheap energy is everywhere-the main issue with energy is not the production but storage and distribution. Solar panels produce electricity when/where nobody needs it, and fail miserably when/where we need it- you gave a great example of this. I need my car during the day- on the road! not on the charging station. I'm happy to charge EV overnight when I'm sleeping, but your "cheap and 3x more efficient" solar panels are not working then. Sure, I can spend 50k$ on a power bank, but this solution is neither cheaper nor more efficient. On top of that the batteries will fail after 5 years, and most of the countries have like 3-6 months of winter. That's why H2 production is a great idea- it can produce H2 when/where nobody needs energy, and this energy can be easily and cheaply stored+delivered to the right place. I don't care about the theoretical efficiency of a useless process. What matters, is the practical efficiency of a useful one.
@Grzegorz M. There are more promising lage scale energy storage options than hydrogen in my view. I think, the main one is the liquid flow battery. This has a far better efficiency and is also very scalable... Of course if you can make it directly in the solar panel you could get a more efficient solution that is feasible, I am not sure about that...
We can use solar panel top of our car so that it produce electricity while driving and parking. Secondly we can use two battery instead of one. One battery will be charging under solar panel at home and it will be full charged during whole day, next day you can replace this battery with empty one. Thirdly if we still have enough solar energy, we can store it as hydrogen fuel.
The general consensus in the industries we supply to and work within is that the ultimate final goal is hydrogen: green hydrogen. EVs-no matter how much their battery size is reduced-are still being perceived as the medium solution. This is a very good video though; it's rare to find a transparently balanced one like this.
If you understood thermodynamics you would know that hydrogen energy, like wind and solar, cannot substitute for fossil fuels or nuclear. Not even close.
@@stevem8318 If you're talking specifically the solar and the wind then yes. But if you're talking about green energy to replace fossil fuels then you're incorrect. The correct term is we cannot substitute it yet. However since greener energy are becoming more and more efficient and cheaper, it would be plausible in the near future.
This is a PSA: Owning a hydrogen car has been the worst car ownership experience in my life: stations are down OFTEN, when I call to customer service and they tell me they work and have enough hydrogen in them I often go there and there's no hydrogen or it doesn't work. And I live in northern CA where we have the most hydrogen stations. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNTIL THEY RECTIFY THIS HORRIFIC FUELING EXPERIENCE DO NOT, DO NOT BUY a hydrogen car. Just get ANYTHING else
Depends. We will have to produce hydrogen from renewable energy in places where electricity transmission is a challenge. For example, you can do this in places like Saudi Arabia, where there is a lot of sunshine, and they don't know what to do with the excess solar energy due to the duck curve. Other examples could be desert places and offshore windmills
If electricity transmission (via powerlines) is expensive, why would hydrogen transmission (via pipelines) be cheaper? The Saudis don't even bother to transport methane via pipelines, they just flare it in the oil field. And methane pipelines are much less costly than hydrogen pipelines.
Technology for synthetic fuel production already exists. In fact, it was being scaled prior to the price of oil collapsing some 8 years ago when it became impractical. Synthetic fuels close the carbon cycle and are therefore green because the carbon they contain came from the atmosphere. They have much higher energy densities, equal to existing fossil fuels and can be a direct plugin to the existing fossil fuel distribution infrastructure. They can be tailor made to specific end uses like bunker D for shipping or jet A for air travel. The input energy is light as in from the sun so it's a form of storable solar energy and the best part is that they can be scaled to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere if we chose to not use them but store resulting fuel like in the strategic petroleum reserve for example. This is a far better solution and one currently attainable than hydrogen pie in the sky.
Pressurized fuels are inherently dangerous, even more so as the equipment ages. Dedicated ethanol internal combustion engines have ultra-high efficiencies with mileage and power greater than gasoline and even diesel. Ethanol can be used in turbine engines as GE has already sold them in Brazil for electricity generators. Imagine a jet flying over LA with exhaust cleaner than the air going into it. Hydrogen fuel cells have 10 times the energy density of lithium batteries, but direct ethanol fuel cells have 5 times more than the hydrogen ones.
The price, viability, ... varies according to the fuel, hydrogen is the simplest one (a precursor for a lot of hydrocarbons and other chemicals such as ammonia) and has many sources, methods of storage and transportation, and ways to be used.
Synthetic fuels need a lot of energy. We are trying to reverse entropy here. Electricity for electrolysis, electricity for carbon capture, electricity for the synthesis and then we need some of the result to get it to where it’s needed.
@@VolkerHett Although I understand what you mean, there is no "reversing of entropy." At least, not with modern understanding of physics. Still, your point is real: minor differences in efficiency mean major differences in effectiveness.
The great thing about hydrogen is that it's a place we can use the excess energy produced by wind and solar during the hours they overproduce our requirements, to support our energynet during times they do not. Keeping the energy process as clean as possible(green hydrogen only for this case).
I agree and think this is its greatest benefit. Anywhere where natural green energy production can happen during offpeak hours can produce hydrogen instead of losing most of the power production capability. If you loose 60% of energy transporting it that's still better than getting no production. Dam's are a great asset for this also.
@@robertwoodhouse406 but before having excess of renewable production we can wait a long long time... I really think that H2 is no solution and they are just trying to say : we can keep the world like he is without changing anything ! It is hopeless ! Before being profitable an electrolyser has to work maybe 4,000 hours per year, you can't be profitable by just using the exess quantity of electricity 500hours per year ! There will never be excess of renewable because at a certain time it will be to expensive to build the marginal PV that will create excess of electricity 80% of its time
@@adrienhamot9484 with the vast natural gas infrastructure throughout the world a gas replacement makes sense for home heating cooking and distribution using existing supply chains.
Yes, hydrogen can be used for energy storage but for that it competes directly against battery technologies that (unlike lithium ion) are not resource constrained, such as sodium batteries or iron-air batteries. These batteries are 3 times more efficient at storing excess renewable electricity than hydrogen is. Green hydrogen makes sense for green ammonia (for fertilizer) or green steel but not for grid support.
@@JoeWein I'll take your word for it. You think there are any locations/cases where hydrogen would be better than a battery? Say, near the sea to refuel hydrogen powered ships? Also when you say efficient do you mean size, cost, difficulty to set up or all of the above?
hydrogen is very inefficient to use as fossil fuels alternative, especially with electricity powered vehicles is around, I feel really sad to see my country going this path.
Green hydrogen technology makes the most sense for replacing hydrogen sources that currently rely on gray hydrogen. For energy sources, though, we should focus on electrical/battery technologies.
Very interesting video! You point out rightly that we should not use our hardneeded and scarce green energy to produce green hydrogen, since too much of the energy will get lost. However, we’re dealing with congestion on the grid (in the Netherlands), which makes it impossible sometimes to install new windturbines and solarparks on the grid. Hydrogen could be very beneficial here. By storing the abundant electricity from hydrogen, we’re not using electricity that would otherwise be brought to the grid. By using hydrogen as a battery of the grid, we’re able to use green electricity also at times when production of green electricity is not possible.
Hydrogen electrolyzers are not dealing well with inconsistent amounts of energy. They need to be run off a stabilized grid with constant energy flow 24/7, first thing to suffer is efficiency, have complete lack of energy and the electrolyzer will suffer membrane decay and permanently lose efficiency and eventually require a new membrane - which is costly both in resources and in price (which will be clear once you realize that these resources contain some of the rarest metals in the world, rare earth metals with their bad wrap are child play compared to for example iridium).
I think it is a mistake to say "Hydrogen is going to supply x% of our energy needs". (11:20) (Green) hydrogen is nothing more then a chemical battery. You store energy in it, you don't make energy. And that is a also the major difference to fossil fuels: They are basically an already charged battery, that we dig out of the ground. So the real question is not "hydrogen vs fossil fuels" but "hydrogen versus batteries or other storage options".
I think you should have also mentioned the problems with storing and transporting hydrogen. It is a very small molekule and diffuses easily through most materials, which is why it cant be transported via pipeline and storages will be at a constant loss. It does also briddle the materials it diffuses through, giving them an a lot more limited lifetime. Additionally pumping Hydrogen into a high pressure tank comes at a further energyloss, both to power to the pump aswell as the thermal losses of the compression. Even more if you liquify it with the additional loss of evaporated H to keep it cool. It is a low density energy storage with a bad efficiency, which is why Hydrogen should be transformed into more complex molekules like Methan or Amonia, but even that still makes it only viable with an abundancy of energy.
The process that hydrogen makes steel brittle is a monoatomic or h is very small and can migrate into the steel where it comes into contact with another mono h and then combines into H2 molecule which takes up a lot of space and stresses the metal which causes cracks to form. Learned this in metallurgy class back in 60’s.
Imagine a hydrogen tank 2.2 times the size of your current gas tank that will hold 10,000 PSI but only with a tank that weighs more than the Hydrogen it contains. Imagine also half the trunk used up with the Fuel Cell. Imagine paying more than twice the price for Hydrogen vs gasoline only from stations as rare as hen’s teeth but then learning the Hydrogen comes from Fossil Fuel in its cheapest iteration. In future the promise is we can make it from excess renewable energy but overall, Hydrogen is a ploy by Fossil Fuel Companies to slow down our transition away from their deadly brew. Imagine them protecting $1Trillion in annual sales and how far they will go to do so. I thought it was “ridiculous” also until I ran the numbers. JP-8 jet fuel is 9.5 kwh/litre, gasoline 9, cryogenically cooled Hydrogen which required a refrigeration plant is 2.3, 700 bar compressed Hydrogen is 1.3 and 350 bar is 0.65. My figure of 9 times the volume was a rough number but 350 bar would be 13.5 times the volume and 700 bar would be 6.25 times the volume of gasoline for the same miles. Those enamoured with Hydrogen cannot change the physics which makes Hydrogen extremely inconvenient for transportation due to the huge volume required but it doesn’t stop there. Making Hydrogen is costly, shipping and storing it is problematic and converting it to road power is complex also. Toyota Marai stores Hydrogen at 700 Bar. Fuel Cell efficiency of say 80% then electric motor at 90% yields 72%. To get a tank ratio with gasoline, we need to apply an efficiency correction. Gas engine extracts about 25% of the energy in the fuel. For same mileage we need to look at tank volume ratio of 6.25 and divide that by 72/25 x 6.25 = 2.2 larger volume for the Hydrogen ;tank vs gasoline. This physics defines why Hydrogen is not used and probably won’t be used for much transportation and you can yell FUD all you like but you’ll not change physics by doing so. I had my bubble burst on Hydrogen by doing research; sorry to break the bad news but facts ain’t FUD. Not to mention hydrogen and brittlement of metals and his propensity to leak through microscopic gaps in fittings.
Let me burst it once more. You’re only thinking about H has a prime mover for vehicles. What about mixing it with natural gas for the grid, what about Steel and Cement production? What about grid level storage? Cars are a fraction of pollution, and not the whole equation
@@PA-eo7fs what are you talking about when you say “burst it once more“? I agree that there’s all kinds of applications for hydrogen but I commented only on hydrogen as it may be used for transportation and possibly storage. There is an excellent argument to be made that all efforts towards hydrogen‘s use in transportation is pretty much a scam since at the end of the day no one is going to pay at least three times the cost to fuel up with hydrogen even if it exists which it basically doesn’t and probably never will. For similar reasons hydrogen will never be used in any quantities for long-term energy storage because it simply too and efficient. Going from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity leaves you with 25% of what you started with versus using just about any other form of energy storage will give you 60% minimum to maybe 90%. Hydrogen storage vessels are extremely expensive, hydrogen is very difficult to move but the main point is you cannot get around the negative physics behind hydrogen for storage.
If I am not mistaken, the most efficient and cheap way to have hydrogen stored is within water, why are we getting so wrapped up about trying to store up hydrogen in it's gaseous form when we should be working on the tech to unlock it much more quickly from water to meet demand?? If technology could be developed to more efficient electrolyze hydrogen from water more quickly then it could be stored much more safely and solve the volume problem for storage. I am not the type to give up on a concept like this that easily, there must be a way to do it somehow, just wish I had the funds, the knowledge, and time to try it myself. I know Stan Meyer was likely a fraud but the man's concepts were very compelling to somehow utilize water a fuel cell, I am still pondering whether the man was actually murdered or not for actually solving that problem or the oil companies were just that worried he was that close to ending the use for fossil fuels outright.
@@jayclyde6045 The essential answer as to why we can’t make an electrolyzer more efficient lies in the fact that you cannot get more energy back from splitting up water than you got in the first place. I believe that electrolyzers run at around 85% efficiency at best but once you have that hydrogen and you want to do something useful with it you have the option of putting it into a fuel cell to get electricity back again or simply taking the hydrogen and putting it into an engine of some sort. In the former case we get back about 80% of the electricity that we put in and in the second case where we burn it in an engine we get back about 25%. There is no way to make an electrolyzer more than 100% efficient otherwise you would be going up against first principles and the law of conservation of energy. Much like no one has ever found a way to create a perpetual motion machine that has no energy going in but energy coming out. If they were caverns full of hydrogen then that might be a different story but all hydrogen on earth is found up with oxygen in the form of water primarily. Hydrogen could be thought of as being a spring that has no tension in it. We can apply a force over a distance to extend the spring and then get some of that energy back when it is released but clearly they will be losses so we don’t get as much back as we put in. That is why hydrogen in the form of water is useless as a fuel.
It will always be more efficient to store electricity in batteries than convert it into hydrogen. But batteries are expensive and because renewable energies fluctuates a lot (sun, wind) hydrogen will be useful when there is an oversupply of generated electricity. Instead of shutting down wind turbines or solar farms the oversupply can be converted to hydrogen and be stored in a much larger scale than with batteries.
Batteries may be expensive today. But let the batteries from BEV come to the stage where they have lost 20% of their capacity - so in 10-20 years and batteries will become less expensive because these very same car batteries now can be used for another 10-15 years in stationary use. To run a electrolyzer at any kind of efficiency the amount of available energy must not fluctuate - it will even be permanently damaged if there isn't any energy to be converted.
We should move forward on any alternative energy projects at the same time and see which one(s) are the most effective and least damaging at an affordable price.
Just like we use many different forms of fossil fuel to create energy today, we must have multiple types of green energy too. Hydrogen for large transports like ocean-going ships. And something far more energy dense for smaller vehicles like motorcycles.
Places like Quebec apparently have excess hydo power. It could act like a battery where places that have periods of excess power could use it to make hydrogen to use during periods, ( windless or sunless days) of high demand or low output.
I don't see H2 becoming widely used as a transportation fuel, but it could play apart in green energy storage by spitting H2O with wind or solar produced electricity and using the H2 in fuel cells to generate electricity when green energy is not available. H2 generated by CH2 reforming should be avoided at all costs.
I don't mind shortcuts if you know where you're going. We could easily accept massive emissions from grey hydrogen on a temporary basis if we knew that massive amounts of permanent green hydrogen was coming. Sometimes, enabling economy of scale is the biggest problem.
I've invested in a solar firm company in Ireland. And any of the electricity when it's not needed is converted into hydrogen. But we should always keep our options open for new Technologies. I enjoyed your video very much
Hydrogen liquefaction is further more energy intensive I think and hence, liquifying it for future use is a really hard process especially when it comes to regular automotive and domestic use. But for the industrial purpose it could be. Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables, I think, than focusing on hydrogen propelled cars and trucks. But does the renewables to generate green hydrogen are really green in nature? I doubt that.
"Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables" However it takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. More than you get back, actually.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Yes as of now it does, but doesnt necessarily means in the future and its already getting advanced. What I was talking abt is, liquifying it, then transporting it over long distance and then regasifying it doesnt make sense to me especially considering the boil-off rates. Stored liquified hydrogen is considered having high volumetric energy density but the issue is as stated before. Instead, incorporating hydrogen production and power generation units near dense populated areas, steel plants, refining and mining units could prove to be a viable option.
I think by the end of this decade, battery tech for ground transportation (trucks, cars) is going to be better than anything else in every way imaginable. For those who've been following the technology already know that for pretty much anything you can list as a problem, there's already a solution that exists or researchers feel they are about to solve in a why that scales commercially. If hydrogen is limited to shipping over water it's probably a problem worth solving and the infrastructure to do this would be minimal. And to me, the infrastructure is as big of a problem as producing the hydrogen.
translation :Wenn Sie nur 10.000 km pro Jahr laufen können, können Sie Batterien verwenden, aber ist es möglich, Landtransporte zu nutzen, die 100.000 km zurücklegen? Es ist in Ordnung, wenn es in China hergestellt wird und ersetzt werden soll, aber es ist schwer zu sagen, dass es das Beste ist. Aber ich denke, es ist gut für die Lieferung nach Hause.
Australia's CSIRO developed a liquid similar to ammonia that had a large amount of hydrogen. This liquid could then easily be turned into hydrogen in the vehicle and the other elements are filtered out of the liquid. Large scale transport of low temperature, high pressure extremely flammable gases is fraught with problems, let alone the cost of any type of hydrogen.
You won't find those truths in video's like this that are designed to push the electric car market. Please wake up and realize how the real world functions before giving out praise. There is no need to pick a side and the only important thing is the search for truth which you will not find on the internet.
The hydrogen is just a storage medium, not energy in itself. It is another type of battery. The first problem with most "green energy" approaches is that there is not a good way to capture the energy. It is converted to mechanical energy, and then converted into electrical energy. Every time you convert energy from one form to another you lose some of it. The next problem is that once you generate the electric energy you have to transmit it through electric cables to the point it is used. Contemporary electrical transmission networks lose half the electric energy in losses in the cables, much due to heat. Then you have to convert the electrical power into another type of energy, typically electrical energy, to store it before you use it. Converting the energy loses some more. Then when you want to use the electric energy you convert it back losing some more. Our electric infrastructure runs near capacity now; this is why we have brown outs and black outs. We simply don't have the electric energy and infrastructure to make this work right now. Everyone will need solar cells and wind turbines on their property before this happens, because then you dont have to transmit the power over great distances.
"Contemporary electrical transmission networks lose half the electric energy in losses in the cables, much due to heat." - what's the source for the 50% loss? All large scale providers give 3%-5% (5% in the US due to low terminal voltage 120V vs. 3% in Europe 220/240V)
@@davidhunt240 This was cited by the Virginia Power Exec that gave a presentation at the Richmond Joint Engineers Council a few years back. It was an A-political review of the challenges facing electric power suppliers.
@@eddarby469 nah, 50% losses would be ridiculous, almost as if the execs at that meeting were carrying the electricity in their bare hands. There's talk of a 50% rise in peak power usage due to electric vehicles, the associated losses with coping with that demand is the only place I can find Virgins Power talking about it.
@@davidhunt240 I'm trying to piece it together right now. The industry has its own jargon, so it is hard to be sure im getting the straight "poop". But so far, the websites cite about 4-6% losses in "transmission", but they also describe "distribution" and "transformer losses" as other categories. They do point out that transmission losses alone in the US account for more power than the seven Central American countries uses combined.
Do you think that small scale production and storage of hydrogen on a singular, or individual household scale might be a step in the right direction..? I understand that large corporates want to be dominant and profiteering from energy etc..but I feel that if we don't attempt and experiment with these ideas, no progress will be made. Did early aviators know that thier efforts would begin the space race..and lead to lunar landings and missions to mars...? There must be some value in positive effort today...urgently, I would argue...for the sake of our planet.
@@legacyofpop AT WHAT COST? the Apollo missions cost in excess of $20,000,000,000+ dollars that is OVER TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS OF TAXES and the original budgets in the early 1960s was for a program that would cost $2,000,000,000+ dollars! the massive expenditures required were off by a FACTOR OF TEN! hydrogen production is an ENERGY HOG! in other words it requires MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE THAT IT GIVES OUT! THINK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE! in other words would you spend a dollar to earn just ten cents! if so, how long would it take for you to go BANKRUPT!
@@legacyofpop yes, solar panels and hydrogen tank is optimal for decentral households in my opinion. Having a hydrogen grid would be even better. Since electricity cant be transported over large distances. All steel plants etc. could than just buy the hydrogen produced by the households. As soon there is a overproduction of electricity one could build hydrogen. Secondly one could Transport treated seawater as hydrogen into dry regions and convert it into water to supply farms. Than one sends back the electricity through the Grid. And install solar parks to produce electricity in the dry regions of the world.
@@user-zt4zr7eg6z That's interesting, Ben...Thank you for giving me food for thought. Several sources for inspiration.....Local small scale to assist industry...and seawater...Cool.
the point that hydrogen is the lightest stuff in the universe, at room temperature and at normal earth pressure, also means that you need to compress the hydrogen for any real use. To some 700 bar. And the only way so far is by 3 or 4 Stage traditional piston compressors. Maintaining those machines are for some reasons allways kept out of the discussions.
I have my thoughts and doubts, but watching experts from multiple different fields, one thing is for sure: We need renewable sources, electric/battery, and petroleum. They all have their place, and it is how we use them that counts. A good step forward is using renewable energy to power a electrocatalytic scrubbers to reduce CO2 levels instead of scramble to switch to all electric. However, the focus has shifted to demonizing the petroleum industry. We're not done with it and we won't be for some time. Humans evolved when we discovered fire, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Mining the materials required for battery production creates lots of emissions. I'm not simping for big oil because they need to get involved, too, however it'll do anything to survive if we keep trying to kill it. The way I see it, both sides have it completely wrong. And their arrogance is helping nothing when they should be helping EACH OTHER. Right now, there are groups of college students finding the answers to protect our environment, and they're being silenced by the greenwashers and big oil investors both, who want to SELL you the solution. We need to perfect the use of all of our energy sources, and they all have a place. The universe wouldn't have gifted us with them otherwise. Some people still heat their homes with wood stoves, and use oil lamps. They may not even know what a Tesla is. If you can afford solar, that is a privilege and you should be thankful, not everyone has that luxury.
Excellent video with clear point to digest and ponder upon. I think the t worth pursuing. It seems that the biproduct, water, can also help water shortages in some places. I'm all for it's further research.
I agree with you sir. There are two (not so known) channels I recommend you check out: 1. Hucks&Trucks 2. Edward Mitchell It would take long for me to explain all of these details but these guys are making new hydrogen tech that you may find interesting
Huh? Doesnt make a lot of sense, no. Not to me in this shortness anyway. You´d argue the small amounts of water emitted in the fuel cell process - out of hydrogen that has originally been made out of water or natural gas - should then be collected and somehow brought where water is scarce? Just transporting water where it is needes seems much, much more straightforward. And if done by pipeline considerably cheaper, more efficient and less leakage.
Hydrogen is being pushed forward because it's the only way for the current energy monopolies to survive. If we vote for hydrogen, we vote for the world as we know it. But that's now what we want, we want proper energy democratization and independence. Those who live off-grid know what I'm talking about.
Exactly. I have no pity for energy companies complaining that they can’t survive a transition to renewables. They had 40 years to figure out their gameplan.
Interesting. Living in a place with over abundant sun it would seem that using solar energy to recycle water into its gas components would make sense. I would love to hear what innovations are afoot. Surely it's not so simple but neither was harnessing nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is 20,000,000 more energy dense than diesel,not to mention solar, easiest way to make Carbon free H2 is pink H2 nuclear based, but green H2,and other ways are great too. But we don't want to ruin the environment with solar plants. Even vast dessert they don't cover with solar,it isn't reliable, much of utility solar in China isn't connected, they are still building coal, the best thing the Chinese do is an vibrant nuclear program, those plants really do displace coal, provide great jobs, are a millionth the size, and have much less waste than wind and solar. Even hydro the Chinese have screwed up.
@@johnlocke_1 still rapidly getting better though, like a lot of green tech. that's what makes it so hard to predict what we'll use in a few decades time.
The biggest problem is not producing the H2, but actually transport and storage. These will raise the cost (and risks) a lot. H2 for mobility just fit for developed countries.
"Backwards" demand can assist green Hydrogen development. What I mean is developing personal sized green Hydrogen products for use at home (water heater, fridge power, backup power, heating small spaces such as the garage or ice melting, camping/campers, etc.) That type of backwards demand from the micro side creates some capital and excitement at a smaller (likely easier) level vs industrial scale.
True ... in fact my thoughts are similar even for the Solar ...instead of large Solar PV its the Solar Rooftops that will help build energy security at local level at low cost incentivized by the govt without major ecological concerns
Phenomenal reporting! Robert Howarth is absolutely spot on, on every point he makes. All light duty vehicles should be BEVs, as soon as possible, with BEV and H2 for larger vehicles.
1- if you wanted to replace all current ice cars by BEVs you do not have enough rare metals to produce batteries to produce 30-40% of these cars 2- on a life cycle assessment, to offset the extra carbon footprint related to the production of lithium ion batteries (that is very polluting), you would need to run that car for more than 6-7 years for the average person’s annual kms traveled and using low carbon electricity mix (such as france), before u start actually emitting less than an ICE. So overall, not the best idea. Hybrid powertrain is the solution for now (much smaller batteries), until we have a breakthrough in batteries (technology without rare metals) or produce hydrogen in sustainable ways (i’d recommend checking the Monolith Materials process)
@@jaddiab9261 EVs are q gimmick only good for golf carts. There is Hydrogen fuel combustion engines. which doesn't use extreme rare metals. Hydrogen can create millions more jobs than any EV industry.
@@jaddiab9261 Hi Jad. Thanks. It's good to know we will be driving fewer cars when we've switched to EV. Driving is a pain. I'd much rather ride my bike. I'm not sure the resource limitation has been established yet, since we haven't been looking for very long (and we seem to have plenty of Li for other batteries, phones, laptops etc.). Battery technology will evolve, of course, and there are already batteries that use less or no cobalt (if you are worried about that -- but refining petroleum uses a lot of cobalt too, so it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils). You referenced an LCA study but those that I've seen come from industry sources -- e.g, Volvo -- and were not peer reviewed; they also seem to be flawed in important ways. Maybe we should all consider driving lighter, smaller EVs like the Aptera? Why lug 5000 lbs around just to move one person? Studies have shown hybrids -- even plug-ins -- to be worse than BEVs environmentally by a long shot (check out Fully Charged on yt). Low carbon electricity mix is something that some countries are well on the way to achieving, though there's a long way to go (and I think nuclear has to be part of the mix if we are ramp up carbon-free electricity in time). Skinny: EVs are not perfect but they're more perfect that anything else we have for light duty vehicles. For semi trucks and other large vehicles, hydrogen probably has a role to play; I'll check out that process you mentioned.
I'm surprised that the *CO2 equivalent cost of producing the renewable energy source to produce the hydrogen* isn't discussed more regularly and at greater length.
Because the cost of construction is divided by longevity of production. For instance, Norway has some 1700 gravity powerplants. These were not free to construct, but each century we make use of them, lowers those costs more and more, until it's completely negligible. That's the most important reason why capitalists are against renewable energy, because it requires you to think in centuries, which a capitalist can't. After all, all capitalists will die soon.
I have been avoiding the hydrogen conversation as I felt bombarded form both ends of the conversation with massive contradictions ... this isn't perfect but thank you DW for a fairly broad overview of the practicalities of hydrogen as a fuel component. Now I feel I can engage more in conversation.
I think you also need to consider the physics of H2, it is more dangerous than CH4 in terms of explosion-danger, needs higher storage pressures and the molecule is much smaller than CH4 which results in different materials that need to be used for storage. I don't think it is the solution to the problem of CO2 if you consider that to be a problem. I would investigate more into electricity-generation (nucleair, fusion etc.) and new ways of storage (alternative batteries not based on materials that generate pollution when mined).
Hydrogen is an important part of the mix of energy we will need to get to carbon free world but it won’t be the most adequate in every situation. Plus, there’s also PINK hydrogen, which is the one generated from nuclear energy, using small nuclear reactors. Japan is doing a great effort using this latter method
Yeah, their experimental HTGR type reactors could in simultaneously generate hydrogen from the high heat and electricity that isn't considered in this video. Once those are actually in use and online, they would likely be far more feasible for generating a large and stable amount of hydrogen for fuel and still remain a relatively clean source. It kinda lines up with Japan's recent renewed interest back to nuclear energy to lessen its reliance on imports (which made electricity pretty pricey here) as well as the govt's plan to be a hydrogen society in the near future.
Sure! Let's eliminate ALL CO2 from the planet and starve all of Earth's plant life to death so we don't have to live with the pesky Oxygen those plants produce in an already perfectly balanced ecosystem.
First before we consider any new applications of hydrogen we need to clean up the production of old hydrogen demand for old applications. If we create a new application and fuel it with green or pink hydrogen, it still has a terrible emissions footprint because it is not displacing old brown/black hydrogen. Any new cleaner hydrogen production needs to go first to displace old brown/black hydrogen production. Only once we are near 100% green/pink hydrogen production should we consider any new applications of hydrogen. On top of that we need to consider if the green/nuclear energy used to make additional hydrogen would just be more beneficial plugged into the grid to displace fossil fuel energy used elsewhere before we bother using it to supply new applications of hydrogen. So a lot needs to happen before any new applications of hydrogen can even be considered.
I had a hydrogen car, it spent more time sitting in my drive way because the stations near me were always down. I got rid of it and was so relieved. If you drive 200 miles and the next station was down, you can’t just drive to the next station. I’ll stick with my gas car.
I think trying to use hydrogen as a fuel is another Utopian green dream. 25 years ago many engineers thought the fuel cell was the answer but the cost answer was never overcome. Renewables will get more expensive as the needed critical rare earth minerals get harder to obtain and scarcer. And the overall cost of them is not really competitive to traditional energy sources as they are artificially supported by mandates and steep subsidies. Nuclear is another way of generating hydrogen, called red hydrogen ,but still transporting and storing it still has technical problems and hazards. So I believe the way forward is nuclear and synthesized fuels as the ideal battery is not close at hand despite all the hype. And climate change, the all encompassing buzz word that replaced global warming, is 99% natural. The cleanest energy sources are still coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear when properly handled. CO2 and CH4 have a very minuscule heat footprint to the overall energy budget of the Earth.
I could see a use of hydrogen in agriculture. Solar converting water and compressing. Early adoption would likely be hydrogen fueled diesel tractors with a slow transition of fuel cell versions when available. Batteries have material availability problems, along with the large holes in the ground and the toxic chemicals used, that are far from green.
Isn't methane a common by-product of livestock raising? Methane is mostly hydrogen and research into blue hydrogen surely must address how to capture the carbon atoms in that molecule. All of this requires massive dollar investment and there's the problem.
A possible way to solve much of the issues addressed in this video might be the conversion of Hydrogen and CO2 into Methane. This can be done as a form of biogas upgrading. The CO2 fraction that is formed in biogas systems can so be removed resulting in a higher calorific gas and more gas. Methane has a higher energy content per volume then Hydrogen and can be used through existing pipelines. Interesting research articles about this subject are: Production of high-calorific biogas from food waste by integrating two approaches: Autogenerative high-pressure and hydrogen injection. (Kim et al 2021) Recent progress towards in-situ biogas upgrading technologies. (Zhao et al 2021)
Interesting point but there is always loss when transporting gas so I think there would be a great deal of pushback on making one of the most hazardous gases
so expend energy to make hydrogen, expend energy to capture CO2, and expend more energy to turn it into methane, then burn it in a methane combustion engine.... you're throwing away about 90% of the energy as heat.... you'd be better off using the original solar or wind power used to make green hydrogen to charge a battery to power an EV, which is closer to 80% efficient....
@@xiaoka The CO2 is already in the biogas for about 40 to 20%. That's how the bacteria produce it. The conversion of hydogen with CO2 into methane is something that these bacteria do for free. This is one of the reactions that is naturally involved in biogas production. Very often this CO2 is removed in biogas upgrading plants in order to use it in household applications. By adding hydrogen (produced by electrolysis of water) the biogas can be upgraded to a Methane content of >95%. This would provide a new usage for hydrogen, makes upgrading from biogas to green gas easier, provide a battery funtion (grid stabilisation) for temporary and local abundances of solar / wind energy and decrease the consumption of fossil methane gas.
@@TOAOZuur Use electricity as electricity where you can (i.e. domestic or industrial) and make synthetic diesel where you actually need a high density energy store ( i.e. for vehicles). The infrastructure and vehicles already exist to use this fuel. You would, of course, need a large amount of energy to do all such wasteful conversions and the only method of doing that would be to build a big fleet of new nuclear plants. For a good example look at the Moltex Energy fourth generation reactor being built in New Brunswick in Canada - it's fuel is made from the nuclear waste from old style reactors so also solving that problem!
I did like the clip much. I see it the same way: There is a big potential and it could be used for basically anything but just because it could, doesn't mean it should (same as with all other types of solutions as batteries, fossil fuel etc.). What I was missing when talking about passenger cars or vehicles in general, that Toyota recently has successfully tested their hydrogen combustion engine in a Corolla during a 24h endurance race in Japan. It sounds pretty promising (besides the still required upgrade of refueling stations). Would be interesting to hear opinions about this concept outside the "Toyota bubble" ;)
What I want to know is what happens if toyota would leave the car for two weeks in an unventilated garage with the tank full.... I'm willing to bet a single spark would obliterate the garage and everything in it
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 That danger would be very similar to gasoline. If the car has a leak in the fuel system, the vapor would be as explosive if not more so. From everything I've heard in this discussion so far, gasoline contains more BTU per volume than hydrogen so it would be a more violent explosion. You wouldn't want to be standing next to either one. The practical use of hydrogen that I haven't heard discussed recently is as the fuel to power an internal combustion engine instead of gasoline/propane/etc.. I studied the possible use of hydrogen more than 20 years ago but the research either never got off the ground or it just wasn't publicized. I think the trade off would be in that while hydrogen doesn't have the BTU (energy) of gasoline, it is a much more benign choice in that it is far less harmful in the environment.
Beautiful question!! Currently, storing and transporting pure hydrogen is risky, costly, and inefficient. See, hydrogen atoms are SOOOO small that they can easily leak through almost any storage vessel in its gaseous state. This also goes for transportation. Currently, chemicals like Ammonia (NH3) are used as a "hydrogen carrier". Essentially, you can safely and cheaply store and transport Ammonia. If you take Ammonia and heat it up to around 1,600 degrees F - it will "crack" into Nitrogen and Hydrogen - then you can use the hydrogen But.... heating ANYTHING to 1,700 degrees is very energy intensive and has its own challenges. Those are the main issues with JUST storing and transporting the hydrogen. .... Okay, so you can liquefy the hydrogen just like LNG, yeah? Sure.... but that needs to be SUPER high pressure (dangerous) and crazy low temperatures (energy intensive). If you have any other questions, please let me know!
British company JCB have already pioneered working lorries and diggers using green hydrogen. And Toyota successfully ran a green hydrogen powered Corolla around a 24 Race at Fuji Raceway last summer. So, if these companies can do it, others can too.
The point is you will never know whether the hydrogen you tank is gray, blue, green or a mixture of all of them. It will be never green, if only you do not produce it yourself. Energy-to Hydrogen-Back to energy has very poor efficiency. There are other more efficient ways to store and use energy.
Hydrogen is greenwashing at its finest. The Toyota you mentioned was a flop. Hydrogen is super expensive to sore and must be under enormous pressure. At best a super expensive low energy fuel.
@@amraceway - not in the view of Toyota Engineers and one of their clients. JAN. 01, 2023 4:31 PM ET, BY SEBASTIAN CENIZO, CarBuzz Magazine: 'Koji Sato, president of Gazoo Racing Company suggested that these improvements could accelerate hydrogen's introduction to production cars: "Problems can be identified quickly by using the car at its limit. Then [we can] proceed with the countermeasures in an agile manner [to be ready for the next race.]" He added that "large-scale demonstration experiments are progressing toward the realization of a hydrogen society," noting that motorsports will help to progress the production and transport of hydrogen fuel. Toyota says that this particular racing series has meant that the "development of the hydrogen Corolla is progressing at an astonishing speed," which is great news for those who don't want to be tied to EVs.' And... 'While developing the use of hydrogen, Toyota Transport's biofuel trucks and Commercial Japan Partnership Technologies FC's light-duty trucks will deal with carbon-neutral fuel transportation. Already, FC trucks have increased transportation efficiency by 5.5 times, but it is working to further increase the loads it can manage. Furthermore, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Honda, Denso, and Toyota are all "conducting joint research in hydrogen engines with a view to installing them in motorcycles." Simultaneously, Toyota is reusing raw materials in the production of suspension components and other parts to reduce its CO2 emissions in manufacturing. But the most exciting news is that President Sato revealed he had received inquiries from domestic and international OEMs and suppliers that want to work together on hydrogen tech.' carbuzz.com/news/hydrogen-combustion-toyota-gr-corolla-has-already-proven-its-value-in-motorsport
Show your calculation please! I am an energy expert and I assure you that it's not! (a 10kW fuel cell weight 250kg without the tank, reheat system, cooling system, control, safety system, etc)
@@pierregravel-primeau702 I heard it from a thunderfoot video I think. But you can find a chart online by duckduckgo image searching ( energy density of oil gas lithium). I heard that creating hydrogen though, takes so much energy that at the end of the day, it cancels out what it creates. Maybe thats what your referencing. Im talking about specific case scenarios where distance is more important than "cost". Like long commutes to work or planes. Lithium can work yea, but the infrastructure needed to swap out the batteries with fully charged new ones every couple blocks is pretty nuts.
the problem however becomes handling the compressed gas to order of magnitude higher pressures if you want to keep same volume as natural gas. You cant for example much increase the volume of a car to store same energy as diesel tank.
@@Paerigos Increase of volume is preferable to increase in weight because of weight limits on bridges. But that's just my initial conclusion based on a glance. I heard that Elon Musk's trucks would weigh much much more than a diesel truck from thunder foot I think. But still, I think it's moral to keep using gas till we run out. It's plant food. Europeans can move to Antarctica if their original country floods and Antarctica greens.
The absurdly low cycle efficiency is a killer considering the value of renewable electricity (losses from the electrolyzer, energy lost in compressing the stuff to absurd pressures or energy to liquify, and transportation infrastructure losses). In theory, we could pull C02 from the air and fabricate hydrocarbons from that to complete the carbon cycle. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen(!). Practical on industrial scales? No idea, but until we have a large increase in production and drop in price of non-fossil fuel electrical power, none of this make any sense. Thorium fission, fusion, and/or space solar on an immense scale will be needed first.
In CA, where we have proclaimed the end to ICE vehicles by 2035, We JUST finished a WEEK, where we were WARNED, with a FLEX ALERT, warning of possible rolling blackouts! Ignoring the fact that we already generate so much excess SOLAR, at times, we must PAY AZ and NV to take OUR excess power off the Grid... You wonder why their power is 50% of ours in CA? But yeah, EV's are gonna be a FUN experiences...
Thorium sounds good, but I'm a little skeptical. I don't think ELON is a total Uber genius, but the guy is pretty smart, and definitely has connections, so why isn't he or Gates (whose building conventional I think) not getting things ramped up Thorium? The Gates info is from a interview from 2017, he talks about one of his companies building a rector in China. I guess I am assuming it's conventional, but I would have thought if it wasn't he would have said so during the interview. Just based on the supposed ability of a Thorium reactor being able to "burn"/ or dispose of the radioactive waste the older conventional reactors produce, we have enough of that, to make a solution valuable even if it isn't scalable for power production, or has any other issues
It wasn't the Thorium process ability to "burn" high pressure water reactor waste (heavy or otherwise), it is the fact that Thorium is a relatively abundant element on Earth and the chemistry allows it to combine with Fluorine to make a salt that would be liquid with a low vapor pressure at operating temperatures that caught my interest. This would allow the radioactive part to be at room pressure, eliminating the high temperature, high pressure failure mode of water-cooled reactors. The containment vessels are trying to come apart like all high-pressure bottles. Reactors more so with the combination of high temperature, Neutron bombardment, and high consequence of failure. I agree that there is a great deal of development to be done to make Thorium a commercial power generation option. But it isn't a complete unknown either, LANL had a operating Thorium salt reactor in the mid 1960s, but as it didn't synthesize useful quantities of Plutonium, the concept had no military use and was cancelled. The "small modular reactor" architecture may be useful, time will tell. The SMR concepts have ranged from water cooled, gas cooled (Brayton cycle), metal cooled, both fast and moderated Neutron along with and molten salt concepts. IMHO the molten salt and gas cooled Brayton cycle system make the most sense. At least the gas cooled reactors operate at pressures much lower than the water cooled systems and the mass of coolant and the energy of coolant release is much lower than the water cooled systems.
@@jedswift Understood, what I am saying is the guy was talking about venture capital money. They look for "WHEN" am I going to get ROI! As far as I know, this is the ONLY solution to the piles of waste we have already accumulated. Thorium based power is one of many power sources, no matter the facts, some will still prefer Solar and Windmills, because it's easier for them to understand them. Just sayin', when you have the "market" cornered, *you have the only solution* for a problem, it's easier to attract capital.
Informative video. I'm confident that if we keep on digging in that direction, we'll get something out of it. Progress are made everyday and with the current greenhouse disaster, we should leave no stone unturned...
You didn't explore growing Bio-hydrogen through the harvesting of hyrogen from microalgae. Growing algae and then harvesting hydrogen, a by product of photosynthesis may prove to be the most economical and environmentally friendly hydrogen production method of all particularly as they also consume vast amounts of carbon dioxide as well. A double benefit.
Awesome video! Thank you for pulling this information together! Although your round trip efficiency number for hydrogen(40%) is generous. For actual real world applications it can vary between 10% to 40%.
It is better 40% H2 energy efficiency than another world pollution with lithium excavation, not to mention recycling the batteries, another pandora box of plastic plague.
@@batanena what? Are you trying to say that O&G is less toxic/polluting than EVs/batteries over their lifecycle? That's not true. Just Google it. You're right that batteries need to be recycled and that's where Redwood Materials and others will play a significant role. Can the same be said for grey H2 (SMR), which is nearly the only form produced today? 😁
@@Wiseguy3hh Learn first what pollution it takes to excavate Lithium. Recycling battery is not even regulated, and big corporations, including Tesla, will try everything to stay away from responsibility in taking ownership in this process. BEV just opened the doors to yet another disaster to this planet. As for for H2 production only green is considered and it is picking up in mass production.
@@batanena so are you referring to mining the lithium clay/ore and then separating it traditionally w/ acids or the modern salt process that Tesla has spoken about.. or are u referring to the drying lithium brine beds? The modern methods, which will most likely be used with future expansion, have significantly less impact but when compared to the ecological devastation that O&G has caused...is this just "what about ism"? O&G launched humanity forward but we need to take the next steps to a renewable/clean future. Fundamentally this new clean energy will need to be stored for future use with either batteries (80-90% RTE) or with H2 (10-40% RTE). Plus... for stationary or rolling batteries, the electrical grid already exists and will only need a bit more expansion but for H2, everything has to be built from the ground up... requiring a massive new infrastructure. All of this has a toll on our environment. We need to choose wisely which path we (as a society) take.
Great video. I think it gives a balanced view of the issues to be considered. The energy transition is a great challenge - we consume a lot of energy in the world and cleaning it up needs us to get to understand and appropriately use all good options.
Hydrogen is perfect for industries that need a fuel with high energy density like aviation and the steel industry. For other things we should use batteries instead.
I believe we need to find more efficient methods on producing green hydrogen & we need much more research on hydrogen to make it a reliable option for future fuel . Reason : it's the most vast numbered chemical we have in our planet we can be efficiently use and lower the CO2 emissions .
The most efficient use of any green energy is to use it directly, then it's storage without conversion (batteries), then it's conversion (hydrogen) and then multiple conversion (NH3, CH4) then its multiple conversion of those already converted resources (eFuels). Since batteries are feasible for individual mobility there is no reason to incur the losses of any conversion step. Hydrogen has it's areas where it is irreplacable, like steel, cement and fertiliser production.
@@jasonlewis460: That is entirely false. Nuclear power isn't green at all and it's so much more expensive than solar energy, it's not really an option.
Nice video. We need to keep investing in a range of energy systems - improving hydrogen production and storage, and battery technology (as well as wind, solar and tidal power). Perhaps you could do another video on the infrastructure required for a hydrogen-based economy?
Battery technology will never be a solution for storing the wind power from a stormy week and then releasing it during calm weather - energy densities are just too low per kilo of raw materials needed to make them. Also most battery technologies can only be fully charged and discharged / recharged a few hundred times. You could find yourself replacing your giant battery stack every 3-5 years (from memory). Turning the energy into a physical material that you can store and move around - even sell to less windy/darker countries is just too much like the LNG everyone wants to buy today - but without the carbon. I think the case for liquid hydrogen being the best prospect for the environment until fusion becomes practical is pretty solid.
@@michaeldavison9808 And hopefully with way better conversionrates. You can also use hydro as batteries and pump the water back up and save the energy as potential energy. There are many ways to store energy without using batteries.
Let us not overlook where the automobiles of the 50s and 60s were on emissions. We have come a long way on improving the exhaust on modern cars. Natural gas would lower ICE emissions more.
Former USAF flight surgeon here. Hydrogen has a low volumetric energy content so you must store it under very high pressure in order to extend the range of an airplane to commercially-viable distances. As noted, hydrogen is a very small molecule that readily escapes containment unless very expensive alloys and manufacturing techniques are employed. Significantly reduced atmospheric pressure at altitude means that such hydrogen fuel tanks will be subject to significant high intensity expansion-contraction metal fatigue. Non-metallic connectors and valve components are at even greater risk of failure. Catastrophic failure is almost guaranteed over usual useful lives of airframes. The excessive fuel tank weight decreases thrust-to-weight ratios. Frequent x-ray or other structural integrity testing increases costs and ground time. Frequent fuel tank replacements increase costs and reduce sortie rates and aircraft readiness. A small number of short-haul test flights is inadequate to proper safety testing. Ships, maybe; for airplanes, we really need much more realistic life-cycle data.
Congratulations on providing a well-balanced video on the subject. I view blue hydrogen very sceptically indeed, I sincerely hope it doesn't even get a toe-hold, There's not even any certainty that the captured CO2 will REMAIN in the ground ! With ships, I think the long term future may be small nuclear plants actually, likely on the thorium fuel cycle. Hydrogen seems to meet intermediate scale applications well though. Even trains perhaps where electrifying a rail line isn't economical.
While I know submarines are not the type of vessel you were thinking of when you talked about "ships", the US Navy has Trident submarines that are run with nuclear energy, so it can be done.
Very informative. Yet I want to remind that wind and solar are not zero-impact. All the production processes, material extraction and transportation are highly polluting processes. Moreover those infrastructures have a design life. This type of comprehensive calculations on the complete ecological impact are often kept out of the renewable energy discussion, which is a pity.
Great video - obviously there are many challenges, but from an application perspective alone, especially when you think about research for one it's most common applications - i.e cars - it's low energy density is a problem.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you make of the hydrogen hype?
Hydrogen is a Great opportunity. You should make a Video about Algae aswell. They can produce Energy that could be stores with Hydrogen aswell ⚡
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉finally🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Probably over hyped.
Thoughts on using geothermal to make energy and sense its making steam anyway why not also produce hydrogen too.
It's your lucky day, Julian! We have a few videos that highlight the benefits of algae. You can watch them in the links below:
Why the world needs more algae, not less: th-cam.com/video/bcyIbq3NhI0/w-d-xo.html
How to make "plastic" out of algae and mushrooms: th-cam.com/video/KVOG-fG5bD4/w-d-xo.html
We have also done a video on Geothermal energy before. We've just dug it up from our archives for you: th-cam.com/video/c7dy0hUZ9xI/w-d-xo.html
A big misconception about Hydrogen is that its NOT an energy source, but an energy carrier. Alot of people have been talking about it as the solution to our future energy needs without mentioning that we need an enourmous amount of clean energy/renewable energy to produce, store and transport Hydrogen. But Hydrogen still has its uses to clean up some industries!
The misconception is that Hydrogen is an energy source.
Yes in transport that can not use batteries, it makes sense. The power consumption from production and use of Hydrogen is probably 3x. But for e.g. shipping and some transport it makes sense.
You worded that wrong but I get what you mean, might want to edit that
Though the 20% percent loss along the way is a big lie. The number is much much larger. Take the alternating current for example - even the way of us transporting electricity has losses. It's called alternating, because the current is alternating, which means, there are additional losses even when we don't even power anything with it.
@@brainthesizeofplanet Yes. And I fear that many people are not aware of how huge "huge amount of lithium need battery storage" actually is. Apart from the fact that you would charge batteries only once a year if you'd want to use it instead of hydrogen to store energy gained in summer for its use in winter. This is clearly a purpose for which hydrogen should shine ... even with a lot of energy lost on the way.
As it seems at least to me there is no real good alternatives for this single purpose except hydrogen
In many other cases there is actually a way to use electric energy directly also for chemical reactions, yet this is a completely different process than chemical reactions not involving electrochemistry .... you need electrode surface areas as opposed to reaction volume. Many metals actually are produced electrochemically, yet the amount of steel that is produced world wide is at a completely different order of magnitude.
And another story is the need of very high temperature which is much more difficult to acchieve with electricity than with burning gases or fuel.
Hydrogen is tricky in many ways so what I also wondered is if there is actually another way to store chemical energy??? That'll better be some kind of flow through reactor, as batteries have the very big disadvantage that they contain the energy material, whereas fuel cells and up to a certain level redox flow cells and alike store mostly energy carriers separated from their reactors. Redox flow cells though also store electrolyte which has a low solubility of products and has thus a lot of dead volume
Hydrogen storage is a big issue. If it's pressurezed, chilled or even liquified it still takes up so much space, leaks, embrittles containing vessels and costs so much to convert. Reacting hydrogen together with nitrogen in a catalytic chamber produces Ammonia, that solves much of the issues of containment since it can be stored at much lower pressures and higher temperatures with conversion efficiencies higher than those of LH2 and much higher energy densities. It can even be used directly in fuel cells just like H2. Thanks for the video, I would love to see your take on this.
There is also a pretty good solution with an organic contaminant molecule. Makes it into a kind of jelly. Pretty easy to get back again.
NH3 is hazardous gas. If tank with H2 cracks nothing would happen. But if NH3 will leak, you will need to have make avacuation of nearest regions. And if this would happen on crowded region in city center or closed area, this would be catastrophic. Also NH3 is highly corrosive. Also NH3 dnergetically 25% less energy dens than H2 due to inert N2. If some how decompose CO2 and H2O to 3O, and H and combine to CH4. Like 2CO2+4H2O = 2CH4 + 4O2. And you get zero emission at the end, because you also produce O2 from CO2.
Also NASA and some companies actively produce C2H5OH ethanole from CO2, burning it it is also zero emission.
Yep the ammonia method is very promising interms of functionality. But safety risk of that on a gigantic scale is kind of horrific.
How about BH3 instead of NH3?
I also saw a video about combining H with ammonia, and the benefits seem great!
I saw that in South Australia they are looking into using the excess solar energy produced to create hydrogen. if done like this is can be a very good alternative, and a very good export for very sunny countries.
Just using the excess solar for hydrogen is unrealistic. The hydrogen electrolyzers have to have a way higher utilization rate in order to produce hydrogen at a reasonable cost
Yea this is the way to do it. Setting up solar just to create hydrogen is losing a lot in the electrolyzation process (about 40%). But using solar normally and only powering an electrolyzed with the EXCESS energy produced is the best of both worlds.
@@ElRhino9 there will be situations where lots of renewable electricity can be produced but there aren’t consumers nearby. Like Australia. This is the opportunity to develop Green hydrogen. Where there is demand near production the electricity should just go to the grid
@@MichaelTavares It seems you did not even read Reinder's comment.
Transporting hydrogen is also not efficient. Either cool or compress it like crazy.
This is a good dissection of the hydrogen issue. One criticism is that you didn’t include nuclear as part of the Green Hydrogen solution
Nuclear is far too expensive, far too slow to produce and has a bad laegacy issue.
@@harryadam1671 but it is literally the only thing that works )))
And it literally isn't.@@trifio5242
Thorium!
Nuclear is expensive and takes a while to build because of bureaucracy. In the USA it can take TWENTY years to build one. While other countries are building them in less than five.
Green hydrogen is a solution and a necessary solution, but not the solution. Nothing is binary, especially not in our complex energy systems. Let’s not either discard or solely focus on hydrogen, it’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how it’s being thought of in the real world
the status quo needs one energy source that is dominant over the others to maintain its monopoly. it's money and power that ultimately matter.
Gender type is binary
True, but with wind solar and tidal power all delivering electricity when it suits nature, not when it suits consumers there needs to be a way of storing this energy. There is a limit to how much pumped water storage sites are available and the (I believe) french experiments in the 1980s with high speed mag-lev gyroscopic energy storage weren't a success. But turning it into a liquid fuel that we can burn or put in cars is the perfect solution. If the energy is free and will go to waste it doesn't even matter how efficient electrolysis is.
I think the hard truth is nothing is the real solution, but that’s doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get as close to it as possible
the best use of Hydrogen is in its form as H2O, as in you dam a lake or river and make clean electricity with it. the "hydrogen economy" is such a ruse, please get a grip and face reality people!!!! Conservation could cut our problems in HALF overnight, we waste as much as we use. peace out
I am an energy systems engineer. I have a couple decades experience including hydrogen tech. In all of the system design evaluations I have done for all energy end uses and supplies... the hydrogen option is ALWAYS the least feasible, viable, beneficial, highest cost, highest Risk, and thus the least preferred option. There isn’t anything coming in the research pipeline that will change this.
Somebody is hyping a bad concept as a solution. There is a word for that in the legal field.
What are some examples of more feasible options for readily transportable energy?
in your opinion, in regards to fuel cells for vehicles, are there any options that make sense environmentally, economically, and with enough efficiency to be worth while? or are fuel cells just a pony they trot out when they don't have any answers?
Back up the truck a bit farther. Why do we have 1.4bn automobiles on the planet? Because it’s possible. Why? Unconstrsained supply of liquid (easily dispensed and stored at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures) fuel with 44MJ/kg energy content and engines that convert heat to work. Because governments spent unbelievable resources on roads and parking. Because of debt. Because Mechanical, Chemical. civil engineering education, research, standards made these systems safe, reliable, affordable.
All of this spend is on the back of unlimited free high density energy - petroleum.
Using less petroleum, and using the existing debt-financed assets and vehicles is 99% more likely than manufacturing a very expensive high pressure gas with low energy density, and all of the fuelling infrastructure and vehicles.
The story of hydrogen for personal vehicles is just silly. Like magic beans.
It is time to stop fairy tales and get to work on the Transition Engineering of lower oil use and production. Low enough to save the planet is about 80% downshift. That is a bit of innovative work to do. And a huge amount of land available for redevelopment, money staying in your city, clean air. Quiet. New local enterprise. Etc. once you look you can see so much opportunity.
Are there any fuel cell vehicle technologies that make sense? No not for you. Not for you to use to commute from your house in a suburb to work or to a giant shopping mall. Not for you to drive across the country for a fishing trip. No. It is an idea that we as studied some time ago and now it is known that the possibility of fuel cell cars being anything other than a distraction is so small it must be discounted. So what now?
@@profkrumdieck it sounds like you have given up on any alternatives because this is the way it has been for a long time and there is no point changing it. honestly I think we need to look at the problem another way. not "how can we make cars better" but "how can we make cars less necessary." and I'm not talking about public transportation, though that would certainly help. we need to do something about WHY people are commuting in the first place. though that is just my opinion.
My dad worked for an hydrogen company and he got fired cause he wouldn’t lie about the gas footprint of the industry. He went into petroleum to work on plant emissions and they used him to basically delay and distract. He then quit started an herb farm and quit paying his taxes, sold kratom and legal mushrooms till he died.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT the main problem the gas trapped in the Tundra of Russia and Canada is more lethal as it has 10 times the Potency of that particular gas : METHANE and is being released in vast quantities into our atmosphere
That's an awesome story.
The Acid never lie’s 🤟
Yeah sure
what a champ lol
I think there was a good comment from an expert at the end there. It showed how these time-based goals are flawed. They create pressure and poor decision making.
To me, it’s more about a balanced approach. Not panic.
We have good sources of energy that we know. But we are also recognizing that we can evolve that and do better. We can do it cleaner.
But can we be honest? Can we be balanced? Some companies seem to struggle with that.
So, we need to proceed with wisdom, pure intention, and steady ease.
It’s not really that difficult.
That ticking time bomb she laid was extremely annoying. There was barely any point to it at all. Maybe to secure her job, that's it.
nuclear power with battery done thanks have a great day!
One thing that you didn't mention is that the hydrogen atom is very small in size, so when welding pipes the welds need to be perfect or it will leak, also since the energy content is low you need very high pressure tanks (special welding codes) also quite expensive, finally hydrogen has an invisible flame when burning and is orderless so it's hard to know your system is leaking and or burning.
For the last part, gas in your kitchen has smell added to it as well. So there are ways to solve certain 'issues'.
@@cesco1990 “Natural” gas is NOT hydrogen.
In fact, you will have to add wall thickness to all piping as the atom will escape through the material. All piping we use for hydrogen is 316L. Also if temperatures differs to much
the hydrogen will accumulate in sharp edges and cause brittleness. Will be expensive to design these systems. Codes for hydrogen systems are just a few years old now. A new career opportunity for piping engineers?
Even with perfect welding, hydrogen molecules will leak through intact pipes or storage container walls at elevated rates, because of their small diameter.
@@arvidsfar1580 seems like an excellent opportunity for new companies to develop these kinds of structures and metals. All hail true capitalism. And not modern-day fascism.
Overall, I think everyone needs to understand that the energy transition will not happen with ONLY one renewable energy, or green energy storage. Green hydrogen, green ammonia, fuel cells and what not will all be part of this transition, just like wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
The thing is, "green hydrogen" needs 3X to 5X more electricity (solar panels, wind turbines) up front to deliver the same energy at the end point.
@@booobtooober There are massive developments being done in terms of electrolysis efficiency. Nowadays, you can have efficiencies of up to 80% using a water vapor electrolysor. The idea is still to have the green hydrogen plants located in regions that have plenty of sun, wind or geothermals. Hydrogen can store that energy, and be delivered according to need later on. Pure renewables aren't able to do that right now. Also, don't forget that hydrogen is already being used in plenty of Heavy Industries which need to decarbonize as well, so I don't see why green hydrogen wasn't a viable alternative to these industries, since the technology of electrolysis is well known a d hydrogen is being used widely...
transition to poverty
@@echelonrank3927 and where do you get this from? Gotta have somr faith. New technologies bring new opportunities for employment, even in the poorer regions of this world (if done right)
@@TWCHHK Don t forget that the good old solar and wind energy together with battery technology is getting better way faster then hydrogen tech.
Why use electricity to produce hydrogen to power a car when it costs way less to directly use electricity to power it?
Also, what are you saying renuables can t do right now?
This is surprisingly well balanced. TH-cam videos in my experience tend to be almost tribal about alternative fuels, either trying to big them up or debunk anything good that's ever been said about them. This is factual, accessible and unbiased. Well done to all concerned.
Hydrogen unlike fossil fuel requires as much energy to produce as it provides, so it isn’t as solution for so-called global warming.
I find the 'Just have a think' channel to be pretty well balanced too.
True 👏
This is German public broadcasting. They are obligated to give a balanced view. I wonder why the videos don't have the notification bar below it, telling that it is a public broadcaster.
lol, he makes it seem like electric cars are unproblematic. up your critical thinking.
Super simplified explanation of what hydrogen strategy is all about. Such videos which explain more and dont pass a judgement are well appreciated
yes, hjydrogen never has or ever will make any sense
The US is racist country. Russia Russia needs 0.05 nm chip from China and India. China and India may provide supper carriers to Russia. NK may provide 20 million soldiers.
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl And there we have it, a person who can't even type (or think?) clearly passing judgement.
It is refreshing to hear this more complete discussion of hydrogen’s potential role in our energy strategy. Too many people are unaware that it takes energy to create hydrogen - that, on earth at least, hydrogen is an energy storage and transport medium, not an energy source. In effect, hydrogen is a battery alternative. The energy lost in creating, storing, transporting, and using hydrogen is significant.
As with so many social media and regular media energy discussions, there was no discussion of nuclear energy. Generate hydrogen with nuclear power and the result will actually be emission free. No need to drink petroleum industry cool-aid.
There is plenty of discussion about Nuclear reactors. You speak as of no one is ever thought of it. The biggest problem is the LCOE of nuclear power runs around $.25 per kilowatt hour versus renewables with battery storage add around $0.025 per kilowatt hour. Even if we had unlimited funding and an unlimited number of nuclear experts and an unlimited number of locations to site nuclear reactors and unlimited clean water for the operation, we don’t have the 10 years to wait that it will take to put a nuclear reactor online.
Storing the output of a nuclear reactor in hydrogen only makes it worse since that will increase the cost of that stored energy by a factor of four. Nuclear reactors are actually get in the way of other cheaper more effective solutions since a contract is written to use all the power a nuclear reactor can produce over its lifetime forcing us to keep this zombie alive even though we have sources of power that could be 10 times cheaper. I would place nuclear reactors in the same category as hydrogen transportation; they are solutions pushed us by governments and funded by the fossil fuel industry because they know they’ll not result in a significant loss of fossil fuel sales which at the end of the day is driving everything.
The other clue is that to my knowledge no private investors have ever bought a nuclear reactor simply because they do not and will not make money. Only governments that are willing to extensively subsidise money losing operations will fund nuclear reactors.
Can we just use geothermal heat to produce hydrogen since less electricity is needed to perform electrolysis in steam?
@@aaronfield7899 You are probably thinking of a process where steam is used with natural gas to create hydrogen. It is unlikely that geothermal heat could produce hydrogen very efficiently but then there is no process that produces hydrogen very efficiently.
@@colingenge9999 you never heard of thermolysis? It's Litterally the reason why there is bo water on Venus.
I lived fairly close to 3 Mile Island… be very careful what you wish for. As the scientists said there “when profit $ is involved, safety gets ignored”…
This was like jumping into “renewables” without calculating the long term effects of the extraction of rare metals, recycling of batteries, and efficiency of said tech, etc..which can lead to among other things to the energy crises like we have today.
"Rare metals" aren't actually that rare. And newer batteries are using little or no cobalt or nickel. Battery EVs are much more efficient than hydrocarbons and batteries are very recyclable.
Actually the current energy crisis in europe is caused by natural gas and would (and should) be solved by renewables.
@@superj8502 not this decade.
@@petejung3122 what do you mean?
@@superj8502 we will not get there the next 10 years.
Technology of renewable energy is for now not sufficient.
Hydrogen ( green of course) has a place as an energy storage method to be used among others. There is no single silver bullet to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
So many things need to fall into place before this is reality.
We need to be at a point where we have excess daytime green generation that needs to be stored.
If there is no cheap battery storage, like used bEV batteries or some other cheap battery. Storage does not require expensive lithium batteries.
If other storage methods turn out to be duds like gravity based storage.
If there is more use for the hydrogen, like we actually do get market share of trucks, trains, ships, planes somehow.
If all the above transportation technologies get way more efficient than they are today.
If a distribution infrastructure happens which can safely and efficiently get the hydrogen to the load destinations.
If nothing better comes along.
Yes there is. FUSION. Period, end of story.
@@TheBandit7613 well go ahead and build a safe and efficient fusion reactor then and everything is solved I guess.
@@5353Jumper Not as long as so much money is wasted on cute little windmills and solar panels. A good windmill puts out rated power about 30% of the time, solar even less. Germany has thousands, their power costs 4X more and still not close to enough. They are going back to COAL!!! There's one answer, only one. Nukes. Build fission, and work seriously toward fusion.
Wind and solar are close to worthless. Everyone knows it.
@@TheBandit7613; I can't do FUSION, can you?
As always, the DW Team does a fine job of dissecting the issues, showing alternative technologies, and grounding it all in the real world of costs of production. I see the hydrogen future for humanity and this excellent presentation gives us a solid viewpoint for why that may be so. Zehr gut!
Some might say. God said the end is near.
Maybe 2036;why try so haảd. For what
The solutions we hear about will only work in conjunction with the one we almost never hear about: learning to get along using a LOT less energy.
Look at a map of Korea at night. North Korea is very dark and uses very little energy. South Korea is lit up like a Christmass tree. Where would you rather live ? North or South Korea ? Energy usage gives us our standard of living.
Good luck with that one!
Everyone wants to help with climate change, but will not change any of their habits to do so
@@charlesswoape9128 agree. that s why i don't care anymore about climate change. this world and all the people can jump off a cliff
No thanks
Wow, I seriously had my own hydrogen video ready to release on Tuesday, but now I might need to delay it. Regardless, you’re spot on with everything my research found as well:
Places hydrogen can be used: when made from renewable energy, maritime shipping, aviation, steel production (CCS needs to be applied though), and long term storage of energy.
Places hydrogen can’t be used: when created from methane (even if CCS is applied), cars, home appliances, industrial process that use medium heat (think any normal oven)
Please search this on youtube "Hans Olof Nilsson and the first hydrogen-powered house" you will see that your conclusion is not completely correct.
@@aswad7368 I watched it. The only reason he has hydrogen power is for long term storage of energy so that he can stay disconnected from the grid during the winter. I explicitly mentioned long term storage of energy as a place where we should use hydrogen fuel.
So it looks to me that we’re saying the same thing.
Hydrogen can probably also be used in heavy vehicles like cranes and tractors, as electrifying those vehicles would make them way to heavy and the necessary charging makes it almost impossible to have them running like 18 hours straight
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet We are almost saying the same thing, you have mentioned that it can not be used in cars(I awesome like a fuel) or not efficient enough, I say it can be used in cars in an indirect way. Solar power - > storage in hydrogen- > electricity- > Bev cars (of course it is not the most efficient way but in countries like Sweden where winter is long and solar power is reduced this is the best case scenario in my opinion) This enables green energy all year long so Hydrogen is a viable source of energy in my opinion
@@ElRhino9 interesting. This is the first argument I’ve heard about cranes. Sounds likely. Although some more stationary cranes like in a shipyard could likely be patched directly into the electrical grid so this is maybe more likely for mobile ones.
I think battery materials are limited and if they can't be recycled I think there will be a shortage. I think hydrogen has a great future as long as it's green 👍
battery materials are fully recyclable today and cheaper than the mining and refining system. co founder of tesla has a recycling factory already recovering 97% on the minerals. once all cars are battery driven there will be a closed loop system whereby no more mining will be necessary. this is already happening.
So wrong answer, the battery materials are recycleable with 94%, but the rest of the materials are NOT recycleable and guess, wich material they are? Yes, those materials are the most necessary for the battery! lithium, graphite, cobalt, and manganese will lost mainly all rechargeability after their first cycle before recycling, after that it takes ten time more time to charging than first fresh materials!😢😢😢
I just don’t see how hydrogen as a realistic fuel source is viable. Just from the point that water is made up of two very stable elements that take far more energy to split into component parts than you’ll never get out of it. And then there of course is a thing that you’ll need an entirely new infrastructure. The math just doesn’t work.
It has non-quantifiable tradeoffs and in that way, potential benefits; thats why we consider it at all. You can't factor in advantages like increased energy transportation capacity in vehicles or low refueling times when merely calculating net energy losses.
For many countries where the availability of renewable energy is limited, either by space or natural resource, it is reasonable to assume that green hydrogen is a pipe dream. Some countries, such as Australia have an abundance of natural resources including wind, in the North of the continent Easterly winds blow consistently for 6 months of the year. In that same area there is a 2000 Km coastline with tides of 7 to 10 metres complete with many chock points where tide races run at between 8 and 12 knots. Though there is little Government interest in investing, there are several private organisations working toward a Green Hydrogen environment. Australia is a unique environment that needs to work toward a hydrogen solution. Most transport relies on trucks, these massive 100 tonne vehicles travel between 1000 and 3000 kilometres and battery will never suffice. There are problems with batteries, repeated recharge cycles reduces their life expectancy, high ambient temperature reduces efficiency, lighting and air conditioning draw large amounts of power as do refrigerated transport, and the list goes on . The issue is not with creating hydrogen, but storage and transport.
Possibly the most sensible, balanced reflection on both technologies I've yet read.
Never say never, I guarantee it will happen.
And ammonia, NH3 is a transport mechanism that could be exploited
NH3 is the future for shipping, it can be stored at approx -33deg centigrade an be use in existing diesel engines with some modification. Much less waste of existing materials.
why would you use renowable energy instead of nuclear? wind energy kills between 140.000 - 500.000 birds per year in the usa, just use nuclear, don't need space, clean and very efficient, also really reliable, nuclear energy is demonized to the point people don't want it when it's the most eco friendly solution we have at the moment, way less carbon footprint than anything, and remember manufactering solar panels is really bad for the earth.
I have noticed that the new version of fission reactors can be placed near facilities where hydrogen is used in manufacturing.
The reactors can make hydrogen very cheaply and sidestep the need for electricity first.
Why not just use the electricity from reactors directly?
Glad I watched to the end, because I was going to jump in with all the “cons” that came later on!
It needs a paradigm shift: rather than viewing hydrogen from the “fuel” viewpoint, rather look upon it a a “storage” commodity. The same, but not the same.
Use H2 where batteries just won’t do (aviation, probably bulk freight) yes, but it can also be used for supplying rapid grid balancing. Fully green H2 can be produced at times of renewable energy overproduction close to its storage and generation stations and the inefficiencies don’t include transportation and retail delivery infrastructure and in any case aren’t that important if the electricity is “surplus”.
Except surplus isn't a reality anytime soon.
Thank you for this. As a chemistry teacher for 42 years you would have to be a lunatic to use hydrogen as a fuel. I used to demonstrate the properties of hydrogen to my students. Fill a balloon with hydrogen and show that it is lighter than air. Then introduce a naked flame to the outside of the balloon and it goes off with a hell of a bang. Over 90 per cent of hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming of methane. Sorry but that produces 3 times the amount of CO2 for the amount of natural gas used. OK let's use electrolysis. Hydrogen is produced from the electrolysis of dilute sulfuric acid NOT water. How do you produce the electricity for the electrolysis. Here in WA 67 per cent of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels.By the way , when hydrogen is combusted it produces water vapour. Guess which greenhouse gas contributes most to global warming at over 50 per cent? Water vapour! Now don't get me started on so called "green technology" because it doesn't exist. It is driven by commercial enterprises for "profit". Capitalism at its best.
Best comment out there, 100% agree. This video contains so much BS, but forgot to mension, about possibility to use hydrogen just as hydrogen, not a fuel - direct into ammonia production.
I think the backbone being Nuclear and renewables with Hydrogen to replace Coal plants and as energy storage would be a pretty decent idea.
Its just that (leaving short. war induced prices out of it), expensive nuclear cant compete with cheap new renewables, unless the taxpayer pays a VERY generous subsidy
@@ralphboardman7443 However Nuclear is far far safer when it comes to reliability. A Nuclear plant isn't going to stop working because there's no sunlight or wind.
It _might_ be possible to go all in on Renewables and use the excess energy to store Hydrogen for the worst case scenario. Otherwise your only option is to over expand your infrastructure and (unless you're a very large country or in the EU) cut a deal with your neighbors to collectively overbuild and supply each other in a crisis.
@@FatheredPuma81 Of course its debatable trade-offs, but generally, locally produced power is said to be more "reliable" than a large, single point of failure vulnerability. That's where the cost of networking and batteries come in. The trends would seem to favour renewable and batteries over the huge investment of money and time for nuclear. For example many rural areas especially can't afford the long power cords
I don't trust nuclear to survive natural disasters or terrorist attacks/war targeting power plants. Look at the situation in Ukraine..ppl are worried Russia may intentionally or unintentionally attack nuclear power plants releasing radiation into the atmosphere
@@ralphboardman7443 What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is much cheaper than wind for example. And im pretty sure rural areas shouldnt have to pay themselves to be connected to it
whenever i ask a certain chemist his opinion on hydrogen he always mentions ammonia being the more practical way to store energy, might be good to look into that
Hydrogen power is exponential. You want green Hydrogen. Just make a power plant run by Hydrogen or Nuclear. Problem solved
@@jasonlewis460 When do you start?
Small Modular Reactors could provide on-demand hydrogen, even in remote locations. This would get us off carbon fuels AND batteries (you neglected to point out the huge environmental cost of battery production, or the fact that China has most of the world's rare earth minerals), and allow time for the further development of green energy, which cannot sufficiently meet demand in its current state.
If there were means of persuading our people to go on with the small local reactor plans the future would look much better for us and the planet .
Around 35 to 40% of the World's lithium is mined in Australia, with further large deposits in South Africa, the US, Canada, Brazil, Chile, and Cornwall in the UK..... So China certainly doesn't have *most* of that......
Maybe just ridden the demanding pests?
@@AkshatSharma1505 Thankfully there are new processes coming out for many of them which create little waste. Especially based on hypersaline fluids, found in some old oilwells.
@@AkshatSharma1505 Sure. There are companies in Canada, the UK, and Germany all building test plants using proprietary approaches, to extract lithium from lithium brine. In the UK, I think the brine occurs closer to the surface rather than in old oil wells. But the principle is the same. The idea is that they just extract it from existing brine in a minimally polluting process.
The current alternative is extracting it from lithium rich rocks, which requires creating a slurry - kind of like the lithium rich brine, but also filled with other things - extracting lithium, then leaving behind the slurry remains in massive tailings ponds.
Very interesting subject. Green Hydrogen is something that here in NZ we should be making by the bucket load since the electrical generation industry is either hydro/wind or geothermal. Still have a number of coal and gas fired industrial sites(mostly Fonterra) due to their remote locations but only two gas power stations for residential output. New Geothermal sites are coming on line all the time but our biggest problem is lack of investment, seems a missed opportunity to me.
the thing is hydrogen has 0 upsides and was a fairytale to begin with, use mthane for example.
you can make that and that has upsides like it actualy has storage capabliities, not like hydrogen which is terrible in every aspect.
but at the end of the day battereis is where its at, they are clean, consume no resources, can infnitely be recycled, and first and foremost are insanely efficient, we are not just 80% efficient for the wholle chain but way over 90% already with battery electric cars.
this can be applied to everything else as well.
efficiency is what determines everything, power, safety,ecnomy, ecology, adoption, infrastructure etc.
batteries are unbeatable period
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl Mathane though lower still have Carbon and is also worst as a greenhouse gas than CO2 to begin with. However, it can used at places when methane is obtained as a by-product. This methane can be burned and is actually better than burning fossil fuels including natural gas. Also, Hydrogen won't work on individual levels. However, when talk about industries where green hydrogen can be obtained on-site, it is a completely different ball game. For example, in steel industry it can be produced in-house using electrolysis of water and them used to replace the fossils fuels used to power the furnaces. Same is the case w.r.t the long haul transpiration industry, where batteries cannot be feasible due to weight,range issue. On the other side water can be easily filled andstired to produce on board hydrogen which can be used to drive the propellers.😊
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl I would like to also add that it's much harder to decarbonise the aviation and steel sector with electric, it just needs to be a blended solution?
NZs grid is really good. Agree there is an oppotunity there. It's absurd that in Australia we aren't aggressively pushing a switch to concentrated solar thermal power. Photovolatics are good short term, but present a long term end-of-life recycling nightmare that CST solar just doesn't have (since the heliostats are just plain old mirrors). With that and molten salt sotrage, plus east coast hydro we could easily power our home continent and export clean electricity either as H2 or via direct cable, given our proximity to Asia. We could build our heliostats and get rid of our coal and gas extractive industries completely.
@@Syulang-nt4kj And there is the problem. Oil/Gas industry has its fingers in so many pies, worldwide let alone in Oz.
Personally, I think that we should focus on creating methane from renewable energy. The tech already exists for industrial storage and transportation of natural gas. We could use carbon in the atmosphere and water to build methane. Hydrogen is difficult to handle, and frankly it's greenwashing. The time it takes for the technology to develop will be time that fossil fuels continue to be extracted and pumped into the atmosphere. High temperature nuclear power reactors could also create hydrogen, or green methane without emissions.
_"The time it takes for the technology to develop will be time that fossil fuels continue to be extracted and pumped into the atmosphere"_
That's the point. The people selling hydrogen is the same people selling fossil fuels. See, it's connected.
Now if you can connect methane with fossil fuel too, maybe your idea have a chance.
I like this idea, but I like George Olah's idea of using methanol even better, since liquids are much easier to handle than gases.
The same as ethanol. All involved in this scam knew from the start that the trade off was no good and was just a scam. It all depends on which of your elected officials have what invested in where, who they owe favors to and why we should keep them in their current position.
Your argument is correct in the case of replacing fossil fuels for combustion engines especially as ethanol production would take farm land out of food production. Electric vehicles already perform better than these over hundreds of kilometres in most conditions so the future of ethanol as a fuel to burn is as limited as gasoline. Also, there is the possible scam of "blue" hydrogen as a front for fossil fuel producers to use as a stopgap during declining demand for their products. It is up to us to raise awareness and force elected officials go directly to the best alternatives rather than those that feather their nests.
No matter what process is used, the amount of energy needed to create hydrogen from water will always exceed the energy you get from using it.
In other words: Energy out < Energy in.
Not true
True or not, it's horses for courses. If solar energy is cheap and plentiful - which it will be, then hydrogen production is cheap.
@@jactac838 Name the process ---- otherwise ....
@@brianheard4565 Even if solar energy becomes so cheep it's free (which is impossible as you need materials to harvest it) it will still require more energy to break the hydrogen free of its bonds to oxygen. The energy you get from whatever solar source used will exceed the energy you get back from the hydrogen. H20 is the lowest energy state which is why it's used to put out fires.
Actually with any kind of energy storage you have that problem. The key is how much losses occurred.
I read about H2 when I first entered college (applied science) half a century ago. H2 production cost was and is still higher than any fossil fuel. Came Elon Musk and his mission to accelerate the transition to renewables. That "accelerated" the pressure on the fossil industry to produce a new "face" in hydrogen - same profits but dressed as the lovely hydrogen. True, it's appealing (although reminiscent of the Hindenburg), but the 2nd law of thermodynamics also implies that every time you transform, transfer, transduce (trans = across, beyond) energy, you lose some. So photovoltaics win 80% of energy transfer to your wheels, to 40% with current H2. Costs? It cost Electrical is powered by solar panels and electrical outlets - found everywhere. H2 is complex, and only funded by big money interests to create the next dependency we pay for. Not blaming them, it was useful for over 100 years. But we need real clean solutions. Our sun powers life, sail boats, wind and water mills, tidal and focused light (Fresnel lens) for a very long time. Well, it's hard to beat the champion. Actually, the most humane, altruistic, generous and free supplier of energy throughout millions of years has been our sun. So the biggest problem mega-energy company have (including nuclear) is that sun-power is simple to harness, and freely available to all, including simple folks like myself. Thank you for your scientific review, that's not been tainted with general hypes. Cheers!
I saw in another video that that one big problem with Hydrogen is also storage. Being very tiny, its molecules escape more easily out of containers and storage loss is a big problem. I am no expert and would like to know more about this.
It is a problem, but a solvable one. I'm personally not worried about it.
@@Sebastian_Gecko Solvable but not sensible. Cost for that is way too high. Use hydrogen in industry and thats about it.
I used to own a large industrial welding supply and compressed gas company. We had a liquid air oxygen, nitrogen and argon separation plant. We sent our helium, hydrogen and acetylene tanks to regional fill stations. Didn't want those hazards around my plant.
hydrogen is the smallest atom but it exists as a diatomic molecule which is a little bit larger than a helium atom. We had no hydrogen diffusion problems but we DID with helium. The standard fill pressure for ordinary gases is 2250PSI. I had my helium tanks filled to 2275PSI so they could sit around on the dock for a month or two and still had the helium I was charging for. My men were trained to gauge each tank sold before loading it in the customer's vehicle to make sure it hadn't sat on the dock too long.
So you store and transport it as Ammonia NH3 or other “LiquidWind” products.
That is an irrelevant problem with correct storage it would be no issue.
What we've learnt from the EV boom is that most people aren't conscious of where their energy comes from. You can market a product like a shiny new BEV, but marketing the energy is more difficult, people don't really care.
Battery EVs are going to be a great value for commuting with a low "Total cost of ownership" once BEVs get to large scale production. Low fuel cost, scant maintenance, etc. The externalized costs like smog and climate change will not be tasked to the public like the goons in the coal and oil industry are currently doing. 🚗
They do care, they just get bamboozled by the lobbiests and crooked pols. They might care to dig more.
2020 wasn't the first time a commercial sized plane flew on hydrogen. This actually happened in 1988 with the Tupolev Tu-155.
Interestingly, due to practical issues with hydrogen on aircraft the project switched to using natural gas instead. This is telling. Whenever engineers are allowed to use a future aviation fuel free from political constraints they choose methane. This was the case with Tupolev but also the case in the US with Lockheed in the Carson study in 1980 and again with NASA/Boeing "sugar freeze" in 2012.
Furthermore, studies have shown that water vapour released at typical cruise altitudes of commercial aircraft results in warming effects that are actually worse than emitting CO2. This is because it persists much longer at these altitudes. This ultimately should disqualify using hydrogen which would result in far more water vapour being emitted at these altitudes.
I think the future of medium and long haul aviation lies with net zero power to gas production (methane) and/or with carbon negative biomethane. The other alternatives are either too expensive, too energy intensive to produce, bad for the environment or completely impractical.
burning methane still produces about 65% as much water as burning hydrogen, so i dont think the water vapor from hydrogen is a big problem.
@@dr.nico99 or put another way, burning hydrogen increases water vapour emissions by 50% compared to methane. It's a massive increase. Grewe et. al. 2017 "Assessing the climate impact of the AHEAD MF-BWB" (pdf available online) shows the additional contribution from water vapour from a hydrogen fuelled aircraft results in greater global temperature change than the CO2 emitted from other fuels.
The authors conclude: "Clearly, a CO2 reduction is important, but a climate impact reduction requires addressing also contrail cirrus, water vapour and NOx emissions. As a result of the close cooperation between the disciplines, we found that the AHEAD aircraft fueled by LNG and bio kerosene, flying at FL 430, represents an adequate technology to reduce the climate impact and equivalent CO2 emissions."
While the idea worked on the Tu-155, it required a very large fuel tank that essentially took up a lot of the space in the fuselage, which defeated the idea in the first place.
I agree that hydrogen would be a terrible fuel if combustion is involved. I think a carbon-neutral version of conventional jet fuel would be a good near-term solution for trans-oceanic jet flight.
@@incognitotorpedo42 the problem with carbon neutral Jet-A1 and SAF is that they are prohibitively expensive. As the cost of carbon increases this will get worse. Airline business models simply can't tolerate paying much more than what they currently pay for fuel. Another solution is required for the long term.
I think discovering an efficient and safe fusion reactor for energy would be the game changer in the coming years. And everything would run on electricity with minimal carbon footprint.
I used to be a big believer in fusion, but the truth is, the materials necessary for building a fusion reactor will make it inherently expensive, and that doesn't even take into account the expense of producing the tritium fuel (assuming its D-T fusion). Fusion may only be viable when our energy needs exceed what solar and wind can provide, or in niche situations such as when there is little solar and wind based on certain geographies
The supply chain supporting "green energy" is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Converting electricity to hydrogen that then goes to fuel cells is a dead end solution for most applications, since it wastes way too much energy, that would be best used directly or stored in a battery. While there is lots of talk about batteries, the raw material supply is currently short for the current demand for high efficiency products, much less meeting a 80 fold increase in use to power transportation. Plus the environmental issues associated with production and disposal/recycling. The technology needed to go ahead with truly green energy is a quality, cheap, easy to produce non-toxic battery. That might be discovered this year, or next century. Until then we are wasting resources and creating needless pollution and suffering trying to reach a goal beyond our technological grasp.
You make an excellent point. The idea that we’ll some how pull “green” anything out of our collective backsides is emotional diarrhea. If I can again put it indelicately, physics is a &itch! “Clean energy” is simply not clean. Solar panels, electric cars, batteries, windmills that are necessary ON A MASSIVE scale are going to require strip-mining enormous areas of the planet, mostly in undeveloped countries.
These “green solutions” are really about making millionaires into billionaires and making the wealthy elites wealthier and feel good about themselves at their cocktail parties. Fusion energy and the shorter range, new safer nuclear technologies have to be developed.
The major difficulty, with sole reliance on renewables, is balancing supply with demand. In countries with large amounts of renewables there can be periods when supply outstrips demand (or overloads local network capability) and during these periods it would make sense to use that excess to create green Hydrogen. There is a project in Scotland at one of the biggest wind farms to build an electrolyser with the H2 being used to fuel buses (I think).
As ever a wide range of energy options will be required and H2 will play its part in one form or another.
You’re smarter than the average bear 🐻
Sorry, no. The major problem with "renewables" is the lack of energy density. Unless you can recreate the windmill farm using the energy from the windmill farm then you are stuck using fossil fuels. You cannot smelt steel or create Portland cement from the energy of a wind farm. End of story. Everything else is a LIE
...yepp.... you're right...
True for now, but as the price of Powerwalls (generically) decreases, they will replace green hydrogen as a balancer of supply and demand.
@@lokensga no you need green hydrogen anyway. A) to replace gas and B) for steel plants.
Hydrogen is great for 3 applications :
1) fossil fuel de-sulfurisation (until we stop using fossil fuels)
2) fertilizers
3) Metal de-oxydization
It can be used for specific very low volume transportation. High volume will be too costly, with too much losses, this is the biggest HYPE of it all.
We should concentrate our efforts on :
- Greening the production of Hydrogen for the 3 primary uses
- Solving the Sodium batteries for cars & trucks, this is ongoing but needs more research money, much more promising than hydrogen
- Returning to Wind powered ships
- Electrifying rail networks and putting more and more cargo on rail
- Replacing short hops planes by Very High Speed rail (360 Km/h minimum)
sensible.
I did not know that H2 could be used (i am assuming) in place of coal->coke for steel production...this is exciting and impacts just about everything including "renewable" energy production. I am glad to see that you are looking at what the actual numbers and science are. People seem to be ignorant to the fact that oil/gas/coal are still needed to build electric cars, electrolyzers and fuel cells. We need to look at the entire carbon footprint of say an electric car from raw materials out of the ground to the scrap-heap. The only thing you ever hear about is the part in the middle...when the car is in operation. My opinion is that we should be developing more sustainable nuclear power such as modular reactors, thorium and breeder reactors (for instance to power a steel plant and produce hydrogen by electrolysis for the process or power chemical plants and oil/gas refineries). Hopefully fusion will become practical one day before we run out of uranium. To answer your question above I do not think we can every truly get to net-zero at least until we can find a way to make all the materials we need without any kind of fossil fuels which may be impossible or in the very distant future.
You still need carbon to make high carbon steel, because the carbon integrated with the iron gives the steel it's sought after properties.
I was texting Richard in the comment about finding the route out of the tunnel and I somehow texted you .
fusion is only 15 years away as it will be in 15 years. :)
It would be the most expensive steel ever produced.
My understanding is Lithium mining is S America is much like COAL strip mining, and produces a lot of CO2 per pound to produce. So the CO2 to produce an electric car is much greater than that required for the production of ICE vehicles
A group of belgian scientist, Ku Leuven, is developing a solar panel that use the energy created by the sun to power a electrolysis process, and recent tests have found out that one of them could produce up to 250 liters of hydrogen fuel for cars in a day. I hope that they will continue on this path, because it would mean that we almost wouldn't need to pay for fuel at all by producing it at home.
ExxonMobil's worst nightmare.
It's likely that charging batteries with that sunlight via solar panels is much cheaper and 3X more efficient than making hydrogen via solar electrolysis.
@@ercost60 Actually, no. Free or uber-cheap energy is everywhere-the main issue with energy is not the production but storage and distribution.
Solar panels produce electricity when/where nobody needs it, and fail miserably when/where we need it- you gave a great example of this.
I need my car during the day- on the road! not on the charging station. I'm happy to charge EV overnight when I'm sleeping, but your "cheap and 3x more efficient" solar panels are not working then. Sure, I can spend 50k$ on a power bank, but this solution is neither cheaper nor more efficient. On top of that the batteries will fail after 5 years, and most of the countries have like 3-6 months of winter.
That's why H2 production is a great idea- it can produce H2 when/where nobody needs energy, and this energy can be easily and cheaply stored+delivered to the right place.
I don't care about the theoretical efficiency of a useless process. What matters, is the practical efficiency of a useful one.
@Grzegorz M. There are more promising lage scale energy storage options than hydrogen in my view. I think, the main one is the liquid flow battery. This has a far better efficiency and is also very scalable...
Of course if you can make it directly in the solar panel you could get a more efficient solution that is feasible, I am not sure about that...
We can use solar panel top of our car so that it produce electricity while driving and parking. Secondly we can use two battery instead of one. One battery will be charging under solar panel at home and it will be full charged during whole day, next day you can replace this battery with empty one. Thirdly if we still have enough solar energy, we can store it as hydrogen fuel.
The general consensus in the industries we supply to and work within is that the ultimate final goal is hydrogen: green hydrogen. EVs-no matter how much their battery size is reduced-are still being perceived as the medium solution. This is a very good video though; it's rare to find a transparently balanced one like this.
There is no such thing as green hydrogen. It’s all a myth. How do you think wind turbines etc are manufactured?
If you understood thermodynamics you would know that hydrogen energy, like wind and solar, cannot substitute for fossil fuels or nuclear. Not even close.
@@stevem8318 If you're talking specifically the solar and the wind then yes. But if you're talking about green energy to replace fossil fuels then you're incorrect. The correct term is we cannot substitute it yet. However since greener energy are becoming more and more efficient and cheaper, it would be plausible in the near future.
This is a PSA: Owning a hydrogen car has been the worst car ownership experience in my life: stations are down OFTEN, when I call to customer service and they tell me they work and have enough hydrogen in them I often go there and there's no hydrogen or it doesn't work. And I live in northern CA where we have the most hydrogen stations. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNTIL THEY RECTIFY THIS HORRIFIC FUELING EXPERIENCE DO NOT, DO NOT BUY a hydrogen car. Just get ANYTHING else
Depends. We will have to produce hydrogen from renewable energy in places where electricity transmission is a challenge. For example, you can do this in places like Saudi Arabia, where there is a lot of sunshine, and they don't know what to do with the excess solar energy due to the duck curve. Other examples could be desert places and offshore windmills
Problem in Saudi and other desert regions is that water is a scarce commodity so they have the solar power but nothing to make hydrogen with!
If electricity transmission (via powerlines) is expensive, why would hydrogen transmission (via pipelines) be cheaper?
The Saudis don't even bother to transport methane via pipelines, they just flare it in the oil field.
And methane pipelines are much less costly than hydrogen pipelines.
Technology for synthetic fuel production already exists. In fact, it was being scaled prior to the price of oil collapsing some 8 years ago when it became impractical. Synthetic fuels close the carbon cycle and are therefore green because the carbon they contain came from the atmosphere. They have much higher energy densities, equal to existing fossil fuels and can be a direct plugin to the existing fossil fuel distribution infrastructure. They can be tailor made to specific end uses like bunker D for shipping or jet A for air travel. The input energy is light as in from the sun so it's a form of storable solar energy and the best part is that they can be scaled to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere if we chose to not use them but store resulting fuel like in the strategic petroleum reserve for example. This is a far better solution and one currently attainable than hydrogen pie in the sky.
Pressurized fuels are inherently dangerous, even more so as the equipment ages.
Dedicated ethanol internal combustion engines have ultra-high efficiencies with mileage and power greater than gasoline and even diesel.
Ethanol can be used in turbine engines as GE has already sold them in Brazil for electricity generators. Imagine a jet flying over LA with exhaust cleaner than the air going into it.
Hydrogen fuel cells have 10 times the energy density of lithium batteries, but direct ethanol fuel cells have 5 times more than the hydrogen ones.
The price, viability, ... varies according to the fuel, hydrogen is the simplest one (a precursor for a lot of hydrocarbons and other chemicals such as ammonia) and has many sources, methods of storage and transportation, and ways to be used.
Synthetic fuels need a lot of energy. We are trying to reverse entropy here. Electricity for electrolysis, electricity for carbon capture, electricity for the synthesis and then we need some of the result to get it to where it’s needed.
@@VolkerHett Although I understand what you mean, there is no "reversing of entropy." At least, not with modern understanding of physics.
Still, your point is real: minor differences in efficiency mean major differences in effectiveness.
@@bmobert That's what I'm talking about! Synthetic fuels will need a lot of energy and this will make them very expensive.
The great thing about hydrogen is that it's a place we can use the excess energy produced by wind and solar during the hours they overproduce our requirements, to support our energynet during times they do not. Keeping the energy process as clean as possible(green hydrogen only for this case).
I agree and think this is its greatest benefit. Anywhere where natural green energy production can happen during offpeak hours can produce hydrogen instead of losing most of the power production capability. If you loose 60% of energy transporting it that's still better than getting no production. Dam's are a great asset for this also.
@@robertwoodhouse406 but before having excess of renewable production we can wait a long long time... I really think that H2 is no solution and they are just trying to say : we can keep the world like he is without changing anything ! It is hopeless ! Before being profitable an electrolyser has to work maybe 4,000 hours per year, you can't be profitable by just using the exess quantity of electricity 500hours per year ! There will never be excess of renewable because at a certain time it will be to expensive to build the marginal PV that will create excess of electricity 80% of its time
@@adrienhamot9484 with the vast natural gas infrastructure throughout the world a gas replacement makes sense for home heating cooking and distribution using existing supply chains.
Yes, hydrogen can be used for energy storage but for that it competes directly against battery technologies that (unlike lithium ion) are not resource constrained, such as sodium batteries or iron-air batteries. These batteries are 3 times more efficient at storing excess renewable electricity than hydrogen is. Green hydrogen makes sense for green ammonia (for fertilizer) or green steel but not for grid support.
@@JoeWein I'll take your word for it.
You think there are any locations/cases where hydrogen would be better than a battery? Say, near the sea to refuel hydrogen powered ships?
Also when you say efficient do you mean size, cost, difficulty to set up or all of the above?
hydrogen is very inefficient to use as fossil fuels alternative, especially with electricity powered vehicles is around, I feel really sad to see my country going this path.
Green hydrogen technology makes the most sense for replacing hydrogen sources that currently rely on gray hydrogen. For energy sources, though, we should focus on electrical/battery technologies.
Hydrogen is an electrical battery technology. Batteries are not energy sources.
Very interesting video! You point out rightly that we should not use our hardneeded and scarce green energy to produce green hydrogen, since too much of the energy will get lost. However, we’re dealing with congestion on the grid (in the Netherlands), which makes it impossible sometimes to install new windturbines and solarparks on the grid. Hydrogen could be very beneficial here. By storing the abundant electricity from hydrogen, we’re not using electricity that would otherwise be brought to the grid. By using hydrogen as a battery of the grid, we’re able to use green electricity also at times when production of green electricity is not possible.
Hydrogen electrolyzers are not dealing well with inconsistent amounts of energy. They need to be run off a stabilized grid with constant energy flow 24/7, first thing to suffer is efficiency, have complete lack of energy and the electrolyzer will suffer membrane decay and permanently lose efficiency and eventually require a new membrane - which is costly both in resources and in price (which will be clear once you realize that these resources contain some of the rarest metals in the world, rare earth metals with their bad wrap are child play compared to for example iridium).
I think it is a mistake to say "Hydrogen is going to supply x% of our energy needs". (11:20)
(Green) hydrogen is nothing more then a chemical battery. You store energy in it, you don't make energy. And that is a also the major difference to fossil fuels: They are basically an already charged battery, that we dig out of the ground.
So the real question is not "hydrogen vs fossil fuels" but "hydrogen versus batteries or other storage options".
Dont make sense 0 emission my child and zero costs from water...:)
Hydrogen has its part to play as a mixed portfolio of energy distribution. The pie is big enough for all players to be sustainable.
I think you should have also mentioned the problems with storing and transporting hydrogen.
It is a very small molekule and diffuses easily through most materials, which is why it cant be transported via pipeline and storages will be at a constant loss.
It does also briddle the materials it diffuses through, giving them an a lot more limited lifetime.
Additionally pumping Hydrogen into a high pressure tank comes at a further energyloss, both to power to the pump aswell as the thermal losses of the compression.
Even more if you liquify it with the additional loss of evaporated H to keep it cool.
It is a low density energy storage with a bad efficiency, which is why Hydrogen should be transformed into more complex molekules like Methan or Amonia, but even that still makes it only viable with an abundancy of energy.
the fool cell
You can't, or you will get canceled by the true believers. No facts please
And nobody mentions that a hydrogen fire produces next to no visible or infrared light, so it's not perceptible until you are actually being burned.
Amazing, I wonder how on earth the space programme manages to use it - and has done sine the 1960s ! Another myth shattered.
The process that hydrogen makes steel brittle is a monoatomic or h is very small and can migrate into the steel where it comes into contact with another mono h and then combines into H2 molecule which takes up a lot of space and stresses the metal which causes cracks to form. Learned this in metallurgy class back in 60’s.
Imagine a hydrogen tank 2.2 times the size of your current gas tank that will hold 10,000 PSI but only with a tank that weighs more than the Hydrogen it contains. Imagine also half the trunk used up with the Fuel Cell. Imagine paying more than twice the price for Hydrogen vs gasoline only from stations as rare as hen’s teeth but then learning the Hydrogen comes from Fossil Fuel in its cheapest iteration. In future the promise is we can make it from excess renewable energy but overall, Hydrogen is a ploy by Fossil Fuel Companies to slow down our transition away from their deadly brew. Imagine them protecting $1Trillion in annual sales and how far they will go to do so.
I thought it was “ridiculous” also until I ran the numbers. JP-8 jet fuel is 9.5 kwh/litre, gasoline 9, cryogenically cooled Hydrogen which required a refrigeration plant is 2.3, 700 bar compressed Hydrogen is 1.3 and 350 bar is 0.65. My figure of 9 times the volume was a rough number but 350 bar would be 13.5 times the volume and 700 bar would be 6.25 times the volume of gasoline for the same miles. Those enamoured with Hydrogen cannot change the physics which makes Hydrogen extremely inconvenient for transportation due to the huge volume required but it doesn’t stop there. Making Hydrogen is costly, shipping and storing it is problematic and converting it to road power is complex also.
Toyota Marai stores Hydrogen at 700 Bar. Fuel Cell efficiency of say 80% then electric motor at 90% yields 72%. To get a tank ratio with gasoline, we need to apply an efficiency correction. Gas engine extracts about 25% of the energy in the fuel. For same mileage we need to look at tank volume ratio of 6.25 and divide that by 72/25 x 6.25 = 2.2 larger volume for the Hydrogen ;tank vs gasoline.
This physics defines why Hydrogen is not used and probably won’t be used for much transportation and you can yell FUD all you like but you’ll not change physics by doing so.
I had my bubble burst on Hydrogen by doing research; sorry to break the bad news but facts ain’t FUD.
Not to mention hydrogen and brittlement of metals and his propensity to leak through microscopic gaps in fittings.
Thanks for the physic facts, we need to be green but also pragmatic.
Let me burst it once more. You’re only thinking about H has a prime mover for vehicles. What about mixing it with natural gas for the grid, what about Steel and Cement production? What about grid level storage? Cars are a fraction of pollution, and not the whole equation
@@PA-eo7fs what are you talking about when you say “burst it once more“?
I agree that there’s all kinds of applications for hydrogen but I commented only on hydrogen as it may be used for transportation and possibly storage. There is an excellent argument to be made that all efforts towards hydrogen‘s use in transportation is pretty much a scam since at the end of the day no one is going to pay at least three times the cost to fuel up with hydrogen even if it exists which it basically doesn’t and probably never will.
For similar reasons hydrogen will never be used in any quantities for long-term energy storage because it simply too and efficient. Going from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity leaves you with 25% of what you started with versus using just about any other form of energy storage will give you 60% minimum to maybe 90%. Hydrogen storage vessels are extremely expensive, hydrogen is very difficult to move but the main point is you cannot get around the negative physics behind hydrogen for storage.
If I am not mistaken, the most efficient and cheap way to have hydrogen stored is within water, why are we getting so wrapped up about trying to store up hydrogen in it's gaseous form when we should be working on the tech to unlock it much more quickly from water to meet demand?? If technology could be developed to more efficient electrolyze hydrogen from water more quickly then it could be stored much more safely and solve the volume problem for storage. I am not the type to give up on a concept like this that easily, there must be a way to do it somehow, just wish I had the funds, the knowledge, and time to try it myself. I know Stan Meyer was likely a fraud but the man's concepts were very compelling to somehow utilize water a fuel cell, I am still pondering whether the man was actually murdered or not for actually solving that problem or the oil companies were just that worried he was that close to ending the use for fossil fuels outright.
@@jayclyde6045 The essential answer as to why we can’t make an electrolyzer more efficient lies in the fact that you cannot get more energy back from splitting up water than you got in the first place. I believe that electrolyzers run at around 85% efficiency at best but once you have that hydrogen and you want to do something useful with it you have the option of putting it into a fuel cell to get electricity back again or simply taking the hydrogen and putting it into an engine of some sort. In the former case we get back about 80% of the electricity that we put in and in the second case where we burn it in an engine we get back about 25%. There is no way to make an electrolyzer more than 100% efficient otherwise you would be going up against first principles and the law of conservation of energy. Much like no one has ever found a way to create a perpetual motion machine that has no energy going in but energy coming out.
If they were caverns full of hydrogen then that might be a different story but all hydrogen on earth is found up with oxygen in the form of water primarily.
Hydrogen could be thought of as being a spring that has no tension in it. We can apply a force over a distance to extend the spring and then get some of that energy back when it is released but clearly they will be losses so we don’t get as much back as we put in. That is why hydrogen in the form of water is useless as a fuel.
It will always be more efficient to store electricity in batteries than convert it into hydrogen. But batteries are expensive and because renewable energies fluctuates a lot (sun, wind) hydrogen will be useful when there is an oversupply of generated electricity. Instead of shutting down wind turbines or solar farms the oversupply can be converted to hydrogen and be stored in a much larger scale than with batteries.
Batteries are expensive, but you're *assuming* that hydrogen storage will be cheaper (per unit of energy stored). I think you are wrong about that.
Batteries may be expensive today. But let the batteries from BEV come to the stage where they have lost 20% of their capacity - so in 10-20 years and batteries will become less expensive because these very same car batteries now can be used for another 10-15 years in stationary use. To run a electrolyzer at any kind of efficiency the amount of available energy must not fluctuate - it will even be permanently damaged if there isn't any energy to be converted.
We should move forward on any alternative energy projects at the same time and see which one(s) are the most effective and least damaging at an affordable price.
Just like we use many different forms of fossil fuel to create energy today, we must have multiple types of green energy too. Hydrogen for large transports like ocean-going ships. And something far more energy dense for smaller vehicles like motorcycles.
Places like Quebec apparently have excess hydo power. It could act like a battery where places that have periods of excess power could use it to make hydrogen to use during periods, ( windless or sunless days) of high demand or low output.
Exactly .. or like Manitoba .. we have Lake Winnipeg.. largest battery in the world 🤔😉😂
I don't see H2 becoming widely used as a transportation fuel, but it could play apart in green energy storage by spitting H2O with wind or solar produced electricity and using the H2 in fuel cells to generate electricity when green energy is not available. H2 generated by CH2 reforming should be avoided at all costs.
I don't mind shortcuts if you know where you're going. We could easily accept massive emissions from grey hydrogen on a temporary basis if we knew that massive amounts of permanent green hydrogen was coming. Sometimes, enabling economy of scale is the biggest problem.
I do unless we come up with some other battery tech than lithium. Because there isn't enough of it to power every car on the planet.
I've invested in a solar firm company in Ireland. And any of the electricity when it's not needed is converted into hydrogen. But we should always keep our options open for new Technologies. I enjoyed your video very much
Hydrogen liquefaction is further more energy intensive I think and hence, liquifying it for future use is a really hard process especially when it comes to regular automotive and domestic use. But for the industrial purpose it could be.
Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables, I think, than focusing on hydrogen propelled cars and trucks.
But does the renewables to generate green hydrogen are really green in nature? I doubt that.
That's why ammonia will be used for transport and storage.
if you use solar cells to make it, it's green. of course you still have to recycle the old panels.
Hydrogen is renewable genius.
"Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables"
However it takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. More than you get back, actually.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Yes as of now it does, but doesnt necessarily means in the future and its already getting advanced. What I was talking abt is, liquifying it, then transporting it over long distance and then regasifying it doesnt make sense to me especially considering the boil-off rates. Stored liquified hydrogen is considered having high volumetric energy density but the issue is as stated before. Instead, incorporating hydrogen production and power generation units near dense populated areas, steel plants, refining and mining units could prove to be a viable option.
I think by the end of this decade, battery tech for ground transportation (trucks, cars) is going to be better than anything else in every way imaginable. For those who've been following the technology already know that for pretty much anything you can list as a problem, there's already a solution that exists or researchers feel they are about to solve in a why that scales commercially.
If hydrogen is limited to shipping over water it's probably a problem worth solving and the infrastructure to do this would be minimal. And to me, the infrastructure is as big of a problem as producing the hydrogen.
It seems promising for industrial applications like steel production to replace fossil fuels, but for the rest, I agree with you
年間１万kmしか走らないなら電池で良いんぢゃが、10万kmも走る陸上輸送で成立するんかな？
中華製みたく交換前提なら良いが、最も優れてるとは言い切れんぢゃろうな。でも宅配には良いのだろうがね。
translation :Wenn Sie nur 10.000 km pro Jahr laufen können, können Sie Batterien verwenden, aber ist es möglich, Landtransporte zu nutzen, die 100.000 km zurücklegen?
Es ist in Ordnung, wenn es in China hergestellt wird und ersetzt werden soll, aber es ist schwer zu sagen, dass es das Beste ist. Aber ich denke, es ist gut für die Lieferung nach Hause.
Agree Tet Nis, don't forget the cost of reusing batteries,
Australia's CSIRO developed a liquid similar to ammonia that had a large amount of hydrogen. This liquid could then easily be turned into hydrogen in the vehicle and the other elements are filtered out of the liquid. Large scale transport of low temperature, high pressure extremely flammable gases is fraught with problems, let alone the cost of any type of hydrogen.
Smells of Hindenburg
@@lesterhutchins1621oh no the combustion fuel actually catches fire? Whatever shall we do
Excellent analysis!! Innovation is a continuous process, some day we will discover the truths and solutions around it
You won't find those truths in video's like this that are designed to push the electric car market. Please wake up and realize how the real world functions before giving out praise. There is no need to pick a side and the only important thing is the search for truth which you will not find on the internet.
@@petebusch9069 You are right!! But the progress is gradual. Internet is a medium. Different people access it for different reasons.
The hydrogen is just a storage medium, not energy in itself. It is another type of battery.
The first problem with most "green energy" approaches is that there is not a good way to capture the energy. It is converted to mechanical energy, and then converted into electrical energy. Every time you convert energy from one form to another you lose some of it.
The next problem is that once you generate the electric energy you have to transmit it through electric cables to the point it is used. Contemporary electrical transmission networks lose half the electric energy in losses in the cables, much due to heat.
Then you have to convert the electrical power into another type of energy, typically electrical energy, to store it before you use it. Converting the energy loses some more. Then when you want to use the electric energy you convert it back losing some more.
Our electric infrastructure runs near capacity now; this is why we have brown outs and black outs. We simply don't have the electric energy and infrastructure to make this work right now. Everyone will need solar cells and wind turbines on their property before this happens, because then you dont have to transmit the power over great distances.
"Contemporary electrical transmission networks lose half the electric energy in losses in the cables, much due to heat." - what's the source for the 50% loss? All large scale providers give 3%-5% (5% in the US due to low terminal voltage 120V vs. 3% in Europe 220/240V)
@@davidhunt240 This was cited by the Virginia Power Exec that gave a presentation at the Richmond Joint Engineers Council a few years back. It was an A-political review of the challenges facing electric power suppliers.
@@eddarby469 nah, 50% losses would be ridiculous, almost as if the execs at that meeting were carrying the electricity in their bare hands. There's talk of a 50% rise in peak power usage due to electric vehicles, the associated losses with coping with that demand is the only place I can find Virgins Power talking about it.
@@davidhunt240 I'm trying to piece it together right now. The industry has its own jargon, so it is hard to be sure im getting the straight "poop". But so far, the websites cite about 4-6% losses in "transmission", but they also describe "distribution" and "transformer losses" as other categories. They do point out that transmission losses alone in the US account for more power than the seven Central American countries uses combined.
If you make plenty, doesn't matter if you lose some. Important thing is clean.
Hydrogen is actually an energy "currency". Seems like one of the best applications for green Hydrogen might be aviation.
Do you think that small scale production and storage of hydrogen on a singular, or individual household scale might be a step in the right direction..? I understand that large corporates want to be dominant and profiteering from energy etc..but I feel that if we don't attempt and experiment with these ideas, no progress will be made. Did early aviators know that thier efforts would begin the space race..and lead to lunar landings and missions to mars...? There must be some value in positive effort today...urgently, I would argue...for the sake of our planet.
@@legacyofpop AT WHAT COST? the Apollo missions cost in excess of $20,000,000,000+ dollars that is OVER TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS OF TAXES and the original budgets in the early 1960s was for a program that would cost $2,000,000,000+ dollars! the massive expenditures required were off by a FACTOR OF TEN! hydrogen production is an ENERGY HOG! in other words it requires MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE THAT IT GIVES OUT! THINK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE! in other words would you spend a dollar to earn just ten cents! if so, how long would it take for you to go BANKRUPT!
@@legacyofpop yes, solar panels and hydrogen tank is optimal for decentral households in my opinion.
Having a hydrogen grid would be even better. Since electricity cant be transported over large distances.
All steel plants etc. could than just buy the hydrogen produced by the households.
As soon there is a overproduction of electricity one could build hydrogen.
Secondly one could Transport treated seawater as hydrogen into dry regions and convert it into water to supply farms.
Than one sends back the electricity through the Grid. And install solar parks to produce electricity in the dry regions of the world.
@@user-zt4zr7eg6z That's interesting, Ben...Thank you for giving me food for thought. Several sources for inspiration.....Local small scale to assist industry...and seawater...Cool.
the point that hydrogen is the lightest stuff in the universe, at room temperature and at normal earth pressure, also means that you need to compress the hydrogen for any real use. To some 700 bar. And the only way so far is by 3 or 4 Stage traditional piston compressors. Maintaining those machines are for some reasons allways kept out of the discussions.
Also the energy to power the compressors, the transport and infrastructure is another point on the efficiency bill which is often not shown.
I have my thoughts and doubts, but watching experts from multiple different fields, one thing is for sure: We need renewable sources, electric/battery, and petroleum. They all have their place, and it is how we use them that counts.
A good step forward is using renewable energy to power a electrocatalytic scrubbers to reduce CO2 levels instead of scramble to switch to all electric. However, the focus has shifted to demonizing the petroleum industry. We're not done with it and we won't be for some time. Humans evolved when we discovered fire, and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Mining the materials required for battery production creates lots of emissions.
I'm not simping for big oil because they need to get involved, too, however it'll do anything to survive if we keep trying to kill it.
The way I see it, both sides have it completely wrong. And their arrogance is helping nothing when they should be helping EACH OTHER. Right now, there are groups of college students finding the answers to protect our environment, and they're being silenced by the greenwashers and big oil investors both, who want to SELL you the solution.
We need to perfect the use of all of our energy sources, and they all have a place. The universe wouldn't have gifted us with them otherwise. Some people still heat their homes with wood stoves, and use oil lamps. They may not even know what a Tesla is. If you can afford solar, that is a privilege and you should be thankful, not everyone has that luxury.
Excellent video with clear point to digest and ponder upon. I think the t worth pursuing. It seems that the biproduct, water, can also help water shortages in some places. I'm all for it's further research.
I agree with you sir. There are two (not so known) channels I recommend you check out: 1. Hucks&Trucks 2. Edward Mitchell
It would take long for me to explain all of these details but these guys are making new hydrogen tech that you may find interesting
Huh?
Doesnt make a lot of sense, no. Not to me in this shortness anyway.
You´d argue the small amounts of water emitted in the fuel cell process - out of hydrogen that has originally been made out of water or natural gas - should then be collected and somehow brought where water is scarce?
Just transporting water where it is needes seems much, much more straightforward. And if done by pipeline considerably cheaper, more efficient and less leakage.
That's nice.
Hydrogen is being pushed forward because it's the only way for the current energy monopolies to survive. If we vote for hydrogen, we vote for the world as we know it. But that's now what we want, we want proper energy democratization and independence. Those who live off-grid know what I'm talking about.
Exactly. I have no pity for energy companies complaining that they can’t survive a transition to renewables. They had 40 years to figure out their gameplan.
Interesting. Living in a place with over abundant sun it would seem that using solar energy to recycle water into its gas components would make sense. I would love to hear what innovations are afoot. Surely it's not so simple but neither was harnessing nuclear energy.
Sun only workd for individual houses
It _would_ seem like solar is this saving grace, but look at the panels themselves and what it takes to manufacture.
Solar is not that good.
Nuclear energy is 20,000,000 more energy dense than diesel,not to mention solar, easiest way to make Carbon free H2 is pink H2 nuclear based, but green H2,and other ways are great too. But we don't want to ruin the environment with solar plants. Even vast dessert they don't cover with solar,it isn't reliable, much of utility solar in China isn't connected, they are still building coal, the best thing the Chinese do is an vibrant nuclear program, those plants really do displace coal, provide great jobs, are a millionth the size, and have much less waste than wind and solar.
Even hydro the Chinese have screwed up.
@@johnlocke_1 still rapidly getting better though, like a lot of green tech. that's what makes it so hard to predict what we'll use in a few decades time.
@@crouton3455 in a decade, we will be in such a depression that no new developments will be bothered with
The biggest problem is not producing the H2, but actually transport and storage. These will raise the cost (and risks) a lot.
H2 for mobility just fit for developed countries.
Exacly.
"Backwards" demand can assist green Hydrogen development. What I mean is developing personal sized green Hydrogen products for use at home (water heater, fridge power, backup power, heating small spaces such as the garage or ice melting, camping/campers, etc.) That type of backwards demand from the micro side creates some capital and excitement at a smaller (likely easier) level vs industrial scale.
True ... in fact my thoughts are similar even for the Solar ...instead of large Solar PV its the Solar Rooftops that will help build energy security at local level at low cost incentivized by the govt without major ecological concerns
Phenomenal reporting! Robert Howarth is absolutely spot on, on every point he makes. All light duty vehicles should be BEVs, as soon as possible, with BEV and H2 for larger vehicles.
1- if you wanted to replace all current ice cars by BEVs you do not have enough rare metals to produce batteries to produce 30-40% of these cars
2- on a life cycle assessment, to offset the extra carbon footprint related to the production of lithium ion batteries (that is very polluting), you would need to run that car for more than 6-7 years for the average person’s annual kms traveled and using low carbon electricity mix (such as france), before u start actually emitting less than an ICE.
So overall, not the best idea. Hybrid powertrain is the solution for now (much smaller batteries), until we have a breakthrough in batteries (technology without rare metals) or produce hydrogen in sustainable ways (i’d recommend checking the Monolith Materials process)
@@jaddiab9261 EVs are q gimmick only good for golf carts. There is Hydrogen fuel combustion engines. which doesn't use extreme rare metals. Hydrogen can create millions more jobs than any EV industry.
@@jasonlewis460 I disagree :)
@@jaddiab9261 Hi Jad. Thanks. It's good to know we will be driving fewer cars when we've switched to EV. Driving is a pain. I'd much rather ride my bike. I'm not sure the resource limitation has been established yet, since we haven't been looking for very long (and we seem to have plenty of Li for other batteries, phones, laptops etc.). Battery technology will evolve, of course, and there are already batteries that use less or no cobalt (if you are worried about that -- but refining petroleum uses a lot of cobalt too, so it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils). You referenced an LCA study but those that I've seen come from industry sources -- e.g, Volvo -- and were not peer reviewed; they also seem to be flawed in important ways. Maybe we should all consider driving lighter, smaller EVs like the Aptera? Why lug 5000 lbs around just to move one person? Studies have shown hybrids -- even plug-ins -- to be worse than BEVs environmentally by a long shot (check out Fully Charged on yt). Low carbon electricity mix is something that some countries are well on the way to achieving, though there's a long way to go (and I think nuclear has to be part of the mix if we are ramp up carbon-free electricity in time). Skinny: EVs are not perfect but they're more perfect that anything else we have for light duty vehicles. For semi trucks and other large vehicles, hydrogen probably has a role to play; I'll check out that process you mentioned.
@@xchopp i agree on many points you said
I'm surprised that the *CO2 equivalent cost of producing the renewable energy source to produce the hydrogen* isn't discussed more regularly and at greater length.
Yup those are the real convos that struggle to be had.
Because the cost of construction is divided by longevity of production. For instance, Norway has some 1700 gravity powerplants. These were not free to construct, but each century we make use of them, lowers those costs more and more, until it's completely negligible. That's the most important reason why capitalists are against renewable energy, because it requires you to think in centuries, which a capitalist can't. After all, all capitalists will die soon.
I have been avoiding the hydrogen conversation as I felt bombarded form both ends of the conversation with massive contradictions ... this isn't perfect but thank you DW for a fairly broad overview of the practicalities of hydrogen as a fuel component. Now I feel I can engage more in conversation.
I think you also need to consider the physics of H2, it is more dangerous than CH4 in terms of explosion-danger, needs higher storage pressures and the molecule is much smaller than CH4 which results in different materials that need to be used for storage. I don't think it is the solution to the problem of CO2 if you consider that to be a problem. I would investigate more into electricity-generation (nucleair, fusion etc.) and new ways of storage (alternative batteries not based on materials that generate pollution when mined).
Hydrogen is an important part of the mix of energy we will need to get to carbon free world but it won’t be the most adequate in every situation. Plus, there’s also PINK hydrogen, which is the one generated from nuclear energy, using small nuclear reactors. Japan is doing a great effort using this latter method
Yeah, their experimental HTGR type reactors could in simultaneously generate hydrogen from the high heat and electricity that isn't considered in this video. Once those are actually in use and online, they would likely be far more feasible for generating a large and stable amount of hydrogen for fuel and still remain a relatively clean source.
It kinda lines up with Japan's recent renewed interest back to nuclear energy to lessen its reliance on imports (which made electricity pretty pricey here) as well as the govt's plan to be a hydrogen society in the near future.
We are going to need hydrogen technologies to colonize the Moon, Mars, Titan and so on. This may be our future after all!
Sure! Let's eliminate ALL CO2 from the planet and starve all of Earth's plant life to death so we don't have to live with the pesky Oxygen those plants produce in an already perfectly balanced ecosystem.
First before we consider any new applications of hydrogen we need to clean up the production of old hydrogen demand for old applications.
If we create a new application and fuel it with green or pink hydrogen, it still has a terrible emissions footprint because it is not displacing old brown/black hydrogen.
Any new cleaner hydrogen production needs to go first to displace old brown/black hydrogen production.
Only once we are near 100% green/pink hydrogen production should we consider any new applications of hydrogen.
On top of that we need to consider if the green/nuclear energy used to make additional hydrogen would just be more beneficial plugged into the grid to displace fossil fuel energy used elsewhere before we bother using it to supply new applications of hydrogen.
So a lot needs to happen before any new applications of hydrogen can even be considered.
I had a hydrogen car, it spent more time sitting in my drive way because the stations near me were always down. I got rid of it and was so relieved. If you drive 200 miles and the next station was down, you can’t just drive to the next station. I’ll stick with my gas car.
Well, at least you almost made an effort, well done you!
The same thing can be said about gas cars in 1930s and battery powered cars today. But things will improve. Stop being a muppet.
I think trying to use hydrogen as a fuel is another Utopian green dream. 25 years ago many engineers thought the fuel cell was the answer but the cost answer was never overcome. Renewables will get more expensive as the needed critical rare earth minerals get harder to obtain and scarcer. And the overall cost of them is not really competitive to traditional energy sources as they are artificially supported by mandates and steep subsidies. Nuclear is another way of generating hydrogen, called red hydrogen ,but still transporting and storing it still has technical problems and hazards.
So I believe the way forward is nuclear and synthesized fuels as the ideal battery is not close at hand despite all the hype. And climate change, the all encompassing buzz word that replaced global warming, is 99% natural. The cleanest energy sources are still coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear when properly handled. CO2 and CH4 have a very minuscule heat footprint to the overall energy budget of the Earth.
The low energy content of hydrogen vs. that of gasoline has always been a "show stopper" for me.
I could see a use of hydrogen in agriculture. Solar converting water and compressing. Early adoption would likely be hydrogen fueled diesel tractors with a slow transition of fuel cell versions when available. Batteries have material availability problems, along with the large holes in the ground and the toxic chemicals used, that are far from green.
Isn't methane a common by-product of livestock raising? Methane is mostly hydrogen and research into blue hydrogen surely must address how to capture the carbon atoms in that molecule. All of this requires massive dollar investment and there's the problem.
A possible way to solve much of the issues addressed in this video might be the conversion of Hydrogen and CO2 into Methane. This can be done as a form of biogas upgrading. The CO2 fraction that is formed in biogas systems can so be removed resulting in a higher calorific gas and more gas. Methane has a higher energy content per volume then Hydrogen and can be used through existing pipelines.
Interesting research articles about this subject are:
Production of high-calorific biogas from food waste by integrating two approaches: Autogenerative high-pressure and hydrogen injection. (Kim et al 2021)
Recent progress towards in-situ biogas upgrading technologies. (Zhao et al 2021)
Interesting point but there is always loss when transporting gas so I think there would be a great deal of pushback on making one of the most hazardous gases
so expend energy to make hydrogen, expend energy to capture CO2, and expend more energy to turn it into methane, then burn it in a methane combustion engine.... you're throwing away about 90% of the energy as heat....
you'd be better off using the original solar or wind power used to make green hydrogen to charge a battery to power an EV, which is closer to 80% efficient....
@@xiaoka The CO2 is already in the biogas for about 40 to 20%. That's how the bacteria produce it. The conversion of hydogen with CO2 into methane is something that these bacteria do for free. This is one of the reactions that is naturally involved in biogas production. Very often this CO2 is removed in biogas upgrading plants in order to use it in household applications. By adding hydrogen (produced by electrolysis of water) the biogas can be upgraded to a Methane content of >95%. This would provide a new usage for hydrogen, makes upgrading from biogas to green gas easier, provide a battery funtion (grid stabilisation) for temporary and local abundances of solar / wind energy and decrease the consumption of fossil methane gas.
@@TOAOZuur Use electricity as electricity where you can (i.e. domestic or industrial) and make synthetic diesel where you actually need a high density energy store ( i.e. for vehicles). The infrastructure and vehicles already exist to use this fuel. You would, of course, need a large amount of energy to do all such wasteful conversions and the only method of doing that would be to build a big fleet of new nuclear plants. For a good example look at the Moltex Energy fourth generation reactor being built in New Brunswick in Canada - it's fuel is made from the nuclear waste from old style reactors so also solving that problem!
I did like the clip much. I see it the same way: There is a big potential and it could be used for basically anything but just because it could, doesn't mean it should (same as with all other types of solutions as batteries, fossil fuel etc.).
What I was missing when talking about passenger cars or vehicles in general, that Toyota recently has successfully tested their hydrogen combustion engine in a Corolla during a 24h endurance race in Japan. It sounds pretty promising (besides the still required upgrade of refueling stations).
Would be interesting to hear opinions about this concept outside the "Toyota bubble" ;)
What I want to know is what happens if toyota would leave the car for two weeks in an unventilated garage with the tank full.... I'm willing to bet a single spark would obliterate the garage and everything in it
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 That danger would be very similar to gasoline. If the car has a leak in the fuel system, the vapor would be as explosive if not more so. From everything I've heard in this discussion so far, gasoline contains more BTU per volume than hydrogen so it would be a more violent explosion. You wouldn't want to be standing next to either one.
The practical use of hydrogen that I haven't heard discussed recently is as the fuel to power an internal combustion engine instead of gasoline/propane/etc.. I studied the possible use of hydrogen more than 20 years ago but the research either never got off the ground or it just wasn't publicized. I think the trade off would be in that while hydrogen doesn't have the BTU (energy) of gasoline, it is a much more benign choice in that it is far less harmful in the environment.
Would love to see discussion of engineering challenges regarding storing hydrogen safely for use in any of these applications
Beautiful question!!
Currently, storing and transporting pure hydrogen is risky, costly, and inefficient.
See, hydrogen atoms are SOOOO small that they can easily leak through almost any storage vessel in its gaseous state.
This also goes for transportation.
Currently, chemicals like Ammonia (NH3) are used as a "hydrogen carrier". Essentially, you can safely and cheaply store and transport Ammonia.
If you take Ammonia and heat it up to around 1,600 degrees F - it will "crack" into Nitrogen and Hydrogen - then you can use the hydrogen
But.... heating ANYTHING to 1,700 degrees is very energy intensive and has its own challenges.
Those are the main issues with JUST storing and transporting the hydrogen.
....
Okay, so you can liquefy the hydrogen just like LNG, yeah?
Sure.... but that needs to be SUPER high pressure (dangerous) and crazy low temperatures (energy intensive).
If you have any other questions, please let me know!
British company JCB have already pioneered working lorries and diggers using green hydrogen. And Toyota successfully ran a green hydrogen powered Corolla around a 24 Race at Fuji Raceway last summer. So, if these companies can do it, others can too.
The point is you will never know whether the hydrogen you tank is gray, blue, green or a mixture of all of them. It will be never green, if only you do not produce it yourself. Energy-to Hydrogen-Back to energy has very poor efficiency. There are other more efficient ways to store and use energy.
Hydrogen is greenwashing at its finest. The Toyota you mentioned was a flop. Hydrogen is super expensive to sore and must be under enormous pressure. At best a super expensive low energy fuel.
@@amraceway - not in the view of Toyota Engineers and one of their clients.
JAN. 01, 2023 4:31 PM ET, BY SEBASTIAN CENIZO, CarBuzz Magazine: 'Koji Sato, president of Gazoo Racing Company suggested that these improvements could accelerate hydrogen's introduction to production cars: "Problems can be identified quickly by using the car at its limit. Then [we can] proceed with the countermeasures in an agile manner [to be ready for the next race.]"
He added that "large-scale demonstration experiments are progressing toward the realization of a hydrogen society," noting that motorsports will help to progress the production and transport of hydrogen fuel. Toyota says that this particular racing series has meant that the "development of the hydrogen Corolla is progressing at an astonishing speed," which is great news for those who don't want to be tied to EVs.'
And...
'While developing the use of hydrogen, Toyota Transport's biofuel trucks and Commercial Japan Partnership Technologies FC's light-duty trucks will deal with carbon-neutral fuel transportation. Already, FC trucks have increased transportation efficiency by 5.5 times, but it is working to further increase the loads it can manage. Furthermore, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Honda, Denso, and Toyota are all "conducting joint research in hydrogen engines with a view to installing them in motorcycles."
Simultaneously, Toyota is reusing raw materials in the production of suspension components and other parts to reduce its CO2 emissions in manufacturing.
But the most exciting news is that President Sato revealed he had received inquiries from domestic and international OEMs and suppliers that want to work together on hydrogen tech.'
carbuzz.com/news/hydrogen-combustion-toyota-gr-corolla-has-already-proven-its-value-in-motorsport
The energy density of hydrogen is much higher than lithium batteries by weight.
And unlike batteries when used gets lighter, this is important factor for things like airline travel.
Show your calculation please! I am an energy expert and I assure you that it's not! (a 10kW fuel cell weight 250kg without the tank, reheat system, cooling system, control, safety system, etc)
@@pierregravel-primeau702 I heard it from a thunderfoot video I think. But you can find a chart online by duckduckgo image searching ( energy density of oil gas lithium).
I heard that creating hydrogen though, takes so much energy that at the end of the day, it cancels out what it creates. Maybe thats what your referencing.
Im talking about specific case scenarios where distance is more important than "cost". Like long commutes to work or planes.
Lithium can work yea, but the infrastructure needed to swap out the batteries with fully charged new ones every couple blocks is pretty nuts.
the problem however becomes handling the compressed gas to order of magnitude higher pressures if you want to keep same volume as natural gas.
You cant for example much increase the volume of a car to store same energy as diesel tank.
@@Paerigos Increase of volume is preferable to increase in weight because of weight limits on bridges.
But that's just my initial conclusion based on a glance.
I heard that Elon Musk's trucks would weigh much much more than a diesel truck from thunder foot I think.
But still, I think it's moral to keep using gas till we run out. It's plant food. Europeans can move to Antarctica if their original country floods and Antarctica greens.
The absurdly low cycle efficiency is a killer considering the value of renewable electricity (losses from the electrolyzer, energy lost in compressing the stuff to absurd pressures or energy to liquify, and transportation infrastructure losses). In theory, we could pull C02 from the air and fabricate hydrocarbons from that to complete the carbon cycle. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen(!). Practical on industrial scales? No idea, but until we have a large increase in production and drop in price of non-fossil fuel electrical power, none of this make any sense. Thorium fission, fusion, and/or space solar on an immense scale will be needed first.
In CA, where we have proclaimed the end to ICE vehicles by 2035, We JUST finished a WEEK, where we were WARNED, with a FLEX ALERT, warning of possible rolling blackouts!
Ignoring the fact that we already generate so much excess SOLAR, at times, we must PAY AZ and NV to take OUR excess power off the Grid...
You wonder why their power is 50% of ours in CA?
But yeah, EV's are gonna be a FUN experiences...
Thorium sounds good, but I'm a little skeptical.
I don't think ELON is a total Uber genius, but the guy is pretty smart, and definitely has connections, so why isn't he or Gates (whose building conventional I think) not getting things ramped up Thorium?
The Gates info is from a interview from 2017, he talks about one of his companies building a rector in China. I guess I am assuming it's conventional, but I would have thought if it wasn't he would have said so during the interview.
Just based on the supposed ability of a Thorium reactor being able to "burn"/ or dispose of the radioactive waste the older conventional reactors produce, we have enough of that, to make a solution valuable even if it isn't scalable for power production, or has any other issues
It wasn't the Thorium process ability to "burn" high pressure water reactor waste (heavy or otherwise), it is the fact that Thorium is a relatively abundant element on Earth and the chemistry allows it to combine with Fluorine to make a salt that would be liquid with a low vapor pressure at operating temperatures that caught my interest. This would allow the radioactive part to be at room pressure, eliminating the high temperature, high pressure failure mode of water-cooled reactors. The containment vessels are trying to come apart like all high-pressure bottles. Reactors more so with the combination of high temperature, Neutron bombardment, and high consequence of failure. I agree that there is a great deal of development to be done to make Thorium a commercial power generation option. But it isn't a complete unknown either, LANL had a operating Thorium salt reactor in the mid 1960s, but as it didn't synthesize useful quantities of Plutonium, the concept had no military use and was cancelled.
The "small modular reactor" architecture may be useful, time will tell. The SMR concepts have ranged from water cooled, gas cooled (Brayton cycle), metal cooled, both fast and moderated Neutron along with and molten salt concepts. IMHO the molten salt and gas cooled Brayton cycle system make the most sense. At least the gas cooled reactors operate at pressures much lower than the water cooled systems and the mass of coolant and the energy of coolant release is much lower than the water cooled systems.
@@jedswift Understood, what I am saying is the guy was talking about venture capital money.
They look for "WHEN" am I going to get ROI!
As far as I know, this is the ONLY solution to the piles of waste we have already accumulated.
Thorium based power is one of many power sources, no matter the facts, some will still prefer Solar and Windmills, because it's easier for them to understand them.
Just sayin', when you have the "market" cornered, *you have the only solution* for a problem, it's easier to attract capital.
Nothing could be more obvious, simple, and elegant as embracing hydrogen as our primary fuel source.
Informative video. I'm confident that if we keep on digging in that direction, we'll get something out of it. Progress are made everyday and with the current greenhouse disaster, we should leave no stone unturned...
You didn't explore growing Bio-hydrogen through the harvesting of hyrogen from microalgae. Growing algae and then harvesting hydrogen, a by product of photosynthesis may prove to be the most economical and environmentally friendly hydrogen production method of all particularly as they also consume vast amounts of carbon dioxide as well. A double benefit.
Yes someone should be talking about this but the greedy petroleum lobby won’t let it go easily
Awesome video! Thank you for pulling this information together! Although your round trip efficiency number for hydrogen(40%) is generous. For actual real world applications it can vary between 10% to 40%.
It is better 40% H2 energy efficiency than another world pollution with lithium excavation, not to mention recycling the batteries, another pandora box of plastic plague.
@@batanena what? Are you trying to say that O&G is less toxic/polluting than EVs/batteries over their lifecycle? That's not true. Just Google it. You're right that batteries need to be recycled and that's where Redwood Materials and others will play a significant role. Can the same be said for grey H2 (SMR), which is nearly the only form produced today? 😁
@@Wiseguy3hh Learn first what pollution it takes to excavate Lithium. Recycling battery is not even regulated, and big corporations, including Tesla, will try everything to stay away from responsibility in taking ownership in this process. BEV just opened the doors to yet another disaster to this planet. As for for H2 production only green is considered and it is picking up in mass production.
@@batanena so are you referring to mining the lithium clay/ore and then separating it traditionally w/ acids or the modern salt process that Tesla has spoken about.. or are u referring to the drying lithium brine beds? The modern methods, which will most likely be used with future expansion, have significantly less impact but when compared to the ecological devastation that O&G has caused...is this just "what about ism"?
O&G launched humanity forward but we need to take the next steps to a renewable/clean future. Fundamentally this new clean energy will need to be stored for future use with either batteries (80-90% RTE) or with H2 (10-40% RTE). Plus... for stationary or rolling batteries, the electrical grid already exists and will only need a bit more expansion but for H2, everything has to be built from the ground up... requiring a massive new infrastructure. All of this has a toll on our environment. We need to choose wisely which path we (as a society) take.
Reformation from natural is about 80% efficient.
Great video. I think it gives a balanced view of the issues to be considered. The energy transition is a great challenge - we consume a lot of energy in the world and cleaning it up needs us to get to understand and appropriately use all good options.
You don't understand the politics. Nuclear is a wonderful, cheap, safe energy source. Read up on thorium power plants.
Anyone who disagrees hasn't looked into it. It is not used much in the world is because those at the top of the power ...
to c o n t r o l us, do ...
NOT want the ...
human population to thrive.
Hydrogen is perfect for industries that need a fuel with high energy density like aviation and the steel industry. For other things we should use batteries instead.
I believe we need to find more efficient methods on producing green hydrogen & we need much more research on hydrogen to make it a reliable option for future fuel .
Reason : it's the most vast numbered chemical we have in our planet we can be efficiently use and lower the CO2 emissions .
The most green method is called Nuclear. To produce Hydrogen. Than we can use Hydrogen to make a new power plant than you got 100% efficiency.
The most efficient use of any green energy is to use it directly, then it's storage without conversion (batteries), then it's conversion (hydrogen) and then multiple conversion (NH3, CH4) then its multiple conversion of those already converted resources (eFuels). Since batteries are feasible for individual mobility there is no reason to incur the losses of any conversion step. Hydrogen has it's areas where it is irreplacable, like steel, cement and fertiliser production.
@@jasonlewis460: That is entirely false. Nuclear power isn't green at all and it's so much more expensive than solar energy, it's not really an option.
@@jeschinstad Totally, the economics of nuclear versus renewables is undeniable.
Nice video. We need to keep investing in a range of energy systems - improving hydrogen production and storage, and battery technology (as well as wind, solar and tidal power). Perhaps you could do another video on the infrastructure required for a hydrogen-based economy?
Battery technology will never be a solution for storing the wind power from a stormy week and then releasing it during calm weather - energy densities are just too low per kilo of raw materials needed to make them. Also most battery technologies can only be fully charged and discharged / recharged a few hundred times. You could find yourself replacing your giant battery stack every 3-5 years (from memory). Turning the energy into a physical material that you can store and move around - even sell to less windy/darker countries is just too much like the LNG everyone wants to buy today - but without the carbon. I think the case for liquid hydrogen being the best prospect for the environment until fusion becomes practical is pretty solid.
@@michaeldavison9808 And hopefully with way better conversionrates. You can also use hydro as batteries and pump the water back up and save the energy as potential energy. There are many ways to store energy without using batteries.
Let us not overlook where the automobiles of the 50s and 60s were on emissions. We have come a long way on improving the exhaust on modern cars. Natural gas would lower ICE emissions more.
Wind power has its effects on the environment, they don’t last long and its composition is hazardous, they kill many species of birds too.
Former USAF flight surgeon here. Hydrogen has a low volumetric energy content so you must store it under very high pressure in order to extend the range of an airplane to commercially-viable distances. As noted, hydrogen is a very small molecule that readily escapes containment unless very expensive alloys and manufacturing techniques are employed. Significantly reduced atmospheric pressure at altitude means that such hydrogen fuel tanks will be subject to significant high intensity expansion-contraction metal fatigue. Non-metallic connectors and valve components are at even greater risk of failure. Catastrophic failure is almost guaranteed over usual useful lives of airframes. The excessive fuel tank weight decreases thrust-to-weight ratios. Frequent x-ray or other structural integrity testing increases costs and ground time. Frequent fuel tank replacements increase costs and reduce sortie rates and aircraft readiness. A small number of short-haul test flights is inadequate to proper safety testing. Ships, maybe; for airplanes, we really need much more realistic life-cycle data.
Congratulations on providing a well-balanced video on the subject. I view blue hydrogen very sceptically indeed, I sincerely hope it doesn't even get a toe-hold, There's not even any certainty that the captured CO2 will REMAIN in the ground ! With ships, I think the long term future may be small nuclear plants actually, likely on the thorium fuel cycle. Hydrogen seems to meet intermediate scale applications well though. Even trains perhaps where electrifying a rail line isn't economical.
While I know submarines are not the type of vessel you were thinking of when you talked about "ships", the US Navy has Trident submarines that are run with nuclear energy, so it can be done.
Very informative. Yet I want to remind that wind and solar are not zero-impact. All the production processes, material extraction and transportation are highly polluting processes. Moreover those infrastructures have a design life. This type of comprehensive calculations on the complete ecological impact are often kept out of the renewable energy discussion, which is a pity.
Yes, it is a pity. But it doesn't change the picture, renewables are *a lot cleaner* (and cheaper, and safer) than fossil fuels.
Great video - obviously there are many challenges, but from an application perspective alone, especially when you think about research for one it's most common applications - i.e cars - it's low energy density is a problem.