Do you think hydrogen still has a future? Use code UNDECIDED50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month of orders at bit.ly/3R5fOSk! If you liked this, check out China’s MASSIVE Desert Project Is About To Change The World th-cam.com/video/MX_PeNzz-Lw/w-d-xo.html
We used light into a FINELY tuned venturi and created electron showers and sterile Muons...I have the videos on my channel. I would like to engage Matt? "The Material Evidence of the Theory that Changed Everything" as you will see we should be able to get free energy right now.
I remain suspicious of Hydrogen proposals, on the simple rationale that there is a list of direct competitors for H2 that are more technically appropriate, more economical, and more green. Biofuels from waste biomass lead the list of things easier to turn into fuels that work with current equipment. Urea is far better than H2, for storage and transportation and energy density, and costs less per unit of energy in theory. The Rube Goldberg schemes to make H2 a usable good? Sure, throw enough resources at it, and you can obscure H2's faults. And there are appropriate niche uses for H2. But to power the world the way some sell it? No. That's not the future.
we will still be using fossil fuels in 50 years. Even in the first world will be mostly switched over, the third world will not. Plus, we need stuff from oil, not just gas. We just have to figure out how to process oil and gas cleanly to get the helium and hexane/butane/etc. we need. Thats the best we can hope for. But maybe by 50 years the oil and gas we burn will be burnt cleanly
The production side is eventually solvable. An entire video should be done on hydrogen storage, because it interacts with everything. IMHO, this is the real blocker.
The problem is more that it's so small it infiltrates through basically every barrier in gaseous form. For example, steel containers absorb hydrogen and become brittle.
Nah, H2 storage is solved. The production side is the issue, the video didn't say how much energy is still net loss on electrolysis (and transformed into heat) the efficiency rating he is giving in the video is bogus and not net total - and how this net efficiency compares to lithium batteries.
I have to admit I found it a bit ironic that you quoted "I'm not dead" from The Holy Grail to make a point about not counting out hydrogen just yet, but in that scene the old man shouting dies immediately after. 😂
Hydrogen seems to be struggling with the same issues it did 20 years ago. End-to-end efficiency is poor, and storage is difficult. There are advancements, sure, but not the way solar/wind/batteries have. We're already past the point where we'll see hydrogen in cars. Batteries have won that. Will we see it in larger applications where batteries aren't good enough, like large trucks or construction equipment? The trouble is that batteries keep getting better, too. Take the 5-8%/year improvement we've been seeing in battery tech and run it forward another 10-15 years, and you have something good enough to cover most of the uses above. Will hydrogen be able to solve its problems and become established in those niches before then? Maybe, but given that it's still struggling with problems we've known about for a while, I have my doubts.
For example CATL the biggest battery manufacturer has launched 500 Wh/kg condensed battery. Aluminum ion batteries are developing in a fast pace too. Which has a theoretical energy density of 900 Wh/kg. And already showed 370 Wh/kg. So I don't think on shore freight transportation would ever need hydrogen.We can use electric freight trains for long transportation and electric trucks for the last mile delivery. Even if we use hydrogen for shipping it's better to use it in the form of liquid ammonia.
I agree. The only hope hydrogen has is if someone invents a way for it to be used in a loop over and over. Like how animals convert carbon and oxygen into CO2 and then plants basically undo the process via photosynthesis. It would have to be self sustaining.
Unless we come up with some new miraculous ground breaking battery improvement, you can’t just claim that we will see a steady yearly improvement for the next 10-15 years…. That’s not this works. Thats not how any of this works. There’s only so much you can do to a battery.
Yeah hydrogens ship has sailed. Batteries for EVs are good enough with adjustment for most drivers since most don't drive more than 40 miles. Charging stations is a problem. With electricity. Which is already there. Hydrogens infrastructure is null. To me hydrogen sucks simply due to volumetric density. It is crap. It is dangerous to store. It likes to corrode and leak. It needs less in the air to blow up too I recently learned while learning about rockets lol. (Unless I am wrong on that part. Something about air fuel ratio). It is expensive. Hydrogen is great for space. Under water submarines. An option for industries or niche uses. I heard fossil fuel companies are funding the reseach for hydrogen, and trying to extend the need for them by switching everyone to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a non-starter for personal vehicles. But I think hydrogen has big potential for very long-term seasonal grid-scale energy storage. I'm talking storing energy from the spring/summer when solar output is huge for use in the fall/winter when solar output is low. This would of course help solve the renewables intermittency in the annual (seasonal) time frames. Hydrogen storage is a problem. But with just a few very large-scale concentrated hydrogen depots for energy output, the project could be financially feasible. I'm talking hydrogen power plants the size of a large nuclear power plant with several farm sized silos of stored hydrogen in some kind of advanced storage medium or just brute force pressure. Once practical seasonal energy storge is available, there becomes _zero excuses_ for fossil fuels or nuclear energy as we've reached "firm renewables" territory. With firm renewables, we're basically "mining" the sky for clean energy instead of the ground for dirty fossil fuel energy. The sky and wind have about a million times more energy than ever in the ground and will last for a billion years too.
I’m in Australia, lately all I have heard is how large companies are stepping back from their hydrogen plans, origin energy was just the latest. The Australian government has held many press conferences spruiking how green hydrogen is the future only to have most projects scaled back or cancelled altogether. It’s just doesn’t stack up.
It takes a lot of energy to compress the fuel. Unless they can figure out how to use the energy without compressing it, it will never be as efficient as simply putting the electricity into a battery, at a very minor loss, then taking that battery power and putting it to a motor, thus to the tires. There's also the problem of making the fuel! Everyone's focus on making the fuel, but the simple act of storing it in a distributable way makes it terrible! There's also the problem with the connector occasionally freezing to the vehicle! Now you have to wait for it to thaw, which could take close to a half hour, on top of the wonderful 5-minute filling process. The best part is, if you're a little bit short on electricity to drive an EV, you can easily stop and add enough energy to get to your destination, but since you don't know if the connector will freeze to the car, you can't quickly stop for fuel in the middle of an important run. Oh, I tried to overlook the fact that you're putting a bomb in your car! If you get an accident where you ignite that hydrogen, there is a crater where you used to be, plus the other car, plus the people that used to be inside that vehicle The cars have been converted into mobile bombs! So the first time you get somebody cutting you off in a hydrogen vehicle, you can turn around and accuse them for attempted murder, and have enough evidence behind you to convict them! If they cut you off, in a near miss scenario, you can easily claim that they try to cause an explosion which would kill you! Intended or unintended, it would still be attempted murder!
To say that H2 has 8mj/liter of energy density in the same sentence as gasoline 32 MJ/l is very misleading. That 8mj is for liquid H2. Compare them at room temp/1 atm and the 4x difference will become something like 4 order of magnitude difference. And that 8mj/l for the liquid doesn't also account for the volume of the container, which consumes far more volume than a simple polyethylene plastic jug you store gas in.
I was involved in a hydrogen project in Scotland, where it was used to power trains. It got really scary when the model involved storing hydrogen in tanks in populated areas.
Awesome timing. In Europe, most plans to make and distribute hydrogen as a fuel source have been completely scrapped just now, because it simply wouldn't work.
As a chemist I believe we should keep h2 for the industry, where it’s used as a reactant. The demand there is huge, incredibly huge. Think about steel, pharmaceutical and all chemical processes where a reduction reaction is needed. That would really be a change. Turning h2 back into energy is a big waste imho
The problem with hydrogen isn't the efficiency of a single point in the hydrogen network/system, it's the accumulative losses that add up from the start to the vehicle wheels or burner in the home heating system. The 95% electrolyser efficiency is one point and the losses are carried through to the end use along with all the other losses, one of them you mentioned and that is the compressor losses to compress the gas for storage.
I thought burning Hydrogen still gave Oxides of Nitrogen. Yes fuels cells are good but still need batteries to even the load, and require filter maintenance for clean air intake. Lots of sites that need Hydrogen make it on site.
Hydrogen is 10 years away since 70's - looks like nothing has changed - I've seen so many promising projects but none came to commercial scale production. We need 95%+ electrolysers and 95%+ storage for hydrogen to compete will year over year better, safer and more dense chemical batteries.
95% efficiency for water-electrolysis is a VERY big claim. almost, too good to be true. Id like to see an actual breakdown of their methods to achieve that result.
Efficiency of what? The input is electricity but what's the output? Are they assuming that anything that is NOT heat is on the plus side of the efficiency equation? If so, this is entirely bogus.
@@mb-3faze I assume it is based on the energy to break water molecules, it's what makes sense. so if it takes a bit more than 200KJ to break one mole of water, 95% efficiency would means they spend 210KJ instead.
I thought the same thing when I read that LFP batteries are 98% efficient. So I bought some and tested them myself. Imagine my surprise when I was able to get closer to 99% efficient with calibrated test equipment.
Trouble is, what good are little bubbles of hydrogen? The next step is to compress the gas and that alone is very energy intensive. If you have to then liquefy it to cryogenic hydrogen, well, even worse. I'm not saying the 95% isn't impressive and useful if it can be achieved... I'm just saying for that hydrogen to be useful you still have to expend a bunch more energy before you have anything useful.
Storing hydrogen is like storing electricity. We can do it, but the true step forward is in efficient high density storage. Until then, we keep hoping for breakthroughs.
Hydrogen has a bright future. Just not as energy storage, propellant or similar. It’s needed in so many industries like steel production, to get them CO2 neutral. Having an effective way to get it by hydrolysis is awesome, to get away from fossil fuels for hydrogen production
It's pretty widely accepted now that hydrogen use cases will be pretty much limited to industrial process where we need the gas. Making ammonia for example. Pretty much all other use cases have already been ruled out. There could be some usage in storage....but even there it's likely to fall by the way side compared to other options. It's good to explore cleaner ways to generate hydrogen.....but it does "fuel" those who still believe or have a vested interest in hydrogen for transportation.
One way to consider hydrogen is at ever stage it requires energy to be spent, whether in generating, storing, processing, handling and transporting. This energy spend is always higher than that of using electrons more directly, such as in battery storage systems. Even with the innovations mentioned in the video, such as the hysata electrolyser, there are additional system costs for filtering/purifying water and storing the hydrogen. Investment companies have to consider maturity curves of a technology, which is why battery storage attracts more investment than hydrogen currently. Even in areas where hydrogen should have an advantage there are competing technologies that have a lead on it. Such as witth hybrid-flow batteries, such as StorTera's SLIQ battery, that offer similar site expandability and long term storage to hydrogen but are already deployed in multiple real-world assessment sites. Hydrogen is simply a challanging technology that faces multiple challanges to address in parallel, whilst facing the challangers in faster maturing battery technologies of all forms.
In the last 30 days there have been multiple major green hydrogen products canceled (Repsol, Hy Stor Energy, Energint, Nel, etc.) and multiple new studies indicating green hydrogen is a pipe dream (Harvard, Joule, etc.). I usually count on you for a more balanced report. Why did you not include that in your update?
When getting old there is a lot of negative things to deal with. There is one positive thing though, too. You have heard it all before. I learned about our hydrogen future together with nuclear fusion being just around the corner about 55 years ago, I think. What increasingly bugs me is that all "sustainable" energy efforts need to be substituted all the way along. When planning for building my own house I looked into it, researched a lot and spoke with people who had done sustainable solutions before. My impression is that nobody would do anything if he couldn't pocket financial incentives from governments and companies. The tax payer is paying for it all in the end and if you wanted to run an whole economy on it, there wouldn't be enough money around to pay for it all upfront. That is not to mention that all this needs to be re-build and recycled regularly and there are just no sustainable solution to this problem either.
"Always on the horizon, never quite taking off." That covers every topic on this channel. I'm way past caring about vaporware in this market. Talking about it is not much better.
Yeah no. The only future I see for green hydrogen is to replace what hydrogen is already being used for. So essentially just chemical production. It will be needed for ammonia and fertilizer production and a few other things but that's it. Pure hydrogen as a fuel source or to store energy is stupid. It would be better to store it in something like ammonia and then use an ammonia fuel cell to produce electricity or power very heavy vehicles like cargo ships, planes, and ultralarge pieces if mining and construction equipment.
Lack of demand seems to be the dead end. Historically, when there's very high demand for something, people from all over find ways to capitalize on it. That when you see breakthroughs to make it cheap and abundant.
@0:30 I hear "solid hydrogen storage systems" and the word that crashes through my mind, straight out of the 1980s, is "zeolite." Will I be right? Let's watch. [edit] Well, the word was never said.
In The Netherlands we had a test with central heating on hydrogen. It is a Total failure. The idea was to switch from natural gas to hydrogen. They can not make it work. A real shame, it would have changed a lot.
The Oracle has tolden me that hydrogen as a fuel source will be feasible as a (fill in the blank here, because the Oracle used some big word I had never heard and I was still stunned the Oracle was speaking to me) source carrier in fusion reactions. Which will be actualized in three months.
All you need to know about the possibility of hydrogen fuel being practical or efficient is to look at the mole weight on the periodic table. then look at the mole weight of the materials needed to store it. The physics say… hydrogen promoters are con artists.
Toyota has joined up with Kenworth to make the T680 hydrogen fuel cell electric truck. So far the drivers have really liked it as it's comfortable and quiet.
Keep in mind that a fuel cell truck is still an electric truck meaning yeah, the torque available from electric motors, the wide rpm range, etc., all make for a much improved driving experience. But that's comparing electric trucks to diesel trucks. The interesting competition on the horizon is electric+hydrogen vs electric+battery... I know which one I'm rooting for, but I think honestly we don't know which one will prevail. ( Or whether it will be a combination of both ).
@@paulcantrell01451 - fuel-cell vehicles often need a companion battery to delivery initial and peak energy demands as the fuel-cells have to operate within a defined generating window to maintain efficiency.
I think with our current material sciences, hydrogen is still a bit on the unrealistic side for large scale, although ultimately I do think it will replace our current carbon based globalized system. While I don't foresee it being used in houses as it IS incredibly explosive, I could absolutely see it being used for large industries like blast furnaces. I could also see fuel cells being used for transportation for goods in the form of swapable cells used in trucks - although ideally we'd have significantly fewer trucks and transport a lot more of our goods around on trains (at least in North America that is, I know most other places already do this.) and possibly giant cells used for shipping containers that could maybe be hotswapped at ports for much faster refueling.
Hydrogen embrittlement! Hydrogen embrittlement! Hydrogen embrittlement! Hydrogen embrittlement! Hydrogen embrittlement! Until you and all other TH-camrs, and industry, address this critical SAFETY issue, you are are blowing smoke.
Hydrogen has no place as a transportation fuel, its volumetric inefficiency and cost of distribution are insurmountable. That doesn't mean that there is no place for green hydrogen. There is a huge market for hydrogen for fertilizer and industrial processes. Green hydrogen only has to be cost competitive with dirty hydrogen, that's a lot easier than being cost competitive with gasoline or batteries.
The main problem with Hydrogen is that it will always be less efficient than electricity, since you need electricity to generate it. Also if it releases water into the atmosphere that is also a greenhouse gas, since water in the atmosphere has the same issues that gasses like CO2 also has when it comes to trapping IR radiation in the atmosphere. There are places where Hydrogen will likely be better, such as shipping, and air craft, provided that battery tech doesn't leap forward to the point where hydrogen isn't preferred, but for cars, and trucks, I just do not see Hydrogen being superior, or even competitive.
More efficient and greener hydrogen generation is nice but the major issue if it is ever going to do anything for transportation is storage, especially at the point-of-use. Even solid storage doesn't really fix that: it replaces simple heavy high-pressure tanks with a still bulky and heavy box filled with fancy storage media that needs to be heated to release its hydrogen. For commercial and industrial applications, cryogenic storage may be more practical, albeit at the expense of expending even more energy condensing the hydrogen. At that point, electrolyzer efficiency becomes the least of your worries.
Our world is a complicated and intricate system of checks and balances, pro's and con's. We can and must explore all options and see where each lead goes.
If it can be powered by renewable sources than I do think it has at least a niche use case. Since it would be stored as a liquid or solid, it would have some value as an option for clean off-grid power sources that don't rely on either fossil fuels, wind, or solar. They outperform lithium batteries and to refuel the device you won't have to wait for it to recharge. It would definitely have its use cases. It could, at least in theory, replace gasoline if the means to sustainably produce it at large scale becomes feasible and comparable (or cheaper than) gasoline and diesel. It seems at least on track to becoming an option comparable to or generally superior to batteries in some cases, but batteries seem to be maintaining its lead for the time being, what with recent solid fuel batteries appearing to be viable (and likely to improve to the point that they are both better, longer lasting, and cheaper than traditional lithium batteries). I have my doubts that it'll ever outpace batteries in EVs at least.
Here in sweden it popping up projects everywhere making synthetic methanol for shipping and ammonia for fertelizers among other e-fuels. Also green steel projects using hydrogen. I think this will be the main use of hydrogen instead as a fuel or storage as itself.
I have been seeing a few Toyota Mirai cars around Pasadena, California for 6-7 years. Uber Eats described the delivery person as driving a Mirai at least once in the last few days. We have several hydrogen fueling stations within 10 miles/16 km. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are going to impose a zero-emission regulation in the next few years, which includes hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles. This is more to control the air pollution in the ports and surrounding cities as those trucks carry cargo towards its destinations. The development of green hydrogen generation capacity is important, and California is going to invest a lot in the technology.
1. Generation. Getting better, but as far as I know, water oxidation anodes are still either platinum or require large overpotential, killing either cost (and scalability) or efficiency. 2. Storage. Barely addressed. Still a huge problem at scale. 3. Transportation. Not addressed. Still a huge problem at scale. 4. Fuel cells. Not addressed. Similar to generation, I believe we still need platinum electrodes to have decent efficiency. Hydrogen economies are worth continued R&D, but we're still very far from any meaningful contribution to w carbon-neutral or carbon-free energy economy.
A hydrogen producing well would use all of it on site in grid-scale fuel cell stacks, reducing any storage and transportation infrastructure, and rely on the electricity grid to transmit the energy that was produced. This is a way that I can see hydrogen energy being useful and sustainable, and live up to its promises.
increasing the efficiency to 95% kinda does make it more promising for energy storage, but only if we find ways to mitigate the compression and leakage loses. until then sodium batteries are still the best bet for grid storage. but maybe it could make hydrogen more competitive for large heavier vehicles that need a lot of range where batteries start becoming less worth it because of weight.
Fortescue is really comitted to that green hydrogen power plant. They reached me out to rent my entire property of 500 acres in Piaui/Brazil all to install solar panels and wind turbines to power their green hydrogen plant that is being built in Ceará/Brazil.
Pebble bed nuclear reactors operate at temperatures high enough to disassociate water at much higher efficiencies than electrolysis and can operate continuously, providing a reliable gas production. The reactors operate at low pressures, not needing the complex cooling needed by conventional high pressure systems.
I think red hydrogen is the way to go specifically using the helium cooled reactors that they are using in Japan paired with the safer fuels for the reactor that makes a meltdown not possible due to coolant failure like other designs have had issues with, safe power and hydrogen production in one product
I have given up on channels like this. For 30 years I have studied these advances and have seen few reach the market or improve the lives of humans . Makes you wonder what happens to all this tech. Since the tv show”Beyond Tomorrow “ in the late 80s we have seen endless innovations that again are no where to be seen. We are still burning fossil fuel and likely will well in to the 2050s so I am done on innovation. None of this stuff has value unless it can touch the lives of the average person.
Hydrogen is not a fuel, it's an energy storage medium, like a battery. It's not good at energy storage. It's never going to be a mainstream fuel outside of niche applications.
One day in the future we will have a Shrubbery that produces hydrogen ... jokes aside I still feel strong about hydrogens future ty for the update Matt ..Enjoyed watching
It would be good for you to do a video on companies using Hydrogen. Intelligent Energy here in the UK for example are pioneers in terms of using Hydrogen to power green tech.
Thanks as always for followup and good info. I think that Hydrogen storage and transportation is a bigger issue that needs solutions (rather than production)
I think hydrogen could be a solution for some industrial processes if it can be generated fossil-free and used locally, eliminating the transport problem and possibly negating the need for high-pressure storage. For mobile use, the storage problem undermines the efficiency of the process, and even if there was a solution the total process still would not be as efficient as storing electricity directly in batteries and using it. There is a reason hydrogen research is almost exclusively done by or sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are some results that could be promising in some applications, but due to physics, the total process will always be less efficient than green electricity and batteries. It will only be economically valuable if the drawbacks of the battery system are negated in such a way that the reduced efficiency will not matter.
The closest alternative is methane, since it's a pretty stable gas with more Hydrogen than carbon so it burns more cleanly, and can be stored nicely. And it seems to work nicely as a rocket fuel (them Raptor engines on the starship and big chonky booster).
Generating Hydrogen by windmill or solar only makes sense as a “battery” to store excess capacity. Using the electricity itself is far, far more efficient because the electrical grid is far more efficient than moving Hydrogen around..which isn’t talk much about here.
I thought about Green H2 from wind farms in 1981 at Humboldt State Uni. Hydrogen for Big Transport : Ships, trains, Class 8 Trucks, Jets , Batteries take up too much space, weight, charge times, metal amounts at scale, recycling etc........end of line : long time coming, we really need reciprocal trade economic system this monopoly game economy is the real problem.
There is a graphine plant being put in the old west virgina st marys coal plant. Breaking coal into graphine produces hydrogen as a by product. They are looking to use that hydrogen to generate electricity and distribute as fuel.
I wish people would stop trying to hype boost Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a money pit. It's not as much of a pit as nuclear fusion reactors, but it's still a money pit.
IMHO, hydrogen is a better long term solution than electricity because it doesn't rely on batteries until somebody makes a battery that's cheap, portable, lasts for a long time, is green, and preferably doesn't rely on rare minerals. Now if we can produce unattended hydrogen farms (e.g. wind or tides) that store hydrogen locally... {sigh}
People are afraid of nuclear because of the dramatization of meltdowns and nuclear waste. I just don't think you'll convince most people that their not in the Hindenburg if you put them in a hydrogen car.
@@deathroll69 I think nuclear is suppressed mainly due to anti nuclear proliferation issues. The government finds and supports the drama to keep their porliferation issues suppressed.
Nuclear's main hurdle is cost and long construction timescales before becoming operational. In the time it's takes for the Hinkley C plant in the UK to be operational the Hornsea offshore wind farm has been planned, phases built and started generation with all four phases being fully operational well before the Hinkley site generates one electron; with Hornsea generating 2.5 times the energy at 1/3 of the capital cost and at much cheaper ongoing operational cost.
Hydrogen and fusion. Two pipe dreams? Storing, moving, and using hydrogen will continue to be huge roadblocks. Those tiny hydrogen atoms gradually permeate their containment vessels. You can’t just pour it into a plastic jug like gasoline. There is no infrastructure to pipe hydrogen anywhere it’s needed so it will have to be transported by TRUCKS. Having to compress hydrogen because of its low volumetric energy density makes its use more complicated, especially for vehicles…unless you fly blimps…just ask those Hindenburg people.
Even if Hydrogen could be produced at cost parity with charging a battery, it would still fail to catch on. The storage, transport, and inefficiency of Fuel Cells dooms it, without considering the inconvenience and complication of the vehicle.
Meh. This video doesn't really answer any question I have about how hydrogen might be usable in the future - the closest it comes is when it compares the energy density to gasoline, but that's not the comparison you need to be making. Batteries are. Before everything else, you needed to show what the use case of this fuel even is, because cars is never going to be it. What niche does any of these breakthroughs help hydrogen fit into? Up until now, the other elephant in the room is that hydrogen is not a way to generate energy, it's a way to deploy it, and that deployment has to be really worth it because of the inefficiencies of production and compression. That solar plant you bring up might, MIGHT change that - does it produce more energy in hydrogen than a solar-electric plant would in electricity? That's an important question, one that could actually change the outlook of the fuel, but you don't broach or answer it. Disappointing.
Maybe I missed it, but it's kinda scary how you completely glossed over the safety issue. Isn't Hydrogen REALLY dangerous? Like explosion type dangerous. I don't want planes that fly on a fuel that can literally just explode for some unknown reason. Or maybe they are known and being tackled which is what I was hoping you'd dive into more.
An explosion requires oxygen, pure hydrogen can't explode on its own. Petrol, diesel, coal, flour, natural gas, jet fuel, rocket fuel or hydrogen will all explode if given the right oxygen mix.
@@LazyLifeIFreak What is the 'right mix'? From what I've seen, Hydrogen is magnitudes more volatile than petrol or jet fuel. To the point that so many precautions are needed to store it correctly to avoid leaks that could lead to actual explosions.
I believe that hydrogen has too much competition from batteries in most sectors, but there's definitely some areas where it beats batteries, mostly as a plane fuel and in the production of steel I would expect
Even in aviation batteries have got there first; commercial short haul battery planes are already available whilst hydrogen remains at the R&D trial stage. Perhaps in long haul hydrogen might have a shot (combustion rather than fuel cell, as planned by aeromakers) but even there battery holds out potential in the guise of high energy density metal-air forms (offering similar energy densities to jet fuels).
And even with that "production problems" step taken. It istill has to take a far bigger step. . . . .using Hydrogen on a economical base in a normal car. Making it cheaper, lighter, less dangerous and more usable, than storing that energy directly into a battery.
Why is hydrogen from coal not clean if the CO2 is stored? It seems like you might investigate alternatives in coal, oil, and gas that ARE clean. Do you possibly have a slight unreasonable prejudice here. No?
![[UNCUT] บอสพอล แผลงฤทธิ์ บอสพระ-นักร้อง ก. โดนแฉยับ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 21 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XKf6HeftoPI/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think hydrogen still has a future? Use code UNDECIDED50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month of orders at bit.ly/3R5fOSk!
If you liked this, check out China’s MASSIVE Desert Project Is About To Change The World th-cam.com/video/MX_PeNzz-Lw/w-d-xo.html
We used light into a FINELY tuned venturi and created electron showers and sterile Muons...I have the videos on my channel. I would like to engage Matt? "The Material Evidence of the Theory that Changed Everything" as you will see we should be able to get free energy right now.
No.
I remain suspicious of Hydrogen proposals, on the simple rationale that there is a list of direct competitors for H2 that are more technically appropriate, more economical, and more green. Biofuels from waste biomass lead the list of things easier to turn into fuels that work with current equipment. Urea is far better than H2, for storage and transportation and energy density, and costs less per unit of energy in theory. The Rube Goldberg schemes to make H2 a usable good? Sure, throw enough resources at it, and you can obscure H2's faults. And there are appropriate niche uses for H2. But to power the world the way some sell it? No. That's not the future.
we will still be using fossil fuels in 50 years. Even in the first world will be mostly switched over, the third world will not. Plus, we need stuff from oil, not just gas. We just have to figure out how to process oil and gas cleanly to get the helium and hexane/butane/etc. we need. Thats the best we can hope for. But maybe by 50 years the oil and gas we burn will be burnt cleanly
Hydrogen will never work because there's not a green way to get it.
The production side is eventually solvable. An entire video should be done on hydrogen storage, because it interacts with everything. IMHO, this is the real blocker.
@@greendale634 you can't win when you're against physics
The problem is more that it's so small it infiltrates through basically every barrier in gaseous form. For example, steel containers absorb hydrogen and become brittle.
Nah, H2 storage is solved. The production side is the issue, the video didn't say how much energy is still net loss on electrolysis (and transformed into heat) the efficiency rating he is giving in the video is bogus and not net total - and how this net efficiency compares to lithium batteries.
I have to admit I found it a bit ironic that you quoted "I'm not dead" from The Holy Grail to make a point about not counting out hydrogen just yet, but in that scene the old man shouting dies immediately after. 😂
Hydrogen seems to be struggling with the same issues it did 20 years ago. End-to-end efficiency is poor, and storage is difficult. There are advancements, sure, but not the way solar/wind/batteries have.
We're already past the point where we'll see hydrogen in cars. Batteries have won that. Will we see it in larger applications where batteries aren't good enough, like large trucks or construction equipment?
The trouble is that batteries keep getting better, too. Take the 5-8%/year improvement we've been seeing in battery tech and run it forward another 10-15 years, and you have something good enough to cover most of the uses above. Will hydrogen be able to solve its problems and become established in those niches before then? Maybe, but given that it's still struggling with problems we've known about for a while, I have my doubts.
For example CATL the biggest battery manufacturer has launched 500 Wh/kg condensed battery. Aluminum ion batteries are developing in a fast pace too. Which has a theoretical energy density of 900 Wh/kg. And already showed 370 Wh/kg.
So I don't think on shore freight transportation would ever need hydrogen.We can use electric freight trains for long transportation and electric trucks for the last mile delivery.
Even if we use hydrogen for shipping it's better to use it in the form of liquid ammonia.
I agree. The only hope hydrogen has is if someone invents a way for it to be used in a loop over and over. Like how animals convert carbon and oxygen into CO2 and then plants basically undo the process via photosynthesis. It would have to be self sustaining.
@@JSM-bb80u- Indeed, Metal-Air batteries have even higher maximum energy density with Lithium-Air near that of petroleum at 11 kWh/kg.
Unless we come up with some new miraculous ground breaking battery improvement, you can’t just claim that we will see a steady yearly improvement for the next 10-15 years…. That’s not this works. Thats not how any of this works. There’s only so much you can do to a battery.
Yeah hydrogens ship has sailed. Batteries for EVs are good enough with adjustment for most drivers since most don't drive more than 40 miles.
Charging stations is a problem. With electricity. Which is already there. Hydrogens infrastructure is null.
To me hydrogen sucks simply due to volumetric density. It is crap. It is dangerous to store. It likes to corrode and leak. It needs less in the air to blow up too I recently learned while learning about rockets lol. (Unless I am wrong on that part. Something about air fuel ratio).
It is expensive.
Hydrogen is great for space. Under water submarines. An option for industries or niche uses.
I heard fossil fuel companies are funding the reseach for hydrogen, and trying to extend the need for them by switching everyone to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a non-starter for personal vehicles. But I think hydrogen has big potential for very long-term seasonal grid-scale energy storage. I'm talking storing energy from the spring/summer when solar output is huge for use in the fall/winter when solar output is low. This would of course help solve the renewables intermittency in the annual (seasonal) time frames.
Hydrogen storage is a problem. But with just a few very large-scale concentrated hydrogen depots for energy output, the project could be financially feasible. I'm talking hydrogen power plants the size of a large nuclear power plant with several farm sized silos of stored hydrogen in some kind of advanced storage medium or just brute force pressure.
Once practical seasonal energy storge is available, there becomes _zero excuses_ for fossil fuels or nuclear energy as we've reached "firm renewables" territory. With firm renewables, we're basically "mining" the sky for clean energy instead of the ground for dirty fossil fuel energy. The sky and wind have about a million times more energy than ever in the ground and will last for a billion years too.
".... spark a hydrogen boom?".... Loved it!
If he could find a way to harness the power of puns, Matt could easily power his house.
I’m in Australia, lately all I have heard is how large companies are stepping back from their hydrogen plans, origin energy was just the latest. The Australian government has held many press conferences spruiking how green hydrogen is the future only to have most projects scaled back or cancelled altogether. It’s just doesn’t stack up.
It takes a lot of energy to compress the fuel. Unless they can figure out how to use the energy without compressing it, it will never be as efficient as simply putting the electricity into a battery, at a very minor loss, then taking that battery power and putting it to a motor, thus to the tires. There's also the problem of making the fuel!
Everyone's focus on making the fuel, but the simple act of storing it in a distributable way makes it terrible!
There's also the problem with the connector occasionally freezing to the vehicle! Now you have to wait for it to thaw, which could take close to a half hour, on top of the wonderful 5-minute filling process. The best part is, if you're a little bit short on electricity to drive an EV, you can easily stop and add enough energy to get to your destination, but since you don't know if the connector will freeze to the car, you can't quickly stop for fuel in the middle of an important run.
Oh, I tried to overlook the fact that you're putting a bomb in your car! If you get an accident where you ignite that hydrogen, there is a crater where you used to be, plus the other car, plus the people that used to be inside that vehicle The cars have been converted into mobile bombs! So the first time you get somebody cutting you off in a hydrogen vehicle, you can turn around and accuse them for attempted murder, and have enough evidence behind you to convict them! If they cut you off, in a near miss scenario, you can easily claim that they try to cause an explosion which would kill you! Intended or unintended, it would still be attempted murder!
To say that H2 has 8mj/liter of energy density in the same sentence as gasoline 32 MJ/l is very misleading. That 8mj is for liquid H2. Compare them at room temp/1 atm and the 4x difference will become something like 4 order of magnitude difference. And that 8mj/l for the liquid doesn't also account for the volume of the container, which consumes far more volume than a simple polyethylene plastic jug you store gas in.
I was involved in a hydrogen project in Scotland, where it was used to power trains. It got really scary when the model involved storing hydrogen in tanks in populated areas.
Awesome timing.
In Europe, most plans to make and distribute hydrogen as a fuel source have been completely scrapped just now, because it simply wouldn't work.
As a chemist I believe we should keep h2 for the industry, where it’s used as a reactant.
The demand there is huge, incredibly huge. Think about steel, pharmaceutical and all chemical processes where a reduction reaction is needed.
That would really be a change.
Turning h2 back into energy is a big waste imho
We shouldn't let scammers who promise they can keep wasting energy in private jets against the laws of thermodynamics
The problem with hydrogen isn't the efficiency of a single point in the hydrogen network/system, it's the accumulative losses that add up from the start to the vehicle wheels or burner in the home heating system.
The 95% electrolyser efficiency is one point and the losses are carried through to the end use along with all the other losses, one of them you mentioned and that is the compressor losses to compress the gas for storage.
I thought burning Hydrogen still gave Oxides of Nitrogen.
Yes fuels cells are good but still need batteries to even the load, and require filter maintenance for clean air intake.
Lots of sites that need Hydrogen make it on site.
Hydrogen is 10 years away since 70's - looks like nothing has changed - I've seen so many promising projects but none came to commercial scale production. We need 95%+ electrolysers and 95%+ storage for hydrogen to compete will year over year better, safer and more dense chemical batteries.
95% efficiency for water-electrolysis is a VERY big claim. almost, too good to be true.
Id like to see an actual breakdown of their methods to achieve that result.
Efficiency of what? The input is electricity but what's the output? Are they assuming that anything that is NOT heat is on the plus side of the efficiency equation? If so, this is entirely bogus.
@@mb-3faze I assume it is based on the energy to break water molecules, it's what makes sense. so if it takes a bit more than 200KJ to break one mole of water, 95% efficiency would means they spend 210KJ instead.
I thought the same thing when I read that LFP batteries are 98% efficient. So I bought some and tested them myself. Imagine my surprise when I was able to get closer to 99% efficient with calibrated test equipment.
Trouble is, what good are little bubbles of hydrogen? The next step is to compress the gas and that alone is very energy intensive. If you have to then liquefy it to cryogenic hydrogen, well, even worse.
I'm not saying the 95% isn't impressive and useful if it can be achieved... I'm just saying for that hydrogen to be useful you still have to expend a bunch more energy before you have anything useful.
Storing hydrogen is like storing electricity. We can do it, but the true step forward is in efficient high density storage. Until then, we keep hoping for breakthroughs.
Hydrogen has a bright future. Just not as energy storage, propellant or similar. It’s needed in so many industries like steel production, to get them CO2 neutral. Having an effective way to get it by hydrolysis is awesome, to get away from fossil fuels for hydrogen production
It's pretty widely accepted now that hydrogen use cases will be pretty much limited to industrial process where we need the gas. Making ammonia for example. Pretty much all other use cases have already been ruled out. There could be some usage in storage....but even there it's likely to fall by the way side compared to other options. It's good to explore cleaner ways to generate hydrogen.....but it does "fuel" those who still believe or have a vested interest in hydrogen for transportation.
One way to consider hydrogen is at ever stage it requires energy to be spent, whether in generating, storing, processing, handling and transporting. This energy spend is always higher than that of using electrons more directly, such as in battery storage systems.
Even with the innovations mentioned in the video, such as the hysata electrolyser, there are additional system costs for filtering/purifying water and storing the hydrogen.
Investment companies have to consider maturity curves of a technology, which is why battery storage attracts more investment than hydrogen currently.
Even in areas where hydrogen should have an advantage there are competing technologies that have a lead on it. Such as witth hybrid-flow batteries, such as StorTera's SLIQ battery, that offer similar site expandability and long term storage to hydrogen but are already deployed in multiple real-world assessment sites.
Hydrogen is simply a challanging technology that faces multiple challanges to address in parallel, whilst facing the challangers in faster maturing battery technologies of all forms.
Hydrogen as energy source is dead, long live hydrogen as chemical reactant.
In the last 30 days there have been multiple major green hydrogen products canceled (Repsol, Hy Stor Energy, Energint, Nel, etc.) and multiple new studies indicating green hydrogen is a pipe dream (Harvard, Joule, etc.). I usually count on you for a more balanced report. Why did you not include that in your update?
When getting old there is a lot of negative things to deal with. There is one positive thing though, too. You have heard it all before. I learned about our hydrogen future together with nuclear fusion being just around the corner about 55 years ago, I think. What increasingly bugs me is that all "sustainable" energy efforts need to be substituted all the way along. When planning for building my own house I looked into it, researched a lot and spoke with people who had done sustainable solutions before. My impression is that nobody would do anything if he couldn't pocket financial incentives from governments and companies. The tax payer is paying for it all in the end and if you wanted to run an whole economy on it, there wouldn't be enough money around to pay for it all upfront. That is not to mention that all this needs to be re-build and recycled regularly and there are just no sustainable solution to this problem either.
If you ever see an article or video whose title is a question, then the answer is No. Because if it was Yes, it would be worded as a statement.
No. Logistically nightmare.
And thank you for your work. I watch every single episode.
Simplest hydrogen storage is the diesel fuel actually
"Always on the horizon, never quite taking off." That covers every topic on this channel. I'm way past caring about vaporware in this market. Talking about it is not much better.
Yeah no. The only future I see for green hydrogen is to replace what hydrogen is already being used for. So essentially just chemical production. It will be needed for ammonia and fertilizer production and a few other things but that's it. Pure hydrogen as a fuel source or to store energy is stupid. It would be better to store it in something like ammonia and then use an ammonia fuel cell to produce electricity or power very heavy vehicles like cargo ships, planes, and ultralarge pieces if mining and construction equipment.
Lack of demand seems to be the dead end. Historically, when there's very high demand for something, people from all over find ways to capitalize on it. That when you see breakthroughs to make it cheap and abundant.
@0:30 I hear "solid hydrogen storage systems" and the word that crashes through my mind, straight out of the 1980s, is "zeolite." Will I be right? Let's watch.
[edit] Well, the word was never said.
Green hydrogen will be great for certain chemical processes. Not for energy storage.
In The Netherlands we had a test with central heating on hydrogen. It is a Total failure. The idea was to switch from natural gas to hydrogen. They can not make it work. A real shame, it would have changed a lot.
Hydrogen burns dirty in a nitrogen-rich atmosphere (ie air). It should have obvious that it wasn't suitable for homes.
Having worked with Hydrogen gas; material science are not up to snuff and people are generally not safe enough to be around the gas. IMHO
The Oracle has tolden me that hydrogen as a fuel source will be feasible as a (fill in the blank here, because the Oracle used some big word I had never heard and I was still stunned the Oracle was speaking to me) source carrier in fusion reactions. Which will be actualized in three months.
Hydrogen is definitely in the “always “right around the corner”” club… we’ll see what happens eventually but I’m not holding my breath
Not holding my breath. These companies are always going to make it sound like they are close to a breakthrough to get more funding.
All you need to know about the possibility of hydrogen fuel being practical or efficient is to look at the mole weight on the periodic table. then look at the mole weight of the materials needed to store it. The physics say… hydrogen promoters are con artists.
Toyota has joined up with Kenworth to make the T680 hydrogen fuel cell electric truck. So far the drivers have really liked it as it's comfortable and quiet.
This is hydrogen’s future for transportation
Keep in mind that a fuel cell truck is still an electric truck meaning yeah, the torque available from electric motors, the wide rpm range, etc., all make for a much improved driving experience. But that's comparing electric trucks to diesel trucks. The interesting competition on the horizon is electric+hydrogen vs electric+battery... I know which one I'm rooting for, but I think honestly we don't know which one will prevail. ( Or whether it will be a combination of both ).
@@paulcantrell01451 - fuel-cell vehicles often need a companion battery to delivery initial and peak energy demands as the fuel-cells have to operate within a defined generating window to maintain efficiency.
It might work. But is it cost effective against free sun, cheap panels and batteries?
I think with our current material sciences, hydrogen is still a bit on the unrealistic side for large scale, although ultimately I do think it will replace our current carbon based globalized system. While I don't foresee it being used in houses as it IS incredibly explosive, I could absolutely see it being used for large industries like blast furnaces. I could also see fuel cells being used for transportation for goods in the form of swapable cells used in trucks - although ideally we'd have significantly fewer trucks and transport a lot more of our goods around on trains (at least in North America that is, I know most other places already do this.) and possibly giant cells used for shipping containers that could maybe be hotswapped at ports for much faster refueling.
What else is around the corner:
AI
Solid state batteries
Dark Matter
Your mom
Seems like a complex refueling infrastructure is needed for hydrogen cars to be viable...
Two words: Hydrogen embrittlement.
I gave up on hydrogen back at the end of the 20th century.
Hydrogen embrittlement!
Hydrogen embrittlement!
Hydrogen embrittlement!
Hydrogen embrittlement!
Hydrogen embrittlement!
Until you and all other TH-camrs, and industry, address this critical SAFETY issue, you are are blowing smoke.
Thank you for milti audio availability
Hydrogen has no place as a transportation fuel, its volumetric inefficiency and cost of distribution are insurmountable. That doesn't mean that there is no place for green hydrogen. There is a huge market for hydrogen for fertilizer and industrial processes. Green hydrogen only has to be cost competitive with dirty hydrogen, that's a lot easier than being cost competitive with gasoline or batteries.
Thank you for using proper physical units!
Helicopters. Are. Flying. Cars.
As a viable fuel source, in 20 years hydrogen will be 20 years away, from being only 20 years away from never happening.
It will not!
The main problem with Hydrogen is that it will always be less efficient than electricity, since you need electricity to generate it.
Also if it releases water into the atmosphere that is also a greenhouse gas, since water in the atmosphere has the same issues that gasses like CO2 also has when it comes to trapping IR radiation in the atmosphere.
There are places where Hydrogen will likely be better, such as shipping, and air craft, provided that battery tech doesn't leap forward to the point where hydrogen isn't preferred, but for cars, and trucks, I just do not see Hydrogen being superior, or even competitive.
More efficient and greener hydrogen generation is nice but the major issue if it is ever going to do anything for transportation is storage, especially at the point-of-use. Even solid storage doesn't really fix that: it replaces simple heavy high-pressure tanks with a still bulky and heavy box filled with fancy storage media that needs to be heated to release its hydrogen.
For commercial and industrial applications, cryogenic storage may be more practical, albeit at the expense of expending even more energy condensing the hydrogen. At that point, electrolyzer efficiency becomes the least of your worries.
Our world is a complicated and intricate system of checks and balances, pro's and con's. We can and must explore all options and see where each lead goes.
0:39 " ...spark a hydrogen boom 💥" 😂
If it can be powered by renewable sources than I do think it has at least a niche use case. Since it would be stored as a liquid or solid, it would have some value as an option for clean off-grid power sources that don't rely on either fossil fuels, wind, or solar. They outperform lithium batteries and to refuel the device you won't have to wait for it to recharge. It would definitely have its use cases. It could, at least in theory, replace gasoline if the means to sustainably produce it at large scale becomes feasible and comparable (or cheaper than) gasoline and diesel.
It seems at least on track to becoming an option comparable to or generally superior to batteries in some cases, but batteries seem to be maintaining its lead for the time being, what with recent solid fuel batteries appearing to be viable (and likely to improve to the point that they are both better, longer lasting, and cheaper than traditional lithium batteries). I have my doubts that it'll ever outpace batteries in EVs at least.
Here in sweden it popping up projects everywhere making synthetic methanol for shipping and ammonia for fertelizers among other e-fuels. Also green steel projects using hydrogen. I think this will be the main use of hydrogen instead as a fuel or storage as itself.
10kw for 96 hours is almost 1 MWh of stored energy... I would love to have something like this for my home, to get through the winter...
Hydrogen and clean water generation is a great use for extra power, unfortunately we don't have enough power for what we already have yet.
I have been seeing a few Toyota Mirai cars around Pasadena, California for 6-7 years. Uber Eats described the delivery person as driving a Mirai at least once in the last few days. We have several hydrogen fueling stations within 10 miles/16 km. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are going to impose a zero-emission regulation in the next few years, which includes hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles. This is more to control the air pollution in the ports and surrounding cities as those trucks carry cargo towards its destinations. The development of green hydrogen generation capacity is important, and California is going to invest a lot in the technology.
1. Generation. Getting better, but as far as I know, water oxidation anodes are still either platinum or require large overpotential, killing either cost (and scalability) or efficiency.
2. Storage. Barely addressed. Still a huge problem at scale.
3. Transportation. Not addressed. Still a huge problem at scale.
4. Fuel cells. Not addressed. Similar to generation, I believe we still need platinum electrodes to have decent efficiency.
Hydrogen economies are worth continued R&D, but we're still very far from any meaningful contribution to w carbon-neutral or carbon-free energy economy.
A hydrogen producing well would use all of it on site in grid-scale fuel cell stacks, reducing any storage and transportation infrastructure, and rely on the electricity grid to transmit the energy that was produced. This is a way that I can see hydrogen energy being useful and sustainable, and live up to its promises.
This is not the first time we have extracted sulfur from hydrogen sulfide. Maybe it's the first time we have saved the hydrogen.
increasing the efficiency to 95% kinda does make it more promising for energy storage, but only if we find ways to mitigate the compression and leakage loses. until then sodium batteries are still the best bet for grid storage. but maybe it could make hydrogen more competitive for large heavier vehicles that need a lot of range where batteries start becoming less worth it because of weight.
8:15 Woo, hold their feet to the fire (briefly)
Fortescue is really comitted to that green hydrogen power plant. They reached me out to rent my entire property of 500 acres in Piaui/Brazil all to install solar panels and wind turbines to power their green hydrogen plant that is being built in Ceará/Brazil.
We never say boom in the hydro chemical business.
Thanks Matt.
Making Hydrogen takes too much energy. The loss in that process makes it too expensive
Pebble bed nuclear reactors operate at temperatures high enough to disassociate water at much higher efficiencies than electrolysis and can operate continuously, providing a reliable gas production. The reactors operate at low pressures, not needing the complex cooling needed by conventional high pressure systems.
😂 we use electricity to make hydrogen to make electricity🤔🙄
I think red hydrogen is the way to go specifically using the helium cooled reactors that they are using in Japan paired with the safer fuels for the reactor that makes a meltdown not possible due to coolant failure like other designs have had issues with, safe power and hydrogen production in one product
I have given up on channels like this. For 30 years I have studied these advances and have seen few reach the market or improve the lives of humans . Makes you wonder what happens to all this tech. Since the tv show”Beyond Tomorrow “ in the late 80s we have seen endless innovations that again are no where to be seen. We are still burning fossil fuel and likely will well in to the 2050s so I am done on innovation. None of this stuff has value unless it can touch the lives of the average person.
Hydrogen is not a fuel, it's an energy storage medium, like a battery. It's not good at energy storage. It's never going to be a mainstream fuel outside of niche applications.
One day in the future we will have a Shrubbery that produces hydrogen ... jokes aside I still feel strong about hydrogens future ty for the update Matt ..Enjoyed watching
It would be good for you to do a video on companies using Hydrogen. Intelligent Energy here in the UK for example are pioneers in terms of using Hydrogen to power green tech.
Thanks as always for followup and good info. I think that Hydrogen storage and transportation is a bigger issue that needs solutions (rather than production)
I think hydrogen could be a solution for some industrial processes if it can be generated fossil-free and used locally, eliminating the transport problem and possibly negating the need for high-pressure storage. For mobile use, the storage problem undermines the efficiency of the process, and even if there was a solution the total process still would not be as efficient as storing electricity directly in batteries and using it. There is a reason hydrogen research is almost exclusively done by or sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are some results that could be promising in some applications, but due to physics, the total process will always be less efficient than green electricity and batteries. It will only be economically valuable if the drawbacks of the battery system are negated in such a way that the reduced efficiency will not matter.
The closest alternative is methane, since it's a pretty stable gas with more Hydrogen than carbon so it burns more cleanly, and can be stored nicely. And it seems to work nicely as a rocket fuel (them Raptor engines on the starship and big chonky booster).
Generating Hydrogen by windmill or solar only makes sense as a “battery” to store excess capacity. Using the electricity itself is far, far more efficient because the electrical grid is far more efficient than moving Hydrogen around..which isn’t talk much about here.
I thought about Green H2 from wind farms in 1981 at Humboldt State Uni. Hydrogen for Big Transport : Ships, trains, Class 8 Trucks, Jets , Batteries take up too much space, weight, charge times, metal amounts at scale, recycling etc........end of line : long time coming, we really need reciprocal trade economic system this monopoly game economy is the real problem.
Produce hydrogen when there is excess solar electric power, then use it during peak demand. Like any other storable energy source.
There is a graphine plant being put in the old west virgina st marys coal plant. Breaking coal into graphine produces hydrogen as a by product.
They are looking to use that hydrogen to generate electricity and distribute as fuel.
So, hydrogen could be a “storage battery” for green energy?
I wish people would stop trying to hype boost Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a money pit. It's not as much of a pit as nuclear fusion reactors, but it's still a money pit.
Sounds just like people talking about solar 15-20 years ago.
The future is renewables with battery storage. Renewables have a huge advantage in the fuel being free.
IMHO, hydrogen is a better long term solution than electricity because it doesn't rely on batteries until somebody makes a battery that's cheap, portable, lasts for a long time, is green, and preferably doesn't rely on rare minerals. Now if we can produce unattended hydrogen farms (e.g. wind or tides) that store hydrogen locally... {sigh}
People are afraid of nuclear because of the dramatization of meltdowns and nuclear waste. I just don't think you'll convince most people that their not in the Hindenburg if you put them in a hydrogen car.
@@deathroll69 I think nuclear is suppressed mainly due to anti nuclear proliferation issues. The government finds and supports the drama to keep their porliferation issues suppressed.
Nuclear's main hurdle is cost and long construction timescales before becoming operational. In the time it's takes for the Hinkley C plant in the UK to be operational the Hornsea offshore wind farm has been planned, phases built and started generation with all four phases being fully operational well before the Hinkley site generates one electron; with Hornsea generating 2.5 times the energy at 1/3 of the capital cost and at much cheaper ongoing operational cost.
Hydrogen and fusion. Two pipe dreams? Storing, moving, and using hydrogen will continue to be huge roadblocks. Those tiny hydrogen atoms gradually permeate their containment vessels. You can’t just pour it into a plastic jug like gasoline. There is no infrastructure to pipe hydrogen anywhere it’s needed so it will have to be transported by TRUCKS. Having to compress hydrogen because of its low volumetric energy density makes its use more complicated, especially for vehicles…unless you fly blimps…just ask those Hindenburg people.
I think you underestimated the world production of 180 kt. As per avlb information the production lvl is at c.a 2 GW which corresponds to 350 kt p.a
Even if Hydrogen could be produced at cost parity with charging a battery, it would still fail to catch on. The storage, transport, and inefficiency of Fuel Cells dooms it, without considering the inconvenience and complication of the vehicle.
Meh. This video doesn't really answer any question I have about how hydrogen might be usable in the future - the closest it comes is when it compares the energy density to gasoline, but that's not the comparison you need to be making. Batteries are. Before everything else, you needed to show what the use case of this fuel even is, because cars is never going to be it. What niche does any of these breakthroughs help hydrogen fit into?
Up until now, the other elephant in the room is that hydrogen is not a way to generate energy, it's a way to deploy it, and that deployment has to be really worth it because of the inefficiencies of production and compression. That solar plant you bring up might, MIGHT change that - does it produce more energy in hydrogen than a solar-electric plant would in electricity? That's an important question, one that could actually change the outlook of the fuel, but you don't broach or answer it.
Disappointing.
Maybe I missed it, but it's kinda scary how you completely glossed over the safety issue. Isn't Hydrogen REALLY dangerous? Like explosion type dangerous. I don't want planes that fly on a fuel that can literally just explode for some unknown reason. Or maybe they are known and being tackled which is what I was hoping you'd dive into more.
It's no more dangerous than other fuels
@@makegrowlabrepeat That's not at all true!
An explosion requires oxygen, pure hydrogen can't explode on its own. Petrol, diesel, coal, flour, natural gas, jet fuel, rocket fuel or hydrogen will all explode if given the right oxygen mix.
@@LazyLifeIFreak What is the 'right mix'? From what I've seen, Hydrogen is magnitudes more volatile than petrol or jet fuel. To the point that so many precautions are needed to store it correctly to avoid leaks that could lead to actual explosions.
@@vl3005 Find out what a fuel-air-bomb is and you will get to know what the 'right mix' truly is.
Hydrogen steel production to replace coal is a good place to start. I don't see it becoming sustainable for transportation though.
Great video...👍
I believe that hydrogen has too much competition from batteries in most sectors, but there's definitely some areas where it beats batteries, mostly as a plane fuel and in the production of steel I would expect
Even in aviation batteries have got there first; commercial short haul battery planes are already available whilst hydrogen remains at the R&D trial stage. Perhaps in long haul hydrogen might have a shot (combustion rather than fuel cell, as planned by aeromakers) but even there battery holds out potential in the guise of high energy density metal-air forms (offering similar energy densities to jet fuels).
And even with that "production problems" step taken. It istill has to take a far bigger step. . . . .using Hydrogen on a economical base in a normal car.
Making it cheaper, lighter, less dangerous and more usable, than storing that energy directly into a battery.
Just a little faster and you could call out for auctions.
Why is hydrogen from coal not clean if the CO2 is stored? It seems like you might investigate alternatives in coal, oil, and gas that ARE clean. Do you possibly have a slight unreasonable prejudice here. No?