The lack of hydrogen fueling infrastructure is an issue that may be difficult to overcome without a lot of time but other hydrogen based technologies are available for use in other fields. This video showcased hydrogen based metal processing, if more hydrogen based machining processes like that could be implemented it could help to massively reduce our carbon emissions. Especially considering how many greenhouse emissions many industrial manufacturing processes create.
how is building hydrogen fueling infrastructure harder than stripping every lithium available on earth for EVs, while still not having enough for the demand
Definitely this is the future, (green hydrogen derived ) liquid methanol fuel to fuel methanol fuel cell (and then electric motor without battery with way longer range and "rechargable" by refueling liquid methanol in just a minute just like any diesel engine. This is the future, better than "normal hydrogen" because methanol is a liquid fuel directly and easy derived from green hydrogen and way better usable than hydrogen because no need compression pressure storage and or ultra low temperature needed. Methanol liquid room temperature fuel is just a drop replacements in any gas station with little modification and same happens even with combustion engine but obviously fuel cell Ev gives more efficiency .
@@jitendrabalsaraf257All of the water is turned into hydrogen and oxygen, which then ends up reacting whether via combustion or something else back into water, but producing energy.
The key is electricity cost. If it cannot be reduced to below US 20 cents per kWh, price of green hydrogen cannot be sold at US1 per Kg, thus cannot be used economically to replace NG as 1 Mmbtu = 8Kg of hydrogen, so for US1 per kg will cost US8 per mmbtu, comparable to NG.
Why do you think H2 should be trying to compete with CH4? What uses of CH4 are you thinking of? Apart from things such as steel fertiliser and chemicals which need hydrogen, the only other things hydrogen should be used for are power for things that move that need too much energy or too much uptime for batteries to do the job. Anything that doesn't move, such as heating, should be powered from the grid. It's always going to take more electricity to make and deliver hydrogen than it would do to just use electricity to do the job in the first place.
5$ per kilogram. Dude, you did it pretty well ! 1 KG of hydrogen can power a car for 100 Km. Usually a car consumes 8 liters of gasoline on highway for 100 Kms. But the gas for 100 km will cost 16-17$ ! Not 5$. You are already a winner.
Read the TH-cam videos about "Deuterium". It's in the Philippine Deep (Philippine Trench), at the depth of 10 kilometers or less under the sea. There we will find "Deuterium" deposits that can supply the whole world. Question is, is there a technology these days that can harvest it under the sea at that depth?
1kg of hydrogen. If we are to consider two fuels, we should measure them in the same way. As in one liter OR kg. Not both. One liter of hydrogen and one liter of gasoline have an incredible difference in density. To contain hydrogen in liquid form is near impossible unless you cool it to a ridiculously low temperature. To contain one kg of hydrogen requires a very sturdy gas tank with advanced seals and perfect welds. Storing hydrogen at the gas station requires them to liquefy the hydrogen. Also expensive. And extremely inefficient.
@@joachimsingh2929 1l of petrol ~ 1kg of petrol. In transport, weight is the problem, more specifically, fuel to load weight ratio. Just look at trucks and how little space fuel takes. If it triples, it wouldn't matter much, but several hundred kilos of fuel matter when you have a light load. Same with cars, motorcycles, there is enough space for more fuel, but you don't want to carry additional 100kg with you.
For steelmaking, it would be much more efficient and more cost effective to use renewable electricity directly, instead of having the efficiency loss of making hydrogen first. Electric arc furnaces have long been used to make specialty steels, and with a direct electrolytic process it should be possible to convert iron oxide ores into pure iron for steelmaking.
There will be the same problem if solar and wind are the generators for your industrial processes: intermittency/reliability. It would be a shame for the foundry to shut down because of a cloudy week...or winter. Nuclear would be a much better fit, especially considering the enormous heat of the reactor can be harnessed through cogeneration, which for steelmaking is also very important.
Because of a lack or reliability (if it's cloudy or not windy etc. pp. they would have to stop doing what they're doing), the best would be a hybrid approach. Use whatever comes from the renewable generators directly when needed (if possible), use the overhead for hydrogen production. And when there is not enough electricity coming directly from the generators, start using the hydrogen to create the necessary energy. We don't really have to limit ourself to just one solution. Using hybrid ones is usually the best approach.
@@mementomori5580 Except renewable Sucks, they produce fickle amounts of power, are unreliable, and inefficient. A single nuclear reactor could outdo several cities worth of Solar Panels at their peak efficiency.
Its also Interesting to mention additional elements that hydrogen can be converted to for transportation and usage (shipping fuels, fertiliser etc) such as green ammonia which Norwegian fertiliser company Yara is developing. On paper it Provides an interesting answer to some of the issues of transportation such as the low temperature required for storage and the specialised steels needed for equipment.
This has been a steady drumbeat from business types for 20 plus years...reminds me of their dedication to diesel-hybrid cars. Speaking as a mechanical engineer, they have no idea.
@@visco4916 EVs. Battery materials can be recycled, energy can come from renewables, and the electrical network is basically ready installed in garages. Yes they still have limits and EVs will not stop climate change but look how far the technology has already come in only 10 years.
@@andyjohnson3790 I think it's pretty silly for the US to invest in hydrogen. But for the EU, and their historical cheap gas that they used to have, the lack of materials for production of batteries, EVs etc, they have a real reason to invest in hydrogen.
@@andyjohnson3790 that would not be sustainable though since recycling used batteries are very inefficient and costly, mining new raw materials would be cheaper and the industry would most likely go for that instead. It wouldn't be long before we have also exhausted the available materials for batteries like we did for fossil fuels. hydrogen is cheap light abundant and environmentally friendly if created correctly, and it would be a great way to store and transport energy
@@PROLEO4011 🤣 haha what. Since when is throwing away resources and mining for new amounts ever considered sustainable? Either you are an AI bot or have no idea what you're talking about. And almost all the worlds hydrogen today is made from fossil fuels and not at all cheap and clean for the environment. Then again neither are mining for battery grade metals
the steel factory could easily use the turquoise hydrogen method and use the captured carbon for their steel production, reducing even more the emissions, as steel usually needs carbon for it's production as a reinforcement for the alloy, so it would be a win win
Wouldn't burning that carbon defeat the purpose of removing it from the hydrogen in the first place? The feed stock for the Turquoise Hydrogen method was still regular old natural gas. (Methane) The act of removing it and storing it prevents that CO2 from being released to the atmosphere. Burning it for steel production would negate that completely.
@@cmac3530 they're not burning carbon composites, they're only burning the hydrogen, which becomes water, and the carbon used in steel production is actually infused into the metal, that's how steel is made, it is an iron-carbon alloy IIRC which basically means the carbon gets permanently sequestered
@@cmac3530 Nah. The steel needs some carbon content to actually be steel. generating the heat to melt the metal can be provided by burning hydrogen instead.
Hydrogen green? Just the extra costs because of its nature for compressing, storing, transporting will mean it's not green at all. Water electrolysis procedures are around 80% effective (20% of electric energy lost into different forms of energy) - even if you've gone up to 99% you still woudln't solve the primary problems of hydrogen.
Not really. It can be used in conjunction with wind and solar etc because you can't store wind energy at scale. So if there's a way to convert using other forms of green energy and then you can release that energy on demand, that to me is green
@@vueport99 True, you could use any extra electricity you have from solar or wind to make hydrogen. But it's not efficient. It will not be "the future". It will always be more expensive and less efficient. A bit of a compromise for the failures of solar and wind. Wind and solar are not green btw. They use very polluting industry to make solar and wind. In the end it's all about money, not the environment. The same people being subsidized for being green, are the same people who own leaking oil pipelines. They don't really care about nature.
@@benanders4412 fair enough, at the end of the day it's all about money. And people now care so much more about alternative energy because fossil fuel is priced so high. If gas was 50c a litre we won't be here discussing this topic now
Unbound hydrogen is very problematic simply because is has propensity to leak from what ever is used to contain it. This makes bound hydrogen the ideal form, methane is a common bound form of hydrogen. We already do much with methane and even then methane leak problems are found often enough; our handling unbound hydrogen is certain to be handled in a very leaky fashion. Propane is a very big bound hydrogen molecule. Our handling propane is maybe done with the fewest leaks.
@@rustyyb8450 I would say tap it as it's being used. So you don't have to worry about containment after it's been released from the solid medium. Preferably this medium can be refilled with gassious hydrogen when it's produced
Interesting overview! For transportation of H2, liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) are very promising, since they are much easier to handle than liquid or gaseous hydrogen or ammonia.
@@jimj2683 maybe, but Liquid H2 incurs a much higer energy penalty. Liquefying Natural Gas is already energy intensive, and requires heavy insulation. Liquid hydrogen will likely be worse. LOHCs may be less energy dense but they are also much easier to transport on a large scale.
Hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. The use of Hydrogen as an element for steel making and fertilizer where Hydrogen is produced where it will be used is vital and should be converted to Green Hyrogen. Hydrogen however fails as a viable fuel for planes fails as it requires so much volume that the plane or truck or boat would have no room for cargo. How you handle the logistics of converting from natural gas pipes to Hydrogen you would need two sets of pipes for every home? The cost to modify stoves, heaters, and pipes would be exorbitant. This whole video appear to me to be another scam by the fosil fuel companies to keep burning gas.
I feel like modern startups try too hard to sound innovative and it makes them sound far riskier than what they are actually doing. "New technology" is an extremely risky way of advertising your business. Especially when you are literally just doing something a lot of people learn in highschool chemistry.
I worked on a program to develope a hydrogen boiler . Because of electricity cost we were 5 times the cost of oil.That was before the runaway power cost.
The production of hydrogen is relatively not the main issue when comparing to the cost of building up infrastructure for transportation and storing as these physical properties are dramatically different from these two types of fuels
I didn't know there were so many ways that hydrogen could be made, and how much emissions could be produced when trying to create something carbon neutral. Even though hydrogen is extremely flammable and hard to store, I believe that when more industrial manufacturers and automobile industries begin using hydrogen as a fuel source, that it will get cheaper and much more efficient to produce, instead of storing it and waiting for someone to use it.
I also wonder just based on high school chemistry that what happens to water when you remove the oxygen? Where is the hydrogen bonded in the meanwhile? If you release oxygen from the water you also release hydrogen at the same time. Something doesn't match up here. I think they dumbified their explanation down too much. edit: There are two stage systems published and they could be using something like nickel hydroxide - nickel oxide hydroxide reaction to store the atoms. Basically an alkaline solution with oxides and hydroxides and shifting those around to either be oxygen rich or hydrogen rich. That way they can have a two stage system. They take *some* of the oxygen out at every cycle of the fluids, not all of it, and keep repeating the process indefinitely.
The next thing that we need to look at as a society is the burying and transport of carbon back into the earth. The solid carbon as a byproduct of this process could be used in a "green" way somewhere, if not someone will find a way.
The trick here is that most renewable energy systems like solar and wind only provide sporadic energy, and for reasons that are complicated, electrolysis needs a steady stream of DC current to work. So you need an extra step to make it work - like a wind turbine charging a battery powering electrolysis, or something along those lines.
This is the whole point of capacitors. Capacitors are big and not useful for small scales or portable operations, but great for smoothing out conversions from AC to DC using bridge rectifiers. In a sense hydrogen becomes a great battery for non-mobile applications.
The problem is that hydrogen has a low volumetric efficiency. If your car ran on hydrogen, it'd need a fuel tank EIGHT TIMES as large as your gas tank, to give you the same driving range, and it would have to be a very heavy tank built to contain the pressure of liquid hydrogen and it must be chilled very cold to exist as a liquid. The tanks would have to withstand pressures of 5000 PSI.
@@Hector_pita That's kind of dumb. You're saying to make tanks rated for 80,000 to 160,000 PSI. There's no practical way to even generate those pressures. The tank's weight would be astronomical. And nobody would want to get near that BOMB.
The best solution is to just not use a car, hydrogen or no hydrogen. Other cities in countries that are NOT America actually have a pretty well-developed transportation system that doesn’t necessitate the use of cars and, in some cases, work _against_ the use of cars by forcing you to carpool outside their cities and take other modes of transportation instead, such as buses and trains. One train/bus produces far less emissions than the combined equivalent of hundreds of cars that would have been needed for each and every individual instead. And that goes without mentioning the possibility that the sheer size of trains themselves could possibly allow for viable storage of hydrogen as fuel for the trains. Of course, you can’t justify banning cars either, since people who live in rural areas need some form of personal long-distance transportation in order to access the more-localized trains and buses in urban areas. But at the same time, there doesn’t need to be nearly as many cars as what we currently have. All we need to do is make the alternative modes of transportation viable and accessible (and perhaps make cities a little more car-unfriendly, forcing people to carpool outside the city to take a train or a bus), and that alone would cut down on CO2 emissions in quite a drastic way, all while making cities a lot nicer looking and pedestrian-friendly, too.
@@yojojo3000 Mass transportation only works well in densely populated cities. America's population is WAY more spread out than that of the more crowded European nations. What works in New York or Miami or Los Angeles WILL NOT work in more than one percent of America by surface area. And nobody's got trillions of dollars to create a mass transit system that loses money every day because it runs nearly empty nearly all the time.,
@@Turboy65 America’s population is spread out as thin as it is because the majority of the land surrounding their cities is reserved for car parking lots instead of residential buildings and businesses. These areas are thus not only designed to be difficult (and dangerous) to travel through without a car, but they also prevent high population density from even being a possibility. Majority of these places don’t have any means of alternate transportation either, further preventing and discouraging people from living there. Solve all those issues (and others) and your population density will begin to look more like an actual city, and funding alternate transport systems won’t be so difficult. Creating a massive transit system doesn’t take a day. You have to start somewhere and slowly expand over the course of a couple years or even decades. To fund something like that and maintain it, Tire taxes, Parking taxes, etc. can help fund these things, among other things such as fundraisers (tire taxes especially, since majority of Americans own cars and need to change tires every now and then). If there isn’t enough money on hand, put the transit expansion on hold until you do. It’s really not that difficult, it’s just time-consuming.
@@jimj2683 Well hydrogen is one of the coldest things on earth, and takes super heavy tanks to carry, ammonia much lower liquefying point so easier to work with.
Cheap sustainable hydrogen will always be a myth. Hydrogen may be the most common element in the universe (in stars that have the gravitational energy to retain some of it), but it is much less common on planets like ours in atmospheres that tend to bleed hydrogen (and helium) into space due to lower gravitation. That doesn't mean that every time hydrogen is separated from oxygen it escapes our planet. When used as intended hydrogen "fuel" oxidizes to form water. But leaks happen, think about how poorly we manage methane leaks. Methane is a much easier gas to manage than H2 gas is.
Considering the various aspects of production, cost, environmental impact, and safety concerns, they are making landmark progress considering how little interest the government and investors had given the field of study up to this point. The various colors of hydrogen is an excellent way of conveying to consumers the varying environmental impact of each process without getting into the science of each. I can see turquoise hydrogen being the primary method of creation before the transition over to green hydrogen. Having driven a RAV4, I can admit that they are awfully quiet compared to their gasoline powered equivalents.
This is true. I wish electric battery production didn’t require mining so many toxic compounds and heavy metals. Especially lithium mining, the tactics of which are evaporating quite a large chunk of South America’s fresh water.
I think one major issue is that any imperfection in the vessel youre carrying it in is going to leak an insane amount due to atomic size and base form being gas.
The problem with this turquoise carbon from natural gas is that it's not renewable and closed cycle. A large scale use would open a new can of worms. In essense you are exchanging dumping CO2 by burning gas, with depleting oxygen from the atmosphere by burning hydrogen instead, creating excess water and carbon as subproducts. The excess carbon can even sequester more oxygen if not properly handled. Instead of solving our environmental problems it will generate others. The only really sustainable way for hydrogen is to split water, since it acts as a reversible cycle like a giant global battery. The other sustainable alternative would be to split CO2 back to a fuel (like ethanol) and oxygen.
Splitting hydrogen from the water is the way to go. Moving back to gas would give a higher initial efficiency in extracting it but does not play the optimum game for long-term goals
I truely believe that hydrogen is the best form of energy in this universe. I am 70 now, & have worked on engines/engineering for years. I like the idea of green hydrogen, it sounds ok like a win, win, or a no brainer to me! Personly: I think that we should not make hydrogen fuel to sell. For a number of reasons! The safe way forward, is to make this fuel, immediately before use. Any transport using hydrogen as fuel, should be fed saltwater, so that the hydrogen is made immediately before use. As thing are, the money wont come from this fuel, but from developing the electrolysis on whatever form of transport is using this abundant fuel. Thank you, wonderful project.
Hydrogen for cars has a fraction of the efficiency of electric batteries and is therefore doomed to fail (just check current global sales of EVs vs. hydrogen). Hydrogen will at best be a niche market for long-haul flights and ocean shipping.
No. While you are correct about the use for transportation, there are a lot of applications in industry(steel, aluminum, chemistry so on) We are going to need every bit we can get.
You forgot about inefficiencies of producing "green" hydrogen, not to mention compressing and transporting it. For production with electrolysis around 25% of energy goes to waste, another 25% goes to waste due to compression and transportation. If this hydrogen is used in a car with a fuel cell we lose another 25% of energy (including electric motor inefficiency). (Reminder: hydrogen cars is driven by electric motor (!), the only change is its battery, in the case of hydrogen car's, the "battery" is hydrogen tank and fuel cell that produces electricity.) Hydrogen cars use only 25% of energy! On the other hand, electric cars with lithium battery use around 75% of the energy (20% of energy is lost in electric grid, 1-5% in charging and depleting lithium battery and electric motor inefficiency.) Now tell me, how "green" hydrogen is better than simply using electricity that we produce to send over the grid to charge electric cars? I understand that for industries (like steel) you need hydrogen for something else than fuel cells, also for potential airplanes, and maybe bigger transportation vehicles for which battery would be too big and it makes sense to power them with hydrogen. But for daily driver, for going to work and back home, 50% of energy loss is simply too much.
The amount of misinformation about the hydrogen is huge. The main goal is to replace natural gas in the industry, then heavy transport and machinery, synthetic fuels for aviation, energy storage for remote areas... Hydrogen cars aren't even on the list, at least in the EU. Batteries are a better option for personal transportation.
You didn't mention the energy wasted carrying heavy batteries. EV has poor weight to power ratio. Also, energy wasted for generating electricity, energy wasted in mining and making batteries that probably don't even last 5 years. Also, time wasted on charging them, time wasted when battery is not working. Time, is worth more than anything you've mentioned. Support synthetic fuel, it is the future. That combustion engine just works everytime, without range anxiety.
@@jaaklucas1329 unquestionably true but CO2 has been in the 1200 ppm and higher. What is missing in the let's be reasonable quotient is that all the carbon that is in oil, coal and gas came from the surface of the earth according to science. So if we theoretically returned it to the surface in a metered but progressive amount the most we could get is equilibrium.Most plants don't proliferate in the desert because there is not enough water to sustain them but when there is enough CO2 they don't have to breathe so hard to to gain carbon. Breathing hard takes water. The concept is lost that all plant life has to contain water. When we walk in the woods we are just walking through containers of carbon and water. Will we ever get equilibrium? Not likely but at current levels we reaming in a state of dearth or lack compared to what would be the beneficial optimum content. Boost the plant content in the world and there would be a higher O2 content to the atmosphere. So back to your statement about science we really don't know how much but science does say if we get down to 150 then plants will start dying and it might be a point of no return. We know that we have had higher C02 counts and survived.
@@dustinpotter8312 My beef is all the noxious junk in diesel fumes mainly. Your climate folks will be arguing till the cows come home. Electrifying trucking is a natural fit for the electric drivetrain for pure torque and regen, more important than cars.
We need a team of people working together as an open source initiative to advance hydrogen technology in a grassroots way. The biggest problem in our current energy paradigm is the monopolization in centralization of power. If people can do what Stan Meyer did while working together and publicly releasing any and all research we will be much better off as a civilization
It’s great to wish that certain things can be economically employed but the apparent best has proved to be the most difficult, see hydrogen and nuclear fusion!
India's approach is to be use green hydrogen in cement, steel and other industries. For vehicles electric battery is better option and sufficient in next few years. Game changer will be small fusion reactor whenever that happens.
They need to clarify that H is not a true "energy source" as were used to thinking about. Because it requires energy to extract it, it's not a source. However it's an excellent way to *store* energy. Far better than a Li-ion battery. As far as sources go, the only true source is solar. Coal, oil, wood, wind, hydroelectric, are all indirect solar energy.
Just to clarify, converting natural gas to hydrogen and carbon, in my understanding is not sustainable, and therefore not prefferable. Natural gas is a 'mined' resource. It is like saying lithium powered electric cars are sustainable.
Yes, but technology and industry is nowhere near a state where the world can run solely on clean hydrogen and renewable energy. There will be a transition and it will take time. So unfortunately dirty sources such as natural gas will still be needed while advancement and progress are made. Might as well as try and take advantage of the carbon sequestering options while we are at this stage.
Sorry I saw this soo late but one question not covered for H2 green energy is water. One kg of H2 requires 6 kg of H20 of a defined purity. With the million of tons of H2 being projected for this technology to get below the $2/kg where in this drying world are they finding all the water without the extensive ecological damage caused by desalination and still reach the $2/kg target????
The energy cost to harvest, store and transport hydrogen make it non viable; you lose more energy then you get at the end of the process. Nuclear/fusion are the only viable fossil alternatives at the moment that don't destroy the environment.
Agreed on nuclear, only thing that could compete with coal. However hydrogen might be viable for Europe. North Africa has super cheap solar and the Europeans are building really cheap UHVDC cables. You could fathom north Africa solar power hooked up via UHVDC being used in a German industrial site for a local electrolyser. I was looking at some of new electrolysers Shell is building and the capx required isn't that bad either.
There is no proof that fusion will ever be viable as an energy source and even less chance it will be economic. Renewables and nuclear fission are our best hopes.
@@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy probably can be made economic given that it's so power dense although maybe not next to fission and coal. More of a decision whether we want the waste. This is like a discussion we would have in idk 40 years or something
@@ryccoh If you're curious then I recommend to read "ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy By Daniel Jassby". There are a bunch of problems that the supporters of fusion usually avoid talking about, for instance how to generate tritium, a fuel that does not occur naturally on Earth.
I knew that hydrogen was a possible replacement for other, more harmful forms of combustible energy like fossil fuels. However, I didn't realize there were so many different types of hydrogen. Seeing the different colors was really helpful in identifying the properties of each type of hydrogen, especially considering that turquoise hydrogen has properties of both blue and green hydrogen. The work H2Pro is doing is impressive and I hope their successes continue.
Hydrogen bonds of water are considered as strongest bonding can't be separated easily. It becomes more complicated if we have to choose oceans water. Because fresh water can't be allowed to suffer it's going to be even costieler than all energies if we don't realize. So all experimenting on distilled water not oceans water. I see differently. We need to focus on limiting ourselves in overcharging /overconsumption of resources and energies.
Nuclear fusion with battery powered vehicles is the future, hydrogen is the future oil & gas wants so they have a future business and infrastructure to control
@@ltpetsema876 i agree but its safer and easier to accept a lie like solar panels and wind turbines than to actually build nuclear fusion stations which could power the entire world
Guess which greenhouse gas they cannot model? Water vapor, especially when it turns into clouds. Explains a large part of why climate models are rubbish.
Regardless of what type it is, it's not the cost of it that is expensive part. The main cost is getting it from the source to the individual who wish's to utilize it. And then there is the addition of local, state and federal taxes appied at each and every step of the process.
The mistake is not co2 but the heat generated by combustion. Hydrogen used in the combustion process also generates heat along with consumption of oxygen
putting our time and effort in activities and investments that will yielda profitable return in the future is what we should be aiming for. success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it.
I have incurred so much losses trading on my own..I trade well on demo. But I think the real market is manipulated. Can anyone help me out or at least tell me what I'm doing wrong
Good catch! All of the other elements cited in that sequence conveniently use their first letter in the periodic table, which made this oversight all the easier to slip through. Thanks for letting us know.
Interesting idea. Though I don't think the energy required to split that "glass of water" will be much less than the energy it generates from combining H with O2.
@@zainabe9503 It never will. In a closed system, energy must be conserved. This means that without outside influence the energy cannot increase, you can never get more energy out of electrolysis og water and then burning than you put in. Think about what is actually being done. An electric charge is being applied pulling the water molecule apart. This means that the electric field has to supply the energy to break the bonds of the water molecule. Ths split molecule is then being combusted to get the original. All thag is being done is that you are breaking the bonds using an electric field and then remaking the bonds via combustion, there is no change in energy. It turns out that you will also actually create heat in the process which will leak out of the system, so in reality you won't even get no change in energy, you will actually be losing energy!
It's interesting to think of hydrogen as a viable energy source. The tone of the video made it seem as if we are close to achieving cheap and efficient hydrogen power. I am most curious to see how it will be put to practice outside of theory and research. SSAB, for example, is striving to use hydrogen as an energy source. It is naturally beneficial to the environment, but it is unsure whether it would be beneficial to the manufacturer in the long run.
@@fermentedfruit there were some videos about using graphene snippets, to enhance concrete significantly just by mixing them in. and graphene is just carbon, that would be a way i guess
@Thunder Life Studios that was a question i heard posed multiple times but just answered with not known or that it will need to be researched for every compound material they will create in the future. but the concrete should be 3 times tougher or something, so it doesnt feel significantly different in regards to recycling than other concrete i guess. Better to look for sources than for answers in my memory of the infotainment i watched xD
It's gonna take more than just imagining - Hydrogen is the fuel of future, You need a powerpacked storage facility, and most importantly creating Energy without putting much
its just an energy storage technology. Hydrogen is already our fuel of choice; it come in the form of hydrocarbons. Hydrogen bound up as a hydrocarbon is ready to be used today. Unbound hydrogen is very difficult to store as it very very easily leaks from anything not a perfect container. Did you know that unbound hydrogen passes though a few inches of concrete very easily?
Wow, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series sounds like an incredible product! It's perfect for outdoor enthusiasts like us who value reliable power on our camping trips. The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design make it a must-have for any adventurer. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like a fantastic product for outdoor enthusiasts like us. The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design make it a reliable option for camping trips. Plus, the smart app control is a great feature for monitoring energy usage. Thanks for the recommendation!
I wonder how much hydrogen can you get from a litre of water and how much energy would that be equivalent to the amount of petrol. Also would fresh water or salty water make a difference
1 liter of water = 1 kg of water. Molar mass of water = 18g, of which H2 = 2g, O = 16g. So 2/18 = 1/9 = 11%. So one liter of water gives 110g of hydrogen. Hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier with respect to weight. 1 kg of hydrogen contains 33.33 kWh of usable energy, whereas petrol and diesel only hold about 12 kWh/kg. This means that 1 liter of water holds potentially 3,66 kWh of hydrogen. It means that 1 liter of water would be roughly equivalent to 305 grams or 400 ml of gasoline (its density being around 0,75). Remember this calculations imply no losses and the energy put into the hydrolysis of water is not taken into account ofc. Cheers.
Other than cost, time to market is of utmost importance. The solution is already here, Nuclear plants. Hundreds of them to get built. NOW. That should provide us with a proven, reliable off the shelf solution, while other greener solutions become more viable.
Hydrogen might be a way of converting existing steel works to a lower carbon footprint but is there a way of using the electricity directly? perhaps some version of the direct arc resistance electric furnace?
??? I am under the impression that the hydrogen serves not only to obtain the needed high temperatures but also to reduce the iron oxide. But agreed for the melting your described solution might work.
You're thinking of hydrogen as an energy source. Imagine a machine that pumps water uphill to a big dam, and there's a hydro plant. How much electricity will that hydro plant produce? The answer is, Less energy than it takes to run the pump to get the water uphill in the first place. Hydrogen isn't an energy source. You must first insert lots of electrical energy into water to separate out the hydrogen. That's an uphill energy state, if you graph it out, just like the dam. Then you collect some energy by burning it, which turns it back into water. The amount you collect is less. There is almost no application where this makes any sense at all, and none where this makes sense from an energy production standpoint. Hydrogen is great if you need hydrogen. It's lousy if you need energy. I can think of two real-world examples where they needed lots of hydrogen - The Hindenburg and the Space Shuttle. Both blew up eventually.
Not possible because this process require A LOT of energy. The cost to install all the solar panels doesn’t justify. Cheaper to use coal and hopefully shift hydrogen soon.
I don’t like the basic concept of this process. That is, we take a valuable hydrocarbon and break it down to hydrogen and carbon, using valuable energy to do so. Then - at best - we have a kg of hydrogen that costs $1,50 whereas a kg of the hydrocarbon is cheaper, and much more energy-dense than hydrogen. I find it difficult to see either the economics or the positive environmental aspects of this process. 🤷🏼♂️
The problem is the price of hydrogen. In addition, green hydrogen should be cheap. But companies like H2pro or Hyson promise to solve this problem. They promise green hydrogen at a price of $ 1-1.5 per kilogram, gray costs $ 1-2 per kilogram. Now green hydrogen costs 4-6 dollars per kilogram.
I think it is amazing how far we've came with the technology to reduce our carbon footprint and replace the use of fossil fuels. If companies are able to get the amount of funding they need to mass produce hydrogen fuel we could really get ahead of the damage fossil fuels do to our planet. The issue mentioned in the video when it comes to producing larger amounts was cost and lack of funding. If we could get the cost down and make more at a time we could get to that $1.50/kg number even quicker in turn making positive environmental change even sooner! My hope is that more big corporations will get on board with providing funding to the companies trying to save us.
I wish I could learn about this because we need more hydrogen stations to make this happen in the US only California has hydrogen stations from what I heard
@@cow_tools_ what would they use it for? Some of the new cars they want to come out with can convert hydrogen to electrical power or something like that
@@therandomrobert1842 You don't really see the problem. First, you have to buy a new car. It's always about buying one unit of a brand new something to replace the old thing. That's the biggest problem in climate change issues. You always have to be a consumer hence polluting more. You still need to produce new chassis out of metal, the onboard electronics, the seats, various plastics are involved and all that. And said car has to entertain the illusion that eventually hundreds of millions of people will drive those in the future. Until then we are already facing bigger problems.
@@calidude1114 You know, gasoline also explodes. The Hindenburg burned because it was a massive balloon filled with a flammable gas. That was stupidity. Engineers are much more informed nowadays than in the past. Using a single example of a disaster related to something as the sole reason to not pursue that thing is childish. When something like hydrogen has potential as a high efficiency energy storage, we ought to be more thoughtful than to dismiss it due to a single disaster.
What about water requirements for electrolysis in green hydrogen production. There is already fresh water scarcity in some parts of the world for humans and livestock , for agriculture. and water for industrial processes. It may seem a trivial question, but in the near future it can cause big problems. I don't know of any effective process that can use sea water on a larger scale of green hydrogen production, is there any?
I tell you what, I have been seeing videos and r e a d articles about using hydrogen for decades, and they all come back to the same conclusion, yes, it is the most abundant element in the universe, but it takes energy to extract it from these elements! The only real interest I have in it is for a hydrogen fuel cell to Power electric vehicles, but even then, you have the problem of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place to refuel these cells! Tesla and others have already installed the electric refueling stations, so now who's going to be paying the money to do the same thing for hydrogen? Let's just stick with the Battery Technology improvements that are ongoing now, since it's for certain that lithium is too risky as far as overheating goes, however it will do until sodium ion or something else comes along to solve that problem.
My only thing is that why turn renewable electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity? Even using it as fuel (like in cars) is wierd since you cant really have liquid H2 in that kind of environment
Best way to power something without loosing much of electricity is to connect it straight to the wires, not even storing the electricity. Though, cars with over head wires is something that could be done... heck why stop there, remove the friction I.e. make it steel to steel stop low ridership I.e. extend the vehicle and put more seats There you go, you have a train.
A big problem I recently found out is that Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. The Hydrogen molecule is the smallest atom and as such, is the hardest to contain. Leaks are always going to be part of a Hydrogen system. While it doesn't directly block heat, it contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect by impeding the natural processes that remove Methane from the atmosphere. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, so Hydrogens impact is so significant that it is actually called a greenhouse gas itself.
Hydrogen has been available for many years. As much as I would love to see the world take full advantage of it as a clean fuel, I also believe there are too many in high power who would much rather sell thier oil.
Dude it's not fair, you can't just take away 3-billion-dollar oil rigs bought with blood money earned by selling coke to cops to sell to children. They worked really hard earning less than 100k a year to buy that oil rig with drug money.
But hydrogen is so small on a atomic level that it leaks through solid material. So if producing it becomes cheaper you still have the material science issue of how to store and transport it effectively and efficiently. We should focus on energy storage for renewables. Only one thing you have to engineering instead of multiple
on some of those hundreds of vidz about things like next LiPo battery etc, ammonia as a possible solution for storage and some application was suggested.
what you talking about mate, ofc its not a fuel but with the right tech you can turn its applications into fuel, thats why we need improvements not only in hydrogen but also fuel cells
@@aresshi7077 i'm not arguing against hydrogen and fuel cells, just stating facts of physics... it's not a fuel source. Nuclear energy with hydrogen for storage (for transportation) is the answer. If you're using coal to create hydrogen you're not seeing the big picture.
@@joputhiyaparambil07 yes, but the carbon has already been pulled out of the environment to create that energy... let's be real... if you believe in climate change, nuclear energy is the ONLY realistic solution.
Making solar panels, wind turbines, lithium batteries, it all sounds great until we think about the materials used to mass produce it and it also sounds great but pretty much everything has a downside to it.
Great video, but Hydrogen has no chance. EV can be powered up anywhere for vehicles in the developed world. The distribution network is everywhere in the developed world. Also, special interest is already all in on EV’s. Perhaps in planes or in the developing world.
You know that you can burn hydrogen to power EVs right? Its as flexible as fossil fuels but it dosent produce CO2... in theory its applications are as energy storage which can be manufactured instead of taken out of the earth... in fact since all you need to produce it is energy, you can just have a full renewable powergrid which produces hydrogen to be burned during downfalls, thus achieving a totally clean powergrid which can even be used in space (solar panels+water = hydrogen, which then can be used as airship fuel while producing more water) Its biggest downfall is the efficiency in the process which make it more expensive then simply drilling oil, but its still very affordable if we have cheap energy in the first place (since you are only using energy, equipment and manpower costs)
Charging EVs is still done through burning fossil fuels primarily. Defeats the purpose of going clean. Seems like you need to “develop” your brain in your developed country.
One important aspect of hydrogen fuel that was mentioned in this video was its potential environmental impact. It stated that the majority of hydrogen production today takes place on the polluting end of the spectrum. This spectrum is a spectrum of colors that go from the most environmentally friendly to the least. While most of it is produced on the polluting end of the spectrum, there are companies that are developing ways to produce it on the environmentally friendly end. The most environmentally friendly way mentioned was by separating the atoms in water by raising the temperature. The second most environmentally friendly way was by separating the carbon atoms out of natural gas. This leaves carbon in a solid state and does not release it into the atmosphere. Finding environmentally friendly ways to produce hydrogen is exceedingly important for the future of fuel and energy.
A very promising way to make clean energy was recently developed by Japanese scientists using small scale nuclear reactors that are cooled with helium instead of water, giving them the ability to run much hotter and not be constrained to rivers and lakes.
Any nuclear reactor today would do this better than renewables, perhaps hydro and geothermal aside, but I would still err on the side of nuclear. At the very least, you have cleaner, safer, more reliable and higher quality energy with a nuclear power plant.
Hello Houston, we have a tiny problem to solve, and you can twist it and turn it upside down , and deliver it in any way you like. Hydrogen is right around 6 times more expensive to produce than Solar or Wind energy, and you can present it in the most sexy way you are most capable of. Please give us a call when finally Hydrogen will come cost competitive with other plentiful energy present in nature that do not need a very costly process to produce ,store it, and possibly bypass the little detail that so far it needs to be converted in electricity in order to be efficiently used.
If H2 could be produced economically, the environmental alarmists would be against its use for energy production. because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
The difference between water vapor and CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that water vapor precipitates out of the air as rain eventually compared to CO2 which needs to be absorbed out of the air through some kind of process. It's significantly a better alternative. If water vapor emissions is truly an issue, it's not hard to just have it condensed out of the tailpipe as a liquid instead.
@@BrokenLifeCycle then all we will hear about is how more water vapor is increasing rain and flooding. Theres no winning with environmental alarmists. There will always be something pissing them off.
Very interesting approach to combating global warming! I did not know it was possible to pull a physical solid element out of a natural gas, amazing! It would be amazing to see hydrogen used as energy in place of fossil fuels in the future, especially with the expensive current cost of gas. If hydrogen energy could be any cheaper then our current gasoline, that would be great!
if its possible to split hydrogen by rising temperature, that means when we do some pressure changes, it gonna work, i want someone to do those experiments, we can use Sea water As at the button of ocean there are higher pressure than at the top, i don't know how to explain bt if someone got my idea, plz do that experiment 👍
Or if you wanna rise temperature you should go with geothermal energy Basically you dig deep in the ground till it gets hot enough You can do this best when close to volcanoes to improve heat or efficiency
Hydrogen easily combines with ozone. It is the next bane to the ozone layer. You cannot contain it to the level that protects the ozone layer. There is lots of research on this that is inconvenient to those that push this as a 'green' fuel.
Somebody set me straight. doesn't it take just as much energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as you get back when you recombine them? Then you have inherent inefficiency to cope with. So Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is only a transfer medium.
Improvement in stackcells will not bring hydrogen production cost that much. Lowering the amount of electricity to produce hydrogen will not be better than 33 KWh per kg...as 33kwh is taken as based on 100% efficiency of electrolysis
The lack of hydrogen fueling infrastructure is an issue that may be difficult to overcome without a lot of time but other hydrogen based technologies are available for use in other fields. This video showcased hydrogen based metal processing, if more hydrogen based machining processes like that could be implemented it could help to massively reduce our carbon emissions. Especially considering how many greenhouse emissions many industrial manufacturing processes create.
It's not a "lack" of something to regulate it out of being able to be used. Censorship, and a lack of something, are not the same realities.
Question if hydrogen and oxygen are separate from water💧 is that water💧 again useful for eg for drinking or for farming
how is building hydrogen fueling infrastructure harder than stripping every lithium available on earth for EVs, while still not having enough for the demand
Definitely this is the future, (green hydrogen derived ) liquid methanol fuel to fuel methanol fuel cell (and then electric motor without battery with way longer range and "rechargable" by refueling liquid methanol in just a minute just like any diesel engine. This is the future, better than "normal hydrogen" because methanol is a liquid fuel directly and easy derived from green hydrogen and way better usable than hydrogen because no need compression pressure storage and or ultra low temperature needed. Methanol liquid room temperature fuel is just a drop replacements in any gas station with little modification and same happens even with combustion engine but obviously fuel cell Ev gives more efficiency .
@@jitendrabalsaraf257All of the water is turned into hydrogen and oxygen, which then ends up reacting whether via combustion or something else back into water, but producing energy.
The key is electricity cost. If it cannot be reduced to below US 20 cents per kWh, price of green hydrogen cannot be sold at US1 per Kg, thus cannot be used economically to replace NG as 1 Mmbtu = 8Kg of hydrogen, so for US1 per kg will cost US8 per mmbtu, comparable to NG.
Why do you think H2 should be trying to compete with CH4? What uses of CH4 are you thinking of? Apart from things such as steel fertiliser and chemicals which need hydrogen, the only other things hydrogen should be used for are power for things that move that need too much energy or too much uptime for batteries to do the job. Anything that doesn't move, such as heating, should be powered from the grid. It's always going to take more electricity to make and deliver hydrogen than it would do to just use electricity to do the job in the first place.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191.
5$ per kilogram. Dude, you did it pretty well ! 1 KG of hydrogen can power a car for 100 Km. Usually a car consumes 8 liters of gasoline on highway for 100 Kms. But the gas for 100 km will cost 16-17$ ! Not 5$. You are already a winner.
A sedan, Toyota Mirai, actually only takes 0.78kg of hydrogen per 100km! And that's a decent size car.
Read the TH-cam videos about "Deuterium". It's in the Philippine Deep (Philippine Trench), at the depth of 10 kilometers or less under the sea. There we will find "Deuterium" deposits that can supply the whole world. Question is, is there a technology these days that can harvest it under the sea at that depth?
1kg of hydrogen. If we are to consider two fuels, we should measure them in the same way. As in one liter OR kg. Not both. One liter of hydrogen and one liter of gasoline have an incredible difference in density. To contain hydrogen in liquid form is near impossible unless you cool it to a ridiculously low temperature. To contain one kg of hydrogen requires a very sturdy gas tank with advanced seals and perfect welds. Storing hydrogen at the gas station requires them to liquefy the hydrogen. Also expensive. And extremely inefficient.
@@joachimsingh2929 1l of petrol ~ 1kg of petrol. In transport, weight is the problem, more specifically, fuel to load weight ratio. Just look at trucks and how little space fuel takes. If it triples, it wouldn't matter much, but several hundred kilos of fuel matter when you have a light load. Same with cars, motorcycles, there is enough space for more fuel, but you don't want to carry additional 100kg with you.
1l of petrol ~0.7kg
For steelmaking, it would be much more efficient and more cost effective to use renewable electricity directly, instead of having the efficiency loss of making hydrogen first. Electric arc furnaces have long been used to make specialty steels, and with a direct electrolytic process it should be possible to convert iron oxide ores into pure iron for steelmaking.
There will be the same problem if solar and wind are the generators for your industrial processes: intermittency/reliability. It would be a shame for the foundry to shut down because of a cloudy week...or winter. Nuclear would be a much better fit, especially considering the enormous heat of the reactor can be harnessed through cogeneration, which for steelmaking is also very important.
Because of a lack or reliability (if it's cloudy or not windy etc. pp. they would have to stop doing what they're doing), the best would be a hybrid approach.
Use whatever comes from the renewable generators directly when needed (if possible), use the overhead for hydrogen production. And when there is not enough electricity coming directly from the generators, start using the hydrogen to create the necessary energy.
We don't really have to limit ourself to just one solution. Using hybrid ones is usually the best approach.
@@mementomori5580 Except renewable Sucks, they produce fickle amounts of power, are unreliable, and inefficient. A single nuclear reactor could outdo several cities worth of Solar Panels at their peak efficiency.
Why don't you apply for a job there and suggest this if you are sure about it 😄
@@jhonedoe3734 nnbm3p appears
Its also Interesting to mention additional elements that hydrogen can be converted to for transportation and usage (shipping fuels, fertiliser etc) such as green ammonia which Norwegian fertiliser company Yara is developing.
On paper it Provides an interesting answer to some of the issues of transportation such as the low temperature required for storage and the specialised steels needed for equipment.
Very true, TES H2 is also doing the same
metal embrittlement issue of hydrogen is still unresolved, it will be a maintenance and cost nightmare
Hydrogen has great potential but not for domestic cooking or heating
@@koblongata For hydrogen line is used stainless steel AISI 321.
Green ammonia? Where you getting the nitrogen from? Pulling N2 apart is about as energy intensive as it gets.
This has been a steady drumbeat from business types for 20 plus years...reminds me of their dedication to diesel-hybrid cars. Speaking as a mechanical engineer, they have no idea.
what do you suggest ?
@@visco4916 EVs. Battery materials can be recycled, energy can come from renewables, and the electrical network is basically ready installed in garages.
Yes they still have limits and EVs will not stop climate change but look how far the technology has already come in only 10 years.
@@andyjohnson3790 I think it's pretty silly for the US to invest in hydrogen. But for the EU, and their historical cheap gas that they used to have, the lack of materials for production of batteries, EVs etc, they have a real reason to invest in hydrogen.
@@andyjohnson3790 that would not be sustainable though since recycling used batteries are very inefficient and costly, mining new raw materials would be cheaper and the industry would most likely go for that instead. It wouldn't be long before we have also exhausted the available materials for batteries like we did for fossil fuels. hydrogen is cheap light abundant and environmentally friendly if created correctly, and it would be a great way to store and transport energy
@@PROLEO4011 🤣 haha what. Since when is throwing away resources and mining for new amounts ever considered sustainable? Either you are an AI bot or have no idea what you're talking about.
And almost all the worlds hydrogen today is made from fossil fuels and not at all cheap and clean for the environment. Then again neither are mining for battery grade metals
First I've heard of turquoise hydrogen. Surly a better use of the waste carbon will be found. If graphene could be produced, that would be something.
One use will be using the carbon in the steel at a steel works.
Biochar is seeing rising use in farming, where it adsorbs fertilizer and water, and enriches the soil. For hundreds of years.
the steel factory could easily use the turquoise hydrogen method and use the captured carbon for their steel production, reducing even more the emissions, as steel usually needs carbon for it's production as a reinforcement for the alloy, so it would be a win win
Would be dumb not to use the carbon for sure.
Wouldn't burning that carbon defeat the purpose of removing it from the hydrogen in the first place? The feed stock for the Turquoise Hydrogen method was still regular old natural gas. (Methane)
The act of removing it and storing it prevents that CO2 from being released to the atmosphere. Burning it for steel production would negate that completely.
@@cmac3530 they're not burning carbon composites, they're only burning the hydrogen, which becomes water, and the carbon used in steel production is actually infused into the metal, that's how steel is made, it is an iron-carbon alloy IIRC which basically means the carbon gets permanently sequestered
@@cmac3530 Nah. The steel needs some carbon content to actually be steel. generating the heat to melt the metal can be provided by burning hydrogen instead.
@@irvingchies1626 Gotcha, I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks for clarifying
Hydrogen green? Just the extra costs because of its nature for compressing, storing, transporting will mean it's not green at all. Water electrolysis procedures are around 80% effective
(20% of electric energy lost into different forms of energy) - even if you've gone up to 99% you still woudln't solve the primary problems of hydrogen.
Not really. It can be used in conjunction with wind and solar etc because you can't store wind energy at scale. So if there's a way to convert using other forms of green energy and then you can release that energy on demand, that to me is green
@@vueport99 True, you could use any extra electricity you have from solar or wind to make hydrogen. But it's not efficient. It will not be "the future". It will always be more expensive and less efficient. A bit of a compromise for the failures of solar and wind. Wind and solar are not green btw. They use very polluting industry to make solar and wind. In the end it's all about money, not the environment. The same people being subsidized for being green, are the same people who own leaking oil pipelines. They don't really care about nature.
@@vueport99 How is this any better than a battery?
@@davidsandy5917 battery has much more limitations in terms of capacity, and higher cost. Also you can't use batteries to run a steel plant.
@@benanders4412 fair enough, at the end of the day it's all about money. And people now care so much more about alternative energy because fossil fuel is priced so high. If gas was 50c a litre we won't be here discussing this topic now
My dad works as an engineer at [unnamed steel company] and I can confirm plans for using hydrogen are already in full swing
7u7à
Have we not learned our lesson with the Hindenburg? Boom!
@@calidude1114 How about Galaxy Note 7?
@@calidude1114 Hydrogen might well be used to replace coking coal
Unbound hydrogen is very problematic simply because is has propensity to leak from what ever is used to contain it. This makes bound hydrogen the ideal form, methane is a common bound form of hydrogen. We already do much with methane and even then methane leak problems are found often enough; our handling unbound hydrogen is certain to be handled in a very leaky fashion. Propane is a very big bound hydrogen molecule. Our handling propane is maybe done with the fewest leaks.
Cept that methane is far worse in terms of greenhouse gasses... If we had a solid recyclable binder of sorts for hydrogen that would be ideal.
@@Relics_AI how you going to tap into it? That's the beginning of the leaks.
@@rustyyb8450 I would say tap it as it's being used. So you don't have to worry about containment after it's been released from the solid medium. Preferably this medium can be refilled with gassious hydrogen when it's produced
@@Relics_AI You aren't making methane to release it into the atmosphere. You are making it to burn it.
Interesting overview! For transportation of H2, liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) are very promising, since they are much easier to handle than liquid or gaseous hydrogen or ammonia.
They have a really bad energy density compared to liquid hydrogen.
@@jimj2683 maybe, but Liquid H2 incurs a much higer energy penalty. Liquefying Natural Gas is already energy intensive, and requires heavy insulation. Liquid hydrogen will likely be worse.
LOHCs may be less energy dense but they are also much easier to transport on a large scale.
And you waste 90% of the energy transporting the carrier instead of the fuel. 👏
yes they are. BoB lazar has build a nice one, it's not actually liquid it is dissolved into a heat sensitive solid. safe and stable.
Hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. The use of Hydrogen as an element for steel making and fertilizer where Hydrogen is produced where it will be used is vital and should be converted to Green Hyrogen.
Hydrogen however fails as a viable fuel for planes fails as it requires so much volume that the plane or truck or boat would have no room for cargo.
How you handle the logistics of converting from natural gas pipes to Hydrogen you would need two sets of pipes for every home?
The cost to modify stoves, heaters, and pipes would be exorbitant.
This whole video appear to me to be another scam by the fosil fuel companies to keep burning gas.
3:08 i like how they say that they are developing new technology when its just elektrolisis.
I feel like modern startups try too hard to sound innovative and it makes them sound far riskier than what they are actually doing. "New technology" is an extremely risky way of advertising your business. Especially when you are literally just doing something a lot of people learn in highschool chemistry.
Hi Stan...
I worked on a program to develope a hydrogen boiler . Because of electricity cost we were 5 times the cost of oil.That was before the runaway power cost.
How do you produce "cheap" hydrogen,?
The production of hydrogen is relatively not the main issue when comparing to the cost of building up infrastructure for transportation and storing as these physical properties are dramatically different from these two types of fuels
The production of hydrogen is a major problem as well. We have no means of doing it on anything other than a tiny scale.
I didn't know there were so many ways that hydrogen could be made, and how much emissions could be produced when trying to create something carbon neutral. Even though hydrogen is extremely flammable and hard to store, I believe that when more industrial manufacturers and automobile industries begin using hydrogen as a fuel source, that it will get cheaper and much more efficient to produce, instead of storing it and waiting for someone to use it.
nah why everyone wanna be like Stanley Meyer all of a sudden
That's because you're not a chemist or chemical engineer, so why should you know? If you wanted to know, just ask one.
4:55 he said they raise the temperature to release oxygen, and then goes on to say no power is applied. I wonder how they increase the heat
I also wonder just based on high school chemistry that what happens to water when you remove the oxygen? Where is the hydrogen bonded in the meanwhile? If you release oxygen from the water you also release hydrogen at the same time. Something doesn't match up here. I think they dumbified their explanation down too much. edit: There are two stage systems published and they could be using something like nickel hydroxide - nickel oxide hydroxide reaction to store the atoms. Basically an alkaline solution with oxides and hydroxides and shifting those around to either be oxygen rich or hydrogen rich. That way they can have a two stage system. They take *some* of the oxygen out at every cycle of the fluids, not all of it, and keep repeating the process indefinitely.
Maybe by using the 1st hydrogen green that they made
The next thing that we need to look at as a society is the burying and transport of carbon back into the earth. The solid carbon as a byproduct of this process could be used in a "green" way somewhere, if not someone will find a way.
It being a clean fuel is NOT THE PROBLEM! The amount of energy required to make it is the current issue!
The trick here is that most renewable energy systems like solar and wind only provide sporadic energy, and for reasons that are complicated, electrolysis needs a steady stream of DC current to work.
So you need an extra step to make it work - like a wind turbine charging a battery powering electrolysis, or something along those lines.
This is the whole point of capacitors. Capacitors are big and not useful for small scales or portable operations, but great for smoothing out conversions from AC to DC using bridge rectifiers. In a sense hydrogen becomes a great battery for non-mobile applications.
The problem is that hydrogen has a low volumetric efficiency. If your car ran on hydrogen, it'd need a fuel tank EIGHT TIMES as large as your gas tank, to give you the same driving range, and it would have to be a very heavy tank built to contain the pressure of liquid hydrogen and it must be chilled very cold to exist as a liquid. The tanks would have to withstand pressures of 5000 PSI.
Not really tho, you just need to make a tank 8 times more pressurized than a normal tank. And it doesnt really have to be a liquid
@@Hector_pita That's kind of dumb. You're saying to make tanks rated for 80,000 to 160,000 PSI. There's no practical way to even generate those pressures. The tank's weight would be astronomical. And nobody would want to get near that BOMB.
The best solution is to just not use a car, hydrogen or no hydrogen. Other cities in countries that are NOT America actually have a pretty well-developed transportation system that doesn’t necessitate the use of cars and, in some cases, work _against_ the use of cars by forcing you to carpool outside their cities and take other modes of transportation instead, such as buses and trains. One train/bus produces far less emissions than the combined equivalent of hundreds of cars that would have been needed for each and every individual instead.
And that goes without mentioning the possibility that the sheer size of trains themselves could possibly allow for viable storage of hydrogen as fuel for the trains.
Of course, you can’t justify banning cars either, since people who live in rural areas need some form of personal long-distance transportation in order to access the more-localized trains and buses in urban areas.
But at the same time, there doesn’t need to be nearly as many cars as what we currently have. All we need to do is make the alternative modes of transportation viable and accessible (and perhaps make cities a little more car-unfriendly, forcing people to carpool outside the city to take a train or a bus), and that alone would cut down on CO2 emissions in quite a drastic way, all while making cities a lot nicer looking and pedestrian-friendly, too.
@@yojojo3000 Mass transportation only works well in densely populated cities. America's population is WAY more spread out than that of the more crowded European nations. What works in New York or Miami or Los Angeles WILL NOT work in more than one percent of America by surface area. And nobody's got trillions of dollars to create a mass transit system that loses money every day because it runs nearly empty nearly all the time.,
@@Turboy65 America’s population is spread out as thin as it is because the majority of the land surrounding their cities is reserved for car parking lots instead of residential buildings and businesses. These areas are thus not only designed to be difficult (and dangerous) to travel through without a car, but they also prevent high population density from even being a possibility. Majority of these places don’t have any means of alternate transportation either, further preventing and discouraging people from living there. Solve all those issues (and others) and your population density will begin to look more like an actual city, and funding alternate transport systems won’t be so difficult.
Creating a massive transit system doesn’t take a day. You have to start somewhere and slowly expand over the course of a couple years or even decades. To fund something like that and maintain it, Tire taxes, Parking taxes, etc. can help fund these things, among other things such as fundraisers (tire taxes especially, since majority of Americans own cars and need to change tires every now and then). If there isn’t enough money on hand, put the transit expansion on hold until you do. It’s really not that difficult, it’s just time-consuming.
It sounds like the low density of hydrogen is the main problem, I wonder if we could make ammonia with the hydrogen and solve a lot of those problems.
Liquid hydrogen is much more energy dense if used in combination with lightweight composite tanks.
@@jimj2683 Well hydrogen is one of the coldest things on earth, and takes super heavy tanks to carry, ammonia much lower liquefying point so easier to work with.
The first 5 seconds of this video gave me goosebumps! The content is definitely well covered, but props to the video making and the editing team.
Cheap sustainable hydrogen will always be a myth. Hydrogen may be the most common element in the universe (in stars that have the gravitational energy to retain some of it), but it is much less common on planets like ours in atmospheres that tend to bleed hydrogen (and helium) into space due to lower gravitation. That doesn't mean that every time hydrogen is separated from oxygen it escapes our planet. When used as intended hydrogen "fuel" oxidizes to form water. But leaks happen, think about how poorly we manage methane leaks. Methane is a much easier gas to manage than H2 gas is.
Considering the various aspects of production, cost, environmental impact, and safety concerns, they are making landmark progress considering how little interest the government and investors had given the field of study up to this point. The various colors of hydrogen is an excellent way of conveying to consumers the varying environmental impact of each process without getting into the science of each. I can see turquoise hydrogen being the primary method of creation before the transition over to green hydrogen. Having driven a RAV4, I can admit that they are awfully quiet compared to their gasoline powered equivalents.
This is true. I wish electric battery production didn’t require mining so many toxic compounds and heavy metals. Especially lithium mining, the tactics of which are evaporating quite a large chunk of South America’s fresh water.
Hydrogen is a very popular topic in many Asian countries (Japan, Korea etc)
😶🌫🤯We will soon introduce the revolutionary FAZE engine technology.
The 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖
[𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.] tech best solves the issues present in previous internal
combustion engine designs by transforming the old paradigm into a
simple, low cost, quiet, power dense, efficient, on-the-go liquid and
gas fuel-flexible, ‘non-polluting’ solution for power generation of all
scales and advanced transportation, construction, military, off-road
vehicles including ships, aircraft, trains & robots not possible before
𝔽𝔸ℤ𝔼 delivers better than 25% ABSOLUTE/ACTUAL [not relative]
fuel efficiency improvement over gasoline engines, more than 15%
for Diesel engines at any operating condition - speed/load, ambient
temperature or elevation, not just at one optimal testing point at
STP. Real world driving cycle savings could be an additional 200%
higher due to the constant MAXIMAL efficiency and torque. The
simple, low cost, native/built-in, non-electric, environmentally safe,
non-explosive, temperature agnostic 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕖𝕣ℍ𝕪𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕕© feature
recovers more energy than EVs and provides approx.100% fuel
savings for a combined absolute vehicle fuel usage improvement of
approximately 300%, thus obviating the basic need for expensive
EVs & e-hybrids. 𝕚ℙ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥 adds >400% more torque. It’s like
4 engines in 1. 𝕚𝔼𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕪𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥2© further improves efficiency,
torque, power & other performance metrics by 10%. This is all done
w/o a transmission. Additional fuel saving solutions are available.
The FAZE engine perfectly follows the vehicle’s road or genset’s
electrical power demand with no energy loss [no fuel waste], This
unique characteristic enables dispensing with any auxiliary power
units [APU] for power or refrigeration in any application. This also
makes for a perfect range extender for battery electric vehicles [EV]
or as a standalone EV charging unit even where is no electric grid.
The fuel agnostic capability allows instantaneous use of any liquid
or gaseous fuel [natural gas at home!!!] incl. biofuels and hydrogen,
even if old/dirty/unprocessed like flare gas or employ the concurrent
multi-fuel capability…anywhere on the globe. One engine for all
locales w/o changes! Unlike EVs, this enables fast fueling anytime,
anywhere…with no troublesome infrastructure disruptions or
changes. EV’s are not a solution to the [FAKE]climate or mobility topics as
high level of electrification globally is unrealistic
[See Patrick Boyle's video "Electrify Everything?"]
The technology offers smokeless, non-polluting, low odor heat and
noise output without costly after-treatments, etc.,… with only the
lowest CO2. It has a negative carbon footprint with hydrogen,
ammonia, biofuels or gasified municipal, agricultural and/or forest
waste and coal from a 2-stroke-like simplicity. These are HUGE
business opportunities. We can provide these turnkey solutions
The FAZE technology can be integrated into any ICE or vehicle
architecture, adding some of the positive characteristics to its own. An advanced Scotch Yoke architecture slated to be incorporated in the 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖 [𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.]
With virtually no electronics and emissions equipment, the cost of
purchase and reduced servicing frequency make this solution
even more appealing.
I think one major issue is that any imperfection in the vessel youre carrying it in is going to leak an insane amount due to atomic size and base form being gas.
The problem with this turquoise carbon from natural gas is that it's not renewable and closed cycle. A large scale use would open a new can of worms.
In essense you are exchanging dumping CO2 by burning gas, with depleting oxygen from the atmosphere by burning hydrogen instead, creating excess water and carbon as subproducts. The excess carbon can even sequester more oxygen if not properly handled. Instead of solving our environmental problems it will generate others.
The only really sustainable way for hydrogen is to split water, since it acts as a reversible cycle like a giant global battery. The other sustainable alternative would be to split CO2 back to a fuel (like ethanol) and oxygen.
What about sabatier process? Synthesizing methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with oxygen as byproduct, surely it will open the closed cycle?
Splitting hydrogen from the water is the way to go. Moving back to gas would give a higher initial efficiency in extracting it but does not play the optimum game for long-term goals
And where is the power coming from the get the hydrogen out?? From the dirty power grid?
@@UnderTheGoldenGate hidrogen its a mean of trasnportation of energy not producing, whats so difficult to understand?
I truely believe that hydrogen is the best form of energy in this universe. I am 70 now, & have worked on engines/engineering for years. I like the idea of green hydrogen, it sounds ok like a win, win, or a no brainer to me!
Personly: I think that we should not make hydrogen fuel to sell. For a number of reasons! The safe way forward, is to make this fuel, immediately before use. Any transport using hydrogen as fuel, should be fed saltwater, so that the hydrogen is made immediately before use. As thing are, the money wont come from this fuel, but from developing the electrolysis on whatever form of transport is using this abundant fuel. Thank you, wonderful project.
Hydrogen for cars has a fraction of the efficiency of electric batteries and is therefore doomed to fail (just check current global sales of EVs vs. hydrogen). Hydrogen will at best be a niche market for long-haul flights and ocean shipping.
No. While you are correct about the use for transportation, there are a lot of applications in industry(steel, aluminum, chemistry so on) We are going to need every bit we can get.
The tricky part is you need it to be extremely pressurized for it to be useful, it's not easy to contain and maintain 5,000 to 10,000 PSI
It will be too costly and too much risk for it to be popular.
You forgot about inefficiencies of producing "green" hydrogen, not to mention compressing and transporting it. For production with electrolysis around 25% of energy goes to waste, another 25% goes to waste due to compression and transportation. If this hydrogen is used in a car with a fuel cell we lose another 25% of energy (including electric motor inefficiency). (Reminder: hydrogen cars is driven by electric motor (!), the only change is its battery, in the case of hydrogen car's, the "battery" is hydrogen tank and fuel cell that produces electricity.) Hydrogen cars use only 25% of energy! On the other hand, electric cars with lithium battery use around 75% of the energy (20% of energy is lost in electric grid, 1-5% in charging and depleting lithium battery and electric motor inefficiency.)
Now tell me, how "green" hydrogen is better than simply using electricity that we produce to send over the grid to charge electric cars? I understand that for industries (like steel) you need hydrogen for something else than fuel cells, also for potential airplanes, and maybe bigger transportation vehicles for which battery would be too big and it makes sense to power them with hydrogen. But for daily driver, for going to work and back home, 50% of energy loss is simply too much.
The amount of misinformation about the hydrogen is huge. The main goal is to replace natural gas in the industry, then heavy transport and machinery, synthetic fuels for aviation, energy storage for remote areas...
Hydrogen cars aren't even on the list, at least in the EU. Batteries are a better option for personal transportation.
you forget about the 3 people who have invented it already and been assassinated
You didn't mention the energy wasted carrying heavy batteries. EV has poor weight to power ratio.
Also, energy wasted for generating electricity, energy wasted in mining and making batteries that probably don't even last 5 years.
Also, time wasted on charging them, time wasted when battery is not working.
Time, is worth more than anything you've mentioned.
Support synthetic fuel, it is the future.
That combustion engine just works everytime, without range anxiety.
Lithium batteries had 3 decades to develop and they still need to go to a landfill after 5 years of daily usage.
@@vevohitz8339 You are talking about those guys that showed how second law of thermodynamics does not apply in hydrogen cars?
CO2 is not pollution it is the basic food building block for plants and therefore all life on earth.
Like anything in science its a matter of how much.
@@jaaklucas1329 unquestionably true but CO2 has been in the 1200 ppm and higher. What is missing in the let's be reasonable quotient is that all the carbon that is in oil, coal and gas came from the surface of the earth according to science. So if we theoretically returned it to the surface in a metered but progressive amount the most we could get is equilibrium.Most plants don't proliferate in the desert because there is not enough water to sustain them but when there is enough CO2 they don't have to breathe so hard to to gain carbon. Breathing hard takes water. The concept is lost that all plant life has to contain water. When we walk in the woods we are just walking through containers of carbon and water. Will we ever get equilibrium? Not likely but at current levels we reaming in a state of dearth or lack compared to what would be the beneficial optimum content. Boost the plant content in the world and there would be a higher O2 content to the atmosphere. So back to your statement about science we really don't know how much but science does say if we get down to 150 then plants will start dying and it might be a point of no return. We know that we have had higher C02 counts and survived.
@@dustinpotter8312 My beef is all the noxious junk in diesel fumes mainly. Your climate folks will be arguing till the cows come home. Electrifying trucking is a natural fit for the electric drivetrain for pure torque and regen, more important than cars.
We need a team of people working together as an open source initiative to advance hydrogen technology in a grassroots way.
The biggest problem in our current energy paradigm is the monopolization in centralization of power.
If people can do what Stan Meyer did while working together and publicly releasing any and all research we will be much better off as a civilization
It’s great to wish that certain things can be economically employed but the apparent best has proved to be the most difficult, see hydrogen and nuclear fusion!
Nuclear fusion is still not achiavable. At least you still cannot gain power from it.
Once we figure it out we basically unlock cheatcodes
India's approach is to be use green hydrogen in cement, steel and other industries. For vehicles electric battery is better option and sufficient in next few years. Game changer will be small fusion reactor whenever that happens.
First we need to figure out how to make a big one
Hydrogen in transportation can also bring in HEV and reliable battery tech
They need to clarify that H is not a true "energy source" as were used to thinking about. Because it requires energy to extract it, it's not a source. However it's an excellent way to *store* energy. Far better than a Li-ion battery.
As far as sources go, the only true source is solar. Coal, oil, wood, wind, hydroelectric, are all indirect solar energy.
Why ?
Solar ==> Electricity ==> Hydrogen
Solar ==> power the car directly
The additional layer make the process inefficient.
We need very effective solar panel which kinda impossible right now
It has been known and used in many experiments that Hydrogen can be separated from the elements. H2O can be seperated and can be.
They just showed that... They just saying, it needs to be economical viable.
Yeah,it is duty and necessity of our time to clean the environment to survive for unimaginable length of time.
Just to clarify, converting natural gas to hydrogen and carbon, in my understanding is not sustainable, and therefore not prefferable. Natural gas is a 'mined' resource. It is like saying lithium powered electric cars are sustainable.
Yes, but technology and industry is nowhere near a state where the world can run solely on clean hydrogen and renewable energy. There will be a transition and it will take time. So unfortunately dirty sources such as natural gas will still be needed while advancement and progress are made. Might as well as try and take advantage of the carbon sequestering options while we are at this stage.
if you put salt in the electrolysis chamber you will also get chlorine gas.
Sorry I saw this soo late but one question not covered for H2 green energy is water. One kg of H2 requires 6 kg of H20 of a defined purity. With the million of tons of H2 being projected for this technology to get below the $2/kg where in this drying world are they finding all the water without the extensive ecological damage caused by desalination and still reach the $2/kg target????
Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
This is a truth fact.
Convert everything to hydrogen and they will switch the Carbon Tax to a Water Tax.
The energy cost to harvest, store and transport hydrogen make it non viable; you lose more energy then you get at the end of the process.
Nuclear/fusion are the only viable fossil alternatives at the moment that don't destroy the environment.
Agreed on nuclear, only thing that could compete with coal. However hydrogen might be viable for Europe. North Africa has super cheap solar and the Europeans are building really cheap UHVDC cables. You could fathom north Africa solar power hooked up via UHVDC being used in a German industrial site for a local electrolyser. I was looking at some of new electrolysers Shell is building and the capx required isn't that bad either.
There is no proof that fusion will ever be viable as an energy source and even less chance it will be economic. Renewables and nuclear fission are our best hopes.
@@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy probably can be made economic given that it's so power dense although maybe not next to fission and coal. More of a decision whether we want the waste. This is like a discussion we would have in idk 40 years or something
@@ryccoh If you're curious then I recommend to read "ITER is a showcase … for the drawbacks of fusion energy
By Daniel Jassby". There are a bunch of problems that the supporters of fusion usually avoid talking about, for instance how to generate tritium, a fuel that does not occur naturally on Earth.
fusion is currently not possible
I knew that hydrogen was a possible replacement for other, more harmful forms of combustible energy like fossil fuels. However, I didn't realize there were so many different types of hydrogen. Seeing the different colors was really helpful in identifying the properties of each type of hydrogen, especially considering that turquoise hydrogen has properties of both blue and green hydrogen. The work H2Pro is doing is impressive and I hope their successes continue.
Hydrogen is always the same hydrogen , those colors just show how it was made
Hydrogen bonds of water are considered as strongest bonding can't be separated easily. It becomes more complicated if we have to choose oceans water. Because fresh water can't be allowed to suffer it's going to be even costieler than all energies if we don't realize. So all experimenting on distilled water not oceans water. I see differently. We need to focus on limiting ourselves in overcharging /overconsumption of resources and energies.
Mark my words hydrogen combined with nuclear fusion is the future
Nuclear fission for generating lots of power and hydrogen as fuel for vehicles
Nuclear fusion with battery powered vehicles is the future, hydrogen is the future oil & gas wants so they have a future business and infrastructure to control
if people just could become a lil less scared of nuclear fusion :(
@@ltpetsema876 i agree but its safer and easier to accept a lie like solar panels and wind turbines than to actually build nuclear fusion stations which could power the entire world
@@ltpetsema876 no one is scared of fusion because it doesn't exist.
Wonderful, and the only pollutant released being by far the most effective of the greenhouses gasses, water vapour.
Guess which greenhouse gas they cannot model? Water vapor, especially when it turns into clouds. Explains a large part of why climate models are rubbish.
Correct. As the IPCC is on record as pointing out, ~ 95% of any "greenhouse gas heating affect" comes from water vapour in the atmosphere.
@@aeroearth wouldn't condensed water vapor (clouds) offset that due to their reflectivity creating a cooling effect?
Great point! 👍
@@nathanryweck3137 Correct. When water vapor becomes cloud it reflects the sun reducing heating of the earth. Notice how cloudy days feel colder!
Regardless of what type it is, it's not the cost of it that is expensive part. The main cost is getting it from the source to the individual who wish's to utilize it. And then there is the addition of local, state and federal taxes appied at each and every step of the process.
Nothing a little bribery can’t fix.
@@hamanu666 that will cost even more
The mistake is not co2 but the heat generated by combustion. Hydrogen used in the combustion process also generates heat along with consumption of oxygen
Amazing Documentary Bloomberg❤❤❤
putting our time and effort in activities and
investments that will yielda profitable return in the
future is what we should be aiming for. success
depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve
it.
I have incurred so much losses trading on my
own..I trade well on demo. But I think the real
market is manipulated. Can anyone help me
out or at least tell me what I'm doing wrong
10:20 the symbol of iron element is Fe, not I. If you want to look smart by using elemental symbol, please make sure the symbol is actually correct.
Good catch! All of the other elements cited in that sequence conveniently use their first letter in the periodic table, which made this oversight all the easier to slip through. Thanks for letting us know.
if you want to improve hydrogen use a closed system, and after a while all you will need is a glass of water to fill up the original water tank
Interesting idea. Though I don't think the energy required to split that "glass of water" will be much less than the energy it generates from combining H with O2.
@@zainabe9503 It never will. In a closed system, energy must be conserved. This means that without outside influence the energy cannot increase, you can never get more energy out of electrolysis og water and then burning than you put in. Think about what is actually being done. An electric charge is being applied pulling the water molecule apart. This means that the electric field has to supply the energy to break the bonds of the water molecule. Ths split molecule is then being combusted to get the original. All thag is being done is that you are breaking the bonds using an electric field and then remaking the bonds via combustion, there is no change in energy. It turns out that you will also actually create heat in the process which will leak out of the system, so in reality you won't even get no change in energy, you will actually be losing energy!
Honestly, hydrogen is such a simple thing. It's made from water and electricity. Let's use it!!!
A bit dissapointed that the video touches very lightly on storage. In my view storage is as critical as generation.
It's interesting to think of hydrogen as a viable energy source. The tone of the video made it seem as if we are close to achieving cheap and efficient hydrogen power. I am most curious to see how it will be put to practice outside of theory and research. SSAB, for example, is striving to use hydrogen as an energy source. It is naturally beneficial to the environment, but it is unsure whether it would be beneficial to the manufacturer in the long run.
We are.
Would be intresting to see if they could develope a concrete that uses a percentage of the solid carbon.
would that increase the longevity of it??
@@fermentedfruit there were some videos about using graphene snippets, to enhance concrete significantly just by mixing them in. and graphene is just carbon, that would be a way i guess
@Thunder Life Studios that was a question i heard posed multiple times but just answered with not known or that it will need to be researched for every compound material they will create in the future. but the concrete should be 3 times tougher or something, so it doesnt feel significantly different in regards to recycling than other concrete i guess. Better to look for sources than for answers in my memory of the infotainment i watched xD
It's gonna take more than just imagining - Hydrogen is the fuel of future,
You need a powerpacked storage facility, and most importantly creating Energy without putting much
its just an energy storage technology. Hydrogen is already our fuel of choice; it come in the form of hydrocarbons. Hydrogen bound up as a hydrocarbon is ready to be used today. Unbound hydrogen is very difficult to store as it very very easily leaks from anything not a perfect container. Did you know that unbound hydrogen passes though a few inches of concrete very easily?
japanese companies have invested huge money on it, still no outcome, and it makes japanese auto producer fall behind in EV
Wow, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series sounds like an incredible product! It's perfect for outdoor enthusiasts like us who value reliable power on our camping trips. The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design make it a must-have for any adventurer. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like a fantastic product for outdoor enthusiasts like us. The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design make it a reliable option for camping trips. Plus, the smart app control is a great feature for monitoring energy usage. Thanks for the recommendation!
I wonder how much hydrogen can you get from a litre of water and how much energy would that be equivalent to the amount of petrol.
Also would fresh water or salty water make a difference
That’s why everyone should study chemistry in High School. Everything on earth are chemicals, including our own body.
@@salvadorcoling8403 i had chemistry at school but they didn't answer the question I asked
Then, you should have studied hard.
@@salvadorcoling8403 lol
Smartass
1 liter of water = 1 kg of water. Molar mass of water = 18g, of which H2 = 2g, O = 16g. So 2/18 = 1/9 = 11%. So one liter of water gives 110g of hydrogen. Hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier with respect to weight. 1 kg of hydrogen contains 33.33 kWh of usable energy, whereas petrol and diesel only hold about 12 kWh/kg. This means that 1 liter of water holds potentially 3,66 kWh of hydrogen. It means that 1 liter of water would be roughly equivalent to 305 grams or 400 ml of gasoline (its density being around 0,75). Remember this calculations imply no losses and the energy put into the hydrolysis of water is not taken into account ofc. Cheers.
Other than cost, time to market is of utmost importance.
The solution is already here, Nuclear plants.
Hundreds of them to get built. NOW.
That should provide us with a proven, reliable off the shelf solution, while other greener solutions become more viable.
investors just dont like nuclear because the return on investment is slow. although smr's may change that.
Hydrogen might be a way of converting existing steel works to a lower carbon footprint but is there a way of using the electricity directly? perhaps some version of the direct arc resistance electric furnace?
??? I am under the impression that the hydrogen serves not only to obtain the needed high temperatures but also to reduce the iron oxide. But agreed for the melting your described solution might work.
You're thinking of hydrogen as an energy source.
Imagine a machine that pumps water uphill to a big dam, and there's a hydro plant. How much electricity will that hydro plant produce? The answer is, Less energy than it takes to run the pump to get the water uphill in the first place.
Hydrogen isn't an energy source. You must first insert lots of electrical energy into water to separate out the hydrogen. That's an uphill energy state, if you graph it out, just like the dam. Then you collect some energy by burning it, which turns it back into water. The amount you collect is less.
There is almost no application where this makes any sense at all, and none where this makes sense from an energy production standpoint.
Hydrogen is great if you need hydrogen. It's lousy if you need energy.
I can think of two real-world examples where they needed lots of hydrogen - The Hindenburg and the Space Shuttle.
Both blew up eventually.
@@protorhinocerator142 Basic High School Physics. Conservation of Energy. People keep missing that part.
Not possible because this process require A LOT of energy. The cost to install all the solar panels doesn’t justify. Cheaper to use coal and hopefully shift hydrogen soon.
@@irfanvirji5319 yeh from what I’ve seen the steel industry is working towards hydrogen to replace coal
I don’t like the basic concept of this process. That is, we take a valuable hydrocarbon and break it down to hydrogen and carbon, using valuable energy to do so. Then - at best - we have a kg of hydrogen that costs $1,50 whereas a kg of the hydrocarbon is cheaper, and much more energy-dense than hydrogen. I find it difficult to see either the economics or the positive environmental aspects of this process. 🤷🏼♂️
Many industries have experimented with hydrogen as a fuel, including the auto industry, for over 100 years.
Hasn't happened yet. Why is that?
The problem is the price of hydrogen. In addition, green hydrogen should be cheap. But companies like H2pro or Hyson promise to solve this problem. They promise green hydrogen at a price of $ 1-1.5 per kilogram, gray costs $ 1-2 per kilogram. Now green hydrogen costs 4-6 dollars per kilogram.
I think it is amazing how far we've came with the technology to reduce our carbon footprint and replace the use of fossil fuels. If companies are able to get the amount of funding they need to mass produce hydrogen fuel we could really get ahead of the damage fossil fuels do to our planet. The issue mentioned in the video when it comes to producing larger amounts was cost and lack of funding. If we could get the cost down and make more at a time we could get to that $1.50/kg number even quicker in turn making positive environmental change even sooner! My hope is that more big corporations will get on board with providing funding to the companies trying to save us.
I wish I could learn about this because we need more hydrogen stations to make this happen in the US only California has hydrogen stations from what I heard
This hydrogen won't be for cars in all liklihood, but for other uses.
@@cow_tools_ what would they use it for?
Some of the new cars they want to come out with can convert hydrogen to electrical power or something like that
@@therandomrobert1842 You don't really see the problem. First, you have to buy a new car. It's always about buying one unit of a brand new something to replace the old thing. That's the biggest problem in climate change issues. You always have to be a consumer hence polluting more. You still need to produce new chassis out of metal, the onboard electronics, the seats, various plastics are involved and all that. And said car has to entertain the illusion that eventually hundreds of millions of people will drive those in the future. Until then we are already facing bigger problems.
Have we not learnt our lesson with the Hindenburg? Hydrogen goes Boom!
@@calidude1114 You know, gasoline also explodes. The Hindenburg burned because it was a massive balloon filled with a flammable gas. That was stupidity. Engineers are much more informed nowadays than in the past. Using a single example of a disaster related to something as the sole reason to not pursue that thing is childish. When something like hydrogen has potential as a high efficiency energy storage, we ought to be more thoughtful than to dismiss it due to a single disaster.
What about water requirements for electrolysis in green hydrogen production. There is already fresh water scarcity in some parts of the world for humans and livestock , for agriculture. and water for industrial processes. It may seem a trivial question, but in the near future it can cause big problems. I don't know of any effective process that can use sea water on a larger scale of green hydrogen production, is there any?
Excellent question
We are talking droplets of water here. It's a non factor.
I tell you what, I have been seeing videos and r e a d articles about using hydrogen for decades, and they all come back to the same conclusion, yes, it is the most abundant element in the universe, but it takes energy to extract it from these elements! The only real interest I have in it is for a hydrogen fuel cell to Power electric vehicles, but even then, you have the problem of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place to refuel these cells! Tesla and others have already installed the electric refueling stations, so now who's going to be paying the money to do the same thing for hydrogen? Let's just stick with the Battery Technology improvements that are ongoing now, since it's for certain that lithium is too risky as far as overheating goes, however it will do until sodium ion or something else comes along to solve that problem.
The one effective technique I use is staying in touch with a financial coach for guidance, it might soft basic or generic, but getting in
My only thing is that why turn renewable electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity? Even using it as fuel (like in cars) is wierd since you cant really have liquid H2 in that kind of environment
So they can get government funding.
Other than that, hydrogen is completely worthless as a fuel source in every way.
Best way to power something without loosing much of electricity is to connect it straight to the wires, not even storing the electricity. Though, cars with over head wires is something that could be done...
heck why stop there,
remove the friction I.e. make it steel to steel
stop low ridership I.e. extend the vehicle and put more seats
There you go, you have a train.
This is awesome! If I had money I'd be invested in this company!
They would get wrecked by the oil industry
@@AshGreen359 but the oil industry has how many years before becoming total unaffordable?
@@7XHARDER They don't care, they will squeeze every dime they can and destroy any competition they can
Have we not learnt our lesson with the Hindenburg? Hydrogen goes Boom! There is a reason we don't use hydrogen in air ships!
Amazing Technology, Deployed Worldwide Through My Deep Learning AI Research Library. Thank You
Huge mistake for IRON chemical symbol. Iron chemical symbol is Fe, not I.
10:19
A big problem I recently found out is that Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. The Hydrogen molecule is the smallest atom and as such, is the hardest to contain. Leaks are always going to be part of a Hydrogen system.
While it doesn't directly block heat, it contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect by impeding the natural processes that remove Methane from the atmosphere. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, so Hydrogens impact is so significant that it is actually called a greenhouse gas itself.
Hydrogen has been available for many years. As much as I would love to see the world take full advantage of it as a clean fuel, I also believe there are too many in high power who would much rather sell thier oil.
Dude it's not fair, you can't just take away 3-billion-dollar oil rigs bought with blood money earned by selling coke to cops to sell to children. They worked really hard earning less than 100k a year to buy that oil rig with drug money.
But hydrogen is so small on a atomic level that it leaks through solid material. So if producing it becomes cheaper you still have the material science issue of how to store and transport it effectively and efficiently. We should focus on energy storage for renewables. Only one thing you have to engineering instead of multiple
on some of those hundreds of vidz about things like next LiPo battery etc, ammonia as a possible solution for storage and some application was suggested.
Hydrogen isn't a fuel... it's an energy storage mechanism (a chemical battery).
what you talking about mate, ofc its not a fuel but with the right tech you can turn its applications into fuel, thats why we need improvements not only in hydrogen but also fuel cells
Not a very efficient one too
@@aresshi7077 i'm not arguing against hydrogen and fuel cells, just stating facts of physics... it's not a fuel source.
Nuclear energy with hydrogen for storage (for transportation) is the answer.
If you're using coal to create hydrogen you're not seeing the big picture.
Natural gas isn't a fuel.. it's an energy storage mechanism (a chemical factory)
@@joputhiyaparambil07 yes, but the carbon has already been pulled out of the environment to create that energy...
let's be real... if you believe in climate change, nuclear energy is the ONLY realistic solution.
They guy who made this in their house just to fill ballons:
Making solar panels, wind turbines, lithium batteries, it all sounds great until we think about the materials used to mass produce it and it also sounds great but pretty much everything has a downside to it.
Great video, but Hydrogen has no chance. EV can be powered up anywhere for vehicles in the developed world. The distribution network is everywhere in the developed world. Also, special interest is already all in on EV’s. Perhaps in planes or in the developing world.
You know that you can burn hydrogen to power EVs right? Its as flexible as fossil fuels but it dosent produce CO2... in theory its applications are as energy storage which can be manufactured instead of taken out of the earth... in fact since all you need to produce it is energy, you can just have a full renewable powergrid which produces hydrogen to be burned during downfalls, thus achieving a totally clean powergrid which can even be used in space (solar panels+water = hydrogen, which then can be used as airship fuel while producing more water) Its biggest downfall is the efficiency in the process which make it more expensive then simply drilling oil, but its still very affordable if we have cheap energy in the first place (since you are only using energy, equipment and manpower costs)
Charging EVs is still done through burning fossil fuels primarily. Defeats the purpose of going clean. Seems like you need to “develop” your brain in your developed country.
Why do people only care about transport applications?
One important aspect of hydrogen fuel that was mentioned in this video was its potential environmental impact. It stated that the majority of hydrogen production today takes place on the polluting end of the spectrum. This spectrum is a spectrum of colors that go from the most environmentally friendly to the least. While most of it is produced on the polluting end of the spectrum, there are companies that are developing ways to produce it on the environmentally friendly end. The most environmentally friendly way mentioned was by separating the atoms in water by raising the temperature. The second most environmentally friendly way was by separating the carbon atoms out of natural gas. This leaves carbon in a solid state and does not release it into the atmosphere. Finding environmentally friendly ways to produce hydrogen is exceedingly important for the future of fuel and energy.
A very promising way to make clean energy was recently developed by Japanese scientists using small scale nuclear reactors that are cooled with helium instead of water, giving them the ability to run much hotter and not be constrained to rivers and lakes.
the video said it does make c02 when using natural gas
A molten salt reactor would create hydrogen in the cooling cycle.
Any nuclear reactor today would do this better than renewables, perhaps hydro and geothermal aside, but I would still err on the side of nuclear. At the very least, you have cleaner, safer, more reliable and higher quality energy with a nuclear power plant.
Hello Houston, we have a tiny problem to solve, and you can twist it and turn it upside down , and deliver it in any way you like. Hydrogen is right around 6 times more expensive to produce than Solar or Wind energy, and you can present it in the most sexy way you are most capable of. Please give us a call when finally Hydrogen will come cost competitive with other plentiful energy present in nature that do not need a very costly process to produce ,store it, and possibly bypass the little detail that so far it needs to be converted in electricity in order to be efficiently used.
Hydrogen can never be a fuel. It can only be an energy transfer medium.
Never say Never !
Can they convert the carbon into graphene or carbon nanotubes?
This is a great video, bravo! This gives me hope that we humans will turn things around here on planet Earth.
If H2 could be produced economically, the environmental alarmists would be against its use for energy production. because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
The difference between water vapor and CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that water vapor precipitates out of the air as rain eventually compared to CO2 which needs to be absorbed out of the air through some kind of process. It's significantly a better alternative.
If water vapor emissions is truly an issue, it's not hard to just have it condensed out of the tailpipe as a liquid instead.
@@BrokenLifeCycle then all we will hear about is how more water vapor is increasing rain and flooding. Theres no winning with environmental alarmists. There will always be something pissing them off.
Very interesting approach to combating global warming! I did not know it was possible to pull a physical solid element out of a natural gas, amazing! It would be amazing to see hydrogen used as energy in place of fossil fuels in the future, especially with the expensive current cost of gas. If hydrogen energy could be any cheaper then our current gasoline, that would be great!
Your research will save the world from pollution for our future generations 🙏
if its possible to split hydrogen by rising temperature, that means when we do some pressure changes, it gonna work, i want someone to do those experiments, we can use Sea water As at the button of ocean there are higher pressure than at the top, i don't know how to explain bt if someone got my idea, plz do that experiment 👍
Sea Water has big issues, it forces you to turn off the electrolyzer for more regular cleanings of impurities. Downtime is lost time.
Or if you wanna rise temperature you should go with geothermal energy
Basically you dig deep in the ground till it gets hot enough
You can do this best when close to volcanoes to improve heat or efficiency
Hydrogen easily combines with ozone. It is the next bane to the ozone layer. You cannot contain it to the level that protects the ozone layer. There is lots of research on this that is inconvenient to those that push this as a 'green' fuel.
This was so informative. Thank you for this video!
Somebody set me straight. doesn't it take just as much energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as you get back when you recombine them? Then you have inherent inefficiency to cope with. So Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is only a transfer medium.
Improvement in stackcells will not bring hydrogen production cost that much. Lowering the amount of electricity to produce hydrogen will not be better than 33 KWh per kg...as 33kwh is taken as based on 100% efficiency of electrolysis
The wind mills and solar panels electricity should be used for hydrogen production
And not wasted most of the time 👍