This piece has the right idea but completely misses the point of why green hydrogen is a terrible fuel. If you are building solar farms to make hydrogen, then liquefying and shipping it, then regasifying it and transporting it and then burning it, you've lost 80-90% of the energy you've started with. And whatever solar panels you've installed aren't actually displacing fossil fuels, they're just fueling this hydrogen waste machine. If instead you used the electricity from the solar panel, you're actually reducing emissions because that big coal power plant doesn't need to burn that incremental bit of coal. The second and probably most important flaw is transporting the hydrogen. There is currently no demonstrated way of transporting hydrogen long distances. By the time a ship gets from the US to Japan with a liquefied hydrogen shipment, you've lost 50% of your extremely expensive cargo from boil-off. You could convert it to ammonia then reconvert it later, but that's also adding even more costs. And the cost of this isn't cheap - it's about 8 times as expensive as natural gas on an energy basis, so imagine your electricity bill going up by the same factor if your utility switched over.
Absolutely. The hydrogen pitch has been revised and improved for many decades, but it was never going to work for most purposes except niche ones. It’s a solution driven forward by our anxiety about nuclear and treating it almost as a taboo. Valuable time has been lost.
Electricity is the main product due to value and efficiency. Green Hydrogen is a byproduct, and only for niche cases like piping to industry - not heating&transport. See Liebrich's Hydrogen Ladder. However, we are getting a LOT more surplus power from unsubsidized wind&solar currently being curtailed at no value (or even negative price subsidized in Holland), and batteries are not keeping up. Some of this is converted from zero value to some value in hydrogen .
Completley agree that this misses the point. IF earth had 10x excess green electricty then it might work. Otherwise its a complete waste of time and money. The energy losses are just far too great
@@Piperman some countries already have lots of of zero-price hours when power is curtailed, like Holland. Transmission&batteries are built way too slowly. Some of that surplus power is being converted to hydrogen to extract at least some value.
In 2022, the top five countries for crude oil production were: United States: 14.7% Saudi Arabia: 13.2% Russia: 12.7% Canada: 5.6% Iraq: 5.5% We see where this lobby is coming from.
"Same infrastructure" is a simple lie. If it's more than 15% hydrogen, you can't put it through an oil, water, or LNG pipe. Hydrogen is a very special, very tricky, litle atom, and it needs very specialized piping. Everywhere. All through your system.
In the Netherlands they use the old natural gas pipelines, there are already pipelines all over Europe that can be used. Hydrogen at low pressure is pretty easy to handle.
@@buddy1155 Hydrogen is one of the lightest elements, it's at the top of the Periodic Table along with Helium for a reason. At low pressures it's energy density is terrible, and at higher pressures has a tendency to leak and escape through standard piping. It really is a terrible fuel, even before you take into consideration most of it is created using fossil fuels anyway.
@@buddy1155 Because hydrogen is so much lighter and less dense, you need approximately 3 times the volume of hydrogen as compared to natural gas to get the same amount of energy. That is why it needs to be compressed at these high pressures.
Hydrogen has uses for making fertilizer, steel, explosives... but using it for home heating or driving a car is a waste, just use the green electricity directly.
First, there is no such thing as green electricity Second, hydrogen and other chemicals are and will be used as energy STORAGE, cause they are superior compared to e-batteries.
Sorry the problem in Redcar was heating homes using existing pipe and valves would probably resulted in many leaks and also large statistical chance of a major explosion, while showing the thermal value of hydrogen is about 1/6 that of methane.
This is the perfect proof that these projects are being dreamed on from behind a desk, instead of doing the fieldwork and doing some honest cost calculations, based on the fieldwork findings.
@@vgstb It's complicated. Nuclear is a clean and efficient energy source, but it's a long-term investment. It takes between 10-20 years and billions of upfront cost to plan, build, and commission a nuclear plant now. Most politicians aren't around to see it's completion during their tenure. Whereas a coal, oil, gas plant can be built within two years with little upfront cost and easily demolished after 10 years.
It is also that all nuclear projects run into bigger cost overruns than any other form of energy. Current nuclear plants hemmorage government money as EVERY single one could not be anywhere near economically viable without intervention. In the timescale of nuclear plants being up and running, it is FAR cheaper and more efficient to invest in renewables rather than nuclear and it will stop carbon emissions faster. A facade put up by nuclear lobbyists paints a war between them and fossil fuels, but in reality the war is now between nuclear and renewables, something that nuclear falls incredibly short in nearly every aspect
Anyone smart enough to work on a project like this is also smart enough to know it’s a terrible idea. So why are they doing it? I think they are trying to create a consumable trap for drivers but we are smarter than that.
Dear Bloomberg Originals can you please interview french local authorities there are at least 10 of them) who encouraged by the government started to operate hydrogen fuelled busses. Now so more then 3 years later the have stopped using them for two reason price of H2 and the very high maintenance costs of their H2 storage units.
Hydrogen is being used as a delay tactic by fossil fuel companies primarily due to the difficulty in handling it. That said, its real value is in industrial settings where electric can’t be used, and in its end-product fresh water. 💧
I am electrical engineering PhD, and I still am waiting for a clear picture about why use H2 in capillary applications while electrons are up to the task already. We need to push new nuclear and electrification, at least in the near future. Moreover I would like to have a wide view about the transition not just from the consumer pov (private cars, homes..) but also large operations as well, whose impact is at least comparable (construction materials anyone, large maritime cargo? And maaany more).
Didn't they first say hydrogen is cheaper because our existing infrastructure can be adapted to run it, then they are saying it will take years and be a big gamble to build all the infastructure for hydrogen? So which is it?
The 1st time I heard "Green Hydrogen" I suspicion about because I learn at School that is very expensive/lot of energie to split the H ! Later, I saw the "marvellous" Hydrogen engine (Toyota Mirai) ... is more complex than the typical ICE !
Thanks for the comment, @blackfoxstudioX. You might be interested in our video released last month, "How a Texas Oil Disaster Exposed a Deadly Secret" 👇 th-cam.com/video/dzrKiWKOHjo/w-d-xo.html
@@mikeshafer The problem is cost, those reactors are not cheap, and having so many vessles with nuclear weapons grade fuel, that would be a nightmare to regulate and control safety vise...it is not only a nuclear incident with radioactive release which would be dangerous, but also the spread of nuclear weapons grade Uranium and plutonium.
Hydrogen comes after we deploy an excess of solar and wind power. Use the excess energy to create and store hydrogen using electrolysis. Electricity from renewables should power everything that can be plugged in or carry a battery. Really no need for hydrogen though with solar being so cheap and easy to deploy. Easier than wind even.
H2 is a very precious molecule. It should be used only if electrification is not available, such as for high temperature industrial heat, o for some long term storages!
The same thing is happening with electric cars even though they make no dirty air the way you optain the resources for the battery hurts the ecosystem including wildlife and trees thats right obtaining the resources for these batteries kills trees.
The scale is different. When it comes to cars, the harm caused by mining batteries is negligible compared to the harm caused by burning fuel. Especially because batteries can be recycled. We're recapturing 90%+ of the rare earth minerals in them when we recycle them right now. We're also beginning to commercialize new types of batteries that use different materials that are less problematic, like sodium instead of lithium. EVs are still worth it.
1:00 "Hydrogen thats easy" first lie, scientists never claimed this way to be easy, yet here it is used as a counter argument against what exactl.y? "using the same infrastructure" the power that be would like that very much ofcause which is more to the point why this was ever named green hydrogen like bio in super markets
@@kinngrimm Exactly. Green Hydrogen Project that is being implemented by Developing Countries like China and India, have a disproportionate budget, acknowledging the difficulty of transitioning to G-Hyd from Fossil Fuel Economy, but at least it will make them self-reliant and isolated from global supply chain crisis, and here lies the intent behind such claims by US Media. G-Hyd needs totally fresh infra with high upfront cost to be augmented by public authorities. Also, G-Hyd is most difficult form of energy as it will need other renewable infra ready in place to work.
Even in the middle of night and winter too, you forget to include the batteries or you forget to include the nat gas or coal that buffers the grid against the sun and wind going down.
A lot of mis information by mixing a number of green energy sources and coming to a single conclusion? They clearly haven’t seen the new modular systems, I know of 6 sites and they have a 12 month build time each at 100MW.
Hydrogen is extremely and highly explosive! Dreams of having it power our cars or putting it in our homes are going to have to be examined with a fine toothed comb before it can be used for these purposes. Whatever system used to transport and store Hydrogen by the average consumer, will have to be absolutely fail-safe!
We have had 100 years of the same fuel and now that is going to change, but it will not be one size fits all = Rijnstate hospital of Elst, The Netherlands opened its doors. What makes this particular campus interesting is how it generates its energy. Heat pumps, PV panels, and an electrolyzer all work in concert to maintain a constant supply of power. The building collects energy from over 1,300 solar panels located on both the roof and the ground floor. When there’s a surplus of solar, that energy goes toward electrolysis, the splitting action that produces hydrogen. This then allows for hydrogen fuel cells to kick in as a form of reserve power when the sunnier supplies are low.
This molecule to molecule grammar school type cost comparison saying Green hydrogen is 3 times as much as other sources is disingenuous at best. Do a full analysis of a system or industry segment, amortized over life of plant for e.g., and compare.... and then we talk. Hydrogen is Not a bling-bling Swiss knife, it's an industrial feedstock.
Could you do these same videos but about American businesses and dodgy leaders. The real dodgy ones though not the ones you are paid to be forgiving with.
You clearly missed the Trump Musk chat on X. According to those two whackadoodles, the Oil and Gas industry is being treated unfairly and we should all give them a big hug.
When hydrogen is burned or chemically converted, the reaction product is water vapor. But water vapor is indisputably the No. 1 greenhouse gas, far ahead of CO2 (if you don't believe it, please check). This additional water vapor introduced into the atmosphere leads to a similar (small) increase in temperature as comparable CO2 emissions. Additional water vapor introduced into the atmosphere condenses out again after a certain time, but this is similar for CO2. Within the CO2 cycle, CO2 is constantly washed out by precipitation and broken down by the photosynthesis of plants. What must also be taken into account here is that the specific temperature effectiveness of CO2 decreases with increasing content in the atmosphere, but that of water vapor does not. As was the case at the end of the 1980s (EQHHPP project), entry into the hydrogen economy will fail due to the high costs. This is also due to the fact that hydrogen creeps through even the finest cracks and makes most materials brittle. This is a serious issue, as hydrogen has to be stored or transported at pressures of around 600 bar.
Small scale nuclear reactors everywhere. People jumping through hoops to avoid nuclear. The American Navy has been sailing small scale nuclear reactors for decades. Time to roll the technology out to power cities.
stop sugar coating solutions. just be plain and upfront about problems and challenges. it's horrifying that the best solution would be to outlaw politicians from owning shares of fossil fuel companies. any investment in fossil fuel is only ever going to be for short term gains
What part of Challenger explosion don't you get? Hydrogen flame is invisible and has no smell. _"Mommy, your hair is melting! Eeeeeee, it hurts Mommy, it hurts!"_
Another lie, right at the beginning "zero emission hydrogen" that simply isn't true. When you burn hydrogen, OR when you run it through a fuel cell, you get water vapor, which is 10x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. Has anyone done a study on what the environmental impact is of releasing unfathomable amounts of hot water vapor into the atmosphere all over the globe in replacement of CO2 will do to the climate? It could affect rain patterns, change seasonal warming and cooling trends, increase snow fall, cause droughts. It could be far more devastating than CO2 because water vapor has a far more direct and outsized affect on our climate and it has multiple affects at that.
The atmosphere cannot hold any more water vapor than the equalibrium, burning hydrogen will not make the climate hotter, it will simply rain down again, just so we can collect it and make more hydrogen. CO2 does not condense and fall as rain, hence why it is a problematic substance in regards to climate change.
hydrogen is extremely inconvenient just for al the infrastructure and energy needed to deliver it and will still be for centuries, even with the middle step of converting it and reconverting it to ammonia
Then I have bad news for you, approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen : ) P.S Observable universe is more than 46 billion light-years. A light-year is the distance light travels in one Earth year
@@blackfoxstudioX That doesn't really matter, since here on earth it's all abound up in water etc. Probably 99% of the observable universe is not too hot for people to live, and in the other 1% you have so much sunlight you have really great solar energy potential. But those are useless facts(guesses) as well since we're stuck on earth :(
Steam reforming is an absurdity. Burning Methane to make Hydrogen is ridiculous. If you electroplate the Methane, you can make both Hydrogen and Carbons. The Carbons can be used for Graphite - nanotubes anyone? 🤔 And the energy cost of producing both resources can be offset with one third of the Hydrogen produced. 🧐
I see lots of very informative posts in the comment, and honestly I don't know much about Hydrogen as a fuel. I do wonder, why did they see the necessity to use Hydrogen to create heat, rather than use it to generate electricity and just provide electric heaters, etc. So that Hydrogen is not brought into people's homes.
This piece has the right idea but completely misses the point of why green hydrogen is a terrible fuel. If you are building solar farms to make hydrogen, then liquefying and shipping it, then regasifying it and transporting it and then burning it, you've lost 80-90% of the energy you've started with. And whatever solar panels you've installed aren't actually displacing fossil fuels, they're just fueling this hydrogen waste machine. If instead you used the electricity from the solar panel, you're actually reducing emissions because that big coal power plant doesn't need to burn that incremental bit of coal.
The second and probably most important flaw is transporting the hydrogen. There is currently no demonstrated way of transporting hydrogen long distances. By the time a ship gets from the US to Japan with a liquefied hydrogen shipment, you've lost 50% of your extremely expensive cargo from boil-off. You could convert it to ammonia then reconvert it later, but that's also adding even more costs. And the cost of this isn't cheap - it's about 8 times as expensive as natural gas on an energy basis, so imagine your electricity bill going up by the same factor if your utility switched over.
Absolutely. The hydrogen pitch has been revised and improved for many decades, but it was never going to work for most purposes except niche ones. It’s a solution driven forward by our anxiety about nuclear and treating it almost as a taboo. Valuable time has been lost.
Electricity is the main product due to value and efficiency. Green Hydrogen is a byproduct, and only for niche cases like piping to industry - not heating&transport. See Liebrich's Hydrogen Ladder.
However, we are getting a LOT more surplus power from unsubsidized wind&solar currently being curtailed at no value (or even negative price subsidized in Holland), and batteries are not keeping up. Some of this is converted from zero value to some value in hydrogen .
The plan is to put the hydrogen in chemical form like ammonia for transport.
Completley agree that this misses the point. IF earth had 10x excess green electricty then it might work. Otherwise its a complete waste of time and money. The energy losses are just far too great
@@Piperman some countries already have lots of of zero-price hours when power is curtailed, like Holland. Transmission&batteries are built way too slowly. Some of that surplus power is being converted to hydrogen to extract at least some value.
In 2022, the top five countries for crude oil production were:
United States: 14.7%
Saudi Arabia: 13.2%
Russia: 12.7%
Canada: 5.6%
Iraq: 5.5%
We see where this lobby is coming from.
"Same infrastructure" is a simple lie. If it's more than 15% hydrogen, you can't put it through an oil, water, or LNG pipe.
Hydrogen is a very special, very tricky, litle atom, and it needs very specialized piping.
Everywhere. All through your system.
In the Netherlands they use the old natural gas pipelines, there are already pipelines all over Europe that can be used.
Hydrogen at low pressure is pretty easy to handle.
@@buddy1155 Hydrogen is one of the lightest elements, it's at the top of the Periodic Table along with Helium for a reason. At low pressures it's energy density is terrible, and at higher pressures has a tendency to leak and escape through standard piping. It really is a terrible fuel, even before you take into consideration most of it is created using fossil fuels anyway.
@@OdinReactor No, you are wrong. hydrogen has the highest energy density of any gas.
depends on if you are talking of energy/volume or energy/mass@@buddy1155
@@buddy1155 Because hydrogen is so much lighter and less dense, you need approximately 3 times the volume of hydrogen as compared to natural gas to get the same amount of energy. That is why it needs to be compressed at these high pressures.
Green hydrogen has lots of use cases (fertilisers, manufacturing and etc.). But it is definetley not a solution for heating.
Hydrogen has uses for making fertilizer, steel, explosives... but using it for home heating or driving a car is a waste, just use the green electricity directly.
First, there is no such thing as green electricity
Second, hydrogen and other chemicals are and will be used as energy STORAGE, cause they are superior compared to e-batteries.
Sorry the problem in Redcar was heating homes using existing pipe and valves would probably resulted in many leaks and also large statistical chance of a major explosion, while showing the thermal value of hydrogen is about 1/6 that of methane.
This is the perfect proof that these projects are being dreamed on from behind a desk, instead of doing the fieldwork and doing some honest cost calculations, based on the fieldwork findings.
The effort oil, gas and coal puts in to not doing nuclear power is astonishing.
Why might that be?
Did you ask yourself that question?
@@vgstb It's complicated. Nuclear is a clean and efficient energy source, but it's a long-term investment. It takes between 10-20 years and billions of upfront cost to plan, build, and commission a nuclear plant now. Most politicians aren't around to see it's completion during their tenure. Whereas a coal, oil, gas plant can be built within two years with little upfront cost and easily demolished after 10 years.
@vgstb quarterly earnings. Investors want to see immediate returns not 20 year returns.
@@vgstb Nuclear eliminates energy scarcity, which means that no one stands to make any money by maintaining scarcity.
It is also that all nuclear projects run into bigger cost overruns than any other form of energy. Current nuclear plants hemmorage government money as EVERY single one could not be anywhere near economically viable without intervention. In the timescale of nuclear plants being up and running, it is FAR cheaper and more efficient to invest in renewables rather than nuclear and it will stop carbon emissions faster. A facade put up by nuclear lobbyists paints a war between them and fossil fuels, but in reality the war is now between nuclear and renewables, something that nuclear falls incredibly short in nearly every aspect
Cmon now Bloomy. The title is pretty misleading. "The dirty secrete behind blue hydrogen" is more like it.
"green hydrogen" is in essence the same as "plastic recycling"
Anyone smart enough to work on a project like this is also smart enough to know it’s a terrible idea. So why are they doing it? I think they are trying to create a consumable trap for drivers but we are smarter than that.
Dear Bloomberg Originals can you please interview french local authorities there are at least 10 of them) who encouraged by the government started to operate hydrogen fuelled busses. Now so more then 3 years later the have stopped using them for two reason price of H2 and the very high maintenance costs of their H2 storage units.
At the time plasma drills become a thing, geothermal energy plants would become easier to establish.
Green Hydrogen will never be a solution.
Hydrogen is being used as a delay tactic by fossil fuel companies primarily due to the difficulty in handling it. That said, its real value is in industrial settings where electric can’t be used, and in its end-product fresh water. 💧
They Stop selling cars new cars in California because there's no infrastructure for the hydrogen cars back to the drawing board
I am electrical engineering PhD, and I still am waiting for a clear picture about why use H2 in capillary applications while electrons are up to the task already. We need to push new nuclear and electrification, at least in the near future. Moreover I would like to have a wide view about the transition not just from the consumer pov (private cars, homes..) but also large operations as well, whose impact is at least comparable (construction materials anyone, large maritime cargo? And maaany more).
Didn't they first say hydrogen is cheaper because our existing infrastructure can be adapted to run it, then they are saying it will take years and be a big gamble to build all the infastructure for hydrogen? So which is it?
No you don't burn hydrogen, use as fuel cell.
The 1st time I heard "Green Hydrogen" I suspicion about because I learn at School that is very expensive/lot of energie to split the H !
Later, I saw the "marvellous" Hydrogen engine (Toyota Mirai) ... is more complex than the typical ICE !
Yeah, hydrogen is very abundant, it's the main part of H2O (water) after all, but it's bonds are strong so it's very energy expensive to liberate.
@@OdinReactor China already cracking the cost down. It is on par with diesel.
Hydrogen and Biofuel are the future.
Hey Bloomberg Originals, when will we see a video about "The Dirty Secret Behind the Oil Industry" ?🤔🤔
@@jkbbumblebeeif I’m not mistaken aramco also has started getting into hydrogen as well
Thanks for the comment, @blackfoxstudioX. You might be interested in our video released last month, "How a Texas Oil Disaster Exposed a Deadly Secret" 👇
th-cam.com/video/dzrKiWKOHjo/w-d-xo.html
@@businessBetter make real things such, The Dirty Secret Behind Green Industry
Hydrogen should e seen as a battery cell, not as fuel. If you can directly connect renewable energy source to grid, that is more efficient.
In terms of heating it makes more sense to go down the electric boiler route.
TLDR: use solar, wind, and nuclear power to generate clean hydrogen, and use an electric heat pump to heat your house. Done.
And use electric batteries for ships, cars, semi trucks etc.
@@TheEsseboy I think hydrogen would be better for long haul aircraft and shipping vessels
@@mikeshafer Yes for aircraft where weight is a concern, shipping vessles are not that weight sensitive.
@@TheEsseboy true. But I also think we could have shipping vessels and cruise ships running nuclear. Works well for aircraft carriers and submarines.
@@mikeshafer The problem is cost, those reactors are not cheap, and having so many vessles with nuclear weapons grade fuel, that would be a nightmare to regulate and control safety vise...it is not only a nuclear incident with radioactive release which would be dangerous, but also the spread of nuclear weapons grade Uranium and plutonium.
Hydrogen comes after we deploy an excess of solar and wind power.
Use the excess energy to create and store hydrogen using electrolysis.
Electricity from renewables should power everything that can be plugged in or carry a battery.
Really no need for hydrogen though with solar being so cheap and easy to deploy. Easier than wind even.
I'm still waiting on this "renewables abundance". Because all they're doing now is driving up electricity prices.
H2 is a very precious molecule. It should be used only if electrification is not available, such as for high temperature industrial heat, o for some long term storages!
Wasserstoff ist genau wie Fusion - immer konstant 30 Jahre entfernt.
The honorless pollution of our Nature MUST be stopped, start to understand that!!!🫵
Green hydrogen should partner with fuel cells, not direct combustion.
The same thing is happening with electric cars even though they make no dirty air the way you optain the resources for the battery hurts the ecosystem including wildlife and trees thats right obtaining the resources for these batteries kills trees.
The scale is different. When it comes to cars, the harm caused by mining batteries is negligible compared to the harm caused by burning fuel.
Especially because batteries can be recycled. We're recapturing 90%+ of the rare earth minerals in them when we recycle them right now.
We're also beginning to commercialize new types of batteries that use different materials that are less problematic, like sodium instead of lithium.
EVs are still worth it.
@@user72974 yes your definitely right
You can say that of any manufactured product... So, should we stop manufacturing things?
1:00 "Hydrogen thats easy" first lie, scientists never claimed this way to be easy, yet here it is used as a counter argument against what exactl.y?
"using the same infrastructure" the power that be would like that very much ofcause which is more to the point why this was ever named green hydrogen like bio in super markets
been on this topic for 25 years and one thing it was never, was a secret as the title claims
@@kinngrimm Exactly. Green Hydrogen Project that is being implemented by Developing Countries like China and India, have a disproportionate budget, acknowledging the difficulty of transitioning to G-Hyd from Fossil Fuel Economy, but at least it will make them self-reliant and isolated from global supply chain crisis, and here lies the intent behind such claims by US Media. G-Hyd needs totally fresh infra with high upfront cost to be augmented by public authorities. Also, G-Hyd is most difficult form of energy as it will need other renewable infra ready in place to work.
Indeed the largest SCAM. ALL these scientists should be sued for economic disruptions
Including this media that also promoted the collapsed FTX‼️
Das ganze Thema findet jetzt eh ein natürliches Ende
It’s funny people
Rise up to have a lower quality of life.
Makes complete sense
We don't need to lower our quality of life, just adjust it and reconfigure.
"Adjust and reconfigure
? sounds like politi-speak for more expensive and less reliable and a lower quality of life.
@TheEsseboy
In what way is it a lower quality of life,
environmentally friendly just means do things more effectively so you dont burn your house down
@@reggie69.Variable renewables cost more and don't pay for their backup.
Why give the Brits an opportunity to make such an important program, they add no value.....
What do you mean?
Weird comment
😂😂😂 Vielleicht klappt es ja mal. Wird ja erst seit gut 100 Jahren erfolglos probiert.
TOP VIDEO DANKE 👍
Best way to make Hydrogen is Grey Hydrogen so made from Natural Gas.
Did I miss something, or should the title not have been _"the dirty secret of _*_blue_*_ hydrogen"_ ?
The solution is insulation and district heating/cooling, but that takes 100 years. Not hydrogen
Electricity from my solar panels I can use it directly in the house or charge the EV car.
But hydrogen... useless, dangerous.
Even in the middle of night and winter too, you forget to include the batteries or you forget to include the nat gas or coal that buffers the grid against the sun and wind going down.
It’s not the younger generation it’s the Millennials.
While people in the West dilly dally with regards to costs and inefficiency, China is actually building the electrolysis and fuel cell plants...
A lot of mis information by mixing a number of green energy sources and coming to a single conclusion?
They clearly haven’t seen the new modular systems, I know of 6 sites and they have a 12 month build time each at 100MW.
The Secret is Actually all Energy is Dirty be it O&G, REs, Solar etc
Wer Häuser mit h2 heizen will hat physikalisch gar nicht verstanden. 🙈
They keep saying it’s more expensive than fossil methane, while they keep allowing production of fossil methane. 🙄
Aktuell völliger Unsinn mit H2.
Fun fact. Hatten wir schon mal. Hieß Stadtgas. Wasserstoff war da ein Hauptbestandteil
Hydrogen is extremely and highly explosive!
Dreams of having it power our cars or putting it in our homes are going to have to be examined with a fine toothed comb before it can be used for these purposes. Whatever system used to transport and store Hydrogen by the average consumer, will have to be absolutely fail-safe!
No. But lithium is.👨🏼❤️💋👨🏿🔥
We have had 100 years of the same fuel and now that is going to change, but it will not be one size fits all
= Rijnstate hospital of Elst, The Netherlands opened its doors. What makes this particular campus interesting is how it generates its energy. Heat pumps, PV panels, and an electrolyzer all work in concert to maintain a constant supply of power. The building collects energy from over 1,300 solar panels located on both the roof and the ground floor. When there’s a surplus of solar, that energy goes toward electrolysis, the splitting action that produces hydrogen. This then allows for hydrogen fuel cells to kick in as a form of reserve power when the sunnier supplies are low.
Net zero is not about emissions... really. It's about what's left - or isn't - in your bank accout. After all the emissions of dollars and cents.
BOAAAHH... Ich kann diese ganze Scheisse nicht mehr sehen oder hören!!! Ideologische Verblendungen!!!
It was hotter during the Romans.
Träume sind Schäume. !!
Where is UNEP?
This molecule to molecule grammar school type cost comparison saying Green hydrogen is 3 times as much as other sources is disingenuous at best.
Do a full analysis of a system or industry segment, amortized over life of plant for e.g., and compare.... and then we talk.
Hydrogen is Not a bling-bling Swiss knife, it's an industrial feedstock.
Could you do these same videos but about American businesses and dodgy leaders. The real dodgy ones though not the ones you are paid to be forgiving with.
You clearly missed the Trump Musk chat on X. According to those two whackadoodles, the Oil and Gas industry is being treated unfairly and we should all give them a big hug.
When hydrogen is burned or chemically converted, the reaction product is water vapor. But water vapor is indisputably the No. 1 greenhouse gas, far ahead of CO2 (if you don't believe it, please check). This additional water vapor introduced into the atmosphere leads to a similar (small) increase in temperature as comparable CO2 emissions. Additional water vapor introduced into the atmosphere condenses out again after a certain time, but this is similar for CO2. Within the CO2 cycle, CO2 is constantly washed out by precipitation and broken down by the photosynthesis of plants. What must also be taken into account here is that the specific temperature effectiveness of CO2 decreases with increasing content in the atmosphere, but that of water vapor does not.
As was the case at the end of the 1980s (EQHHPP project), entry into the hydrogen economy will fail due to the high costs. This is also due to the fact that hydrogen creeps through even the finest cracks and makes most materials brittle. This is a serious issue, as hydrogen has to be stored or transported at pressures of around 600 bar.
i wanted dirty secret i dint get any
Small scale nuclear reactors everywhere.
People jumping through hoops to avoid nuclear. The American Navy has been sailing small scale nuclear reactors for decades. Time to roll the technology out to power cities.
Small scale nuclear is massively more expensive than solar + wind + storage.
background noie ruins it for me, I am out
Geothermal video, when?
stop sugar coating solutions. just be plain and upfront about problems and challenges. it's horrifying that the best solution would be to outlaw politicians from owning shares of fossil fuel companies. any investment in fossil fuel is only ever going to be for short term gains
What part of Challenger explosion don't you get? Hydrogen flame is invisible and has no smell. _"Mommy, your hair is melting! Eeeeeee, it hurts Mommy, it hurts!"_
Another lie, right at the beginning "zero emission hydrogen" that simply isn't true. When you burn hydrogen, OR when you run it through a fuel cell, you get water vapor, which is 10x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. Has anyone done a study on what the environmental impact is of releasing unfathomable amounts of hot water vapor into the atmosphere all over the globe in replacement of CO2 will do to the climate? It could affect rain patterns, change seasonal warming and cooling trends, increase snow fall, cause droughts. It could be far more devastating than CO2 because water vapor has a far more direct and outsized affect on our climate and it has multiple affects at that.
The atmosphere cannot hold any more water vapor than the equalibrium, burning hydrogen will not make the climate hotter, it will simply rain down again, just so we can collect it and make more hydrogen.
CO2 does not condense and fall as rain, hence why it is a problematic substance in regards to climate change.
@@reggie69. The original commenter is telling the truth. It is
You can't be serious...LOL
@@marcus.H He is not, he is missled
@@TheEsseboy I have done enough study to know the definitely is. He's correct. You haven't looked into it if you disagree
hydrogen is extremely inconvenient just for al the infrastructure and energy needed to deliver it and will still be for centuries, even with the middle step of converting it and reconverting it to ammonia
What is the point of this video lol.
Hoping to see lots more development in green hydrogen space and more usage of it in sustainable transportation
👍👍
💖
Great Video
3 times? It is about 8 times more expensive than natural gas.
*In Japan hydrogen is a reality...and their cost to produce is the lowest in the world...and getting even cheaper...*
Yes, but none of it is green hydrogen.
If we must continue to use fossil fuels, it makes sense to utilize their byproduct, hydrogen, as a fuel.
Hydrogen fuel is a big failure
Hydrogen is one of the most explosive gases on the face of the earth and in space
Then I have bad news for you, approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen : )
P.S Observable universe is more than 46 billion light-years. A light-year is the distance light travels in one Earth year
@@blackfoxstudioX That doesn't really matter, since here on earth it's all abound up in water etc. Probably 99% of the observable universe is not too hot for people to live, and in the other 1% you have so much sunlight you have really great solar energy potential. But those are useless facts(guesses) as well since we're stuck on earth :(
Steam reforming is an absurdity. Burning Methane to make Hydrogen is ridiculous.
If you electroplate the Methane, you can make both Hydrogen and Carbons.
The Carbons can be used for Graphite - nanotubes anyone? 🤔
And the energy cost of producing both resources can be offset with one third of the Hydrogen produced. 🧐
How to exactly do that? Process?
How much of the support of hydrogen is economically driven and how much of the support is political idealistic agenda?
I see lots of very informative posts in the comment, and honestly I don't know much about Hydrogen as a fuel. I do wonder, why did they see the necessity to use Hydrogen to create heat, rather than use it to generate electricity and just provide electric heaters, etc. So that Hydrogen is not brought into people's homes.
It's less efficient to turn hydrogen into energy than to turn it directly into the heat for the home by a large factor
@@dexterdrake1734 Not when you use a heat pump.
Very biased.. not that surprising
nive