9:33 That's not how mathematics work. It would be 1*(1-0.25)*(1-0.5) => 0.75*0.5 = 0.375 => 37.5% That's still not much better, but quite a lot more than calculated.
@@ThePmfatima That's quite bad. Remember that hydrogen was being generated from electricity. Generating the initial electricity itself is already not very efficient, so hydrogen is adding another cycle of that by going back into chemical energy.
@@dzcav3 Who cares if my data is old for gasoline cars. Why are we trying to justify keep using them, when renewables are more than catching up and what we can't justify anymore is not making the transition? Who are you still trying to fool?
@@ThePmfatima You said: "Who cares if my data is old for gasoline cars. Why are we trying to justify keep using them, when renewables are more than catching up and what we can't justify anymore is not making the transition? Who are you still trying to fool?" So by your reasoning, we could use temperature data from the 1970s to prove that the earth is actually cooling? Why are we trying to justify keeping them? My comment merely referred to outdated information. But since you brought up the topic, renewables are NOT catching up in the area of transportation. EVs are expensive to buy, very resource intensive to produce, fire prone, expensive to insure and repair (ask Hertz), expensive to charge using public chargers, and time consuming to charge on long trips. The question should not be who am I trying to fool; I only stated basic, objective facts in my first comment. The question should be who are YOU trying to fool with your propaganda?
This video is accurate in its assessment around green hydrogen for transport, which is an idea that's died. But here's the actual case for green hydrogen: Places like Japan and Singapore have 25usc/kwh electricity prices and no land available for renewables. Places like Western Australia, Sahara desert in Egypt, Patagonia have vast barren land with fantastic wind and solar sources where you can produce renewable energy at 3usc/kWh. Even if you lose half your energy to efficiency and half to transport, you're still providing renewable energy at half the cost of fossil fuel energy. Add in a value on the carbon emissions and there is the potential for a large, highly scalable source of decarbonisation of electricity grids. The potential of green hydrogen is to decouple where you generate renewables with where you use it. Renewable resources are free, if you can build your wind/solar plants where it's windiest and sunniest you get limitless green cheap energy. That's not to say hydrogen doesn't have problems to solve, but it's too early to write it off completely given the potential.
This channel doesn't do very good research IMO and is generally clickbait. I have seen 4 of his videos now and each one cherry picks facts and makes big leaps to make some point.
@@BangBangBang. Well they are interesting subjects and I get sucked in because I want to hear something novel but then when you get to the end of these videos you realize there are always things either missing that contradict his point or everything hinges on some big assumption. I'm basically done with this channel since it is a waste of time but it's always something and then the comment section is bunch of idiots chiming in agreeing based on some even more half baked assumptions. Such is the world we live in....
@@doresearchstopwhiningwhat are these new improvements? The only designs I've seen so far are using drinking water through a RO filter and electrolysis of water to create the hydrogen and oxygen?
"If it's more expensive and worse for the environment, why do they do it?" It's other people's money. If it was there own money that had to be spent to comply, the politicians would never pass stupid rules.
Because it promises to be non-disruptive. Just shovel money at the existing fossil fuel companies and they promise they can make it work without any major infrastructure replacement or changes in lifestyle. Same pipes, new gas.
It's *other people's money* plus it's optics. Having a "hydrogen powered bus" looks better to the end user public than a well-maintained (no plumes of black smoke) diesel bus, even if it consumes more resources and creates more pollution that the end user public does not see.
There is another important factor you missed. Since hydrogen is a very small molecule, the leakage problems that exist with methane are vastly greater with hydrogen. All hydrogen storage and delivery systems leak both accidentally and deliberately. Once in the atmosphere. Hydrogen blocks the breakdown of methane. Thus, it is indirectly a greenhouse gas making the whole switch to hydrogen pointless in all but static industrial applications where it can be generated and used at the same location..
It was hinted at in the explosion stories. Combine the leakage with the video issues and it sounds simply useless. Imagine if the South Korea money had been spent on Nuclear SMR, Thorium or Uranium.
Where did you get the information that hidrogen blocks the brake down of methane???? Are you aware thet hidrogen is super light and fastly escapes into the highest parts of the atmosphere???
There is also one last problem that you missed. Hydrogen is a VERY small element. And it’s also very corrosive. So all the current methane infrastructure can’t be used to transport it, but needs new infrastructure.
@@jonnelson9760 Immense energy losses, completely infeasible. You can't efficiently store and utilize hydrogen, just based on its fundamental properties, in any of the 4 base states of matter. Its either too cold, requires too much pressure, interacts with the vessel or is not energy dense enough to warrant the expense. The only use Hydrogen has is to do chemical synthesis of things that need hydrogen.
@@aenorist2431 Well I was thinking about using a hydrogen fuel cell to power my electric tricycle. It would replace the battery. I believe it used cylinders of magnesium hydroxide. I confess I don’t remember the hydroxide but I’m pretty sure it was a hydroxide. The problem is it would of cost $6,000 - $10,000 and my wife would not have been pleased with that. It also would weight 50 lbs versus 30 lbs for a 1.7 kWh battery.
@@jonnelson9760 Solid hydrogen? You'd need to cool to like 14 Kelvin. Insanely cold. Or I guess you could compress it millions of atmospheres of pressure... not feasible and also extremely dangerous.
I have been hearing this fantasy future of hydrogen for years. Year after year I tell people Hydrogen will never be the answer, no matter how much hopium people inhale. Side note, a heat pump is also known as an air conditioner running in reverse, it is essentially identical, except there is a reversing valve. Mini split air conditioners usually double as heat pumps, as it is essentially free to add the feature. So the cost of a heat pump is often zero, except central A/C manufacturers found out they could massively overcharge for the feature.
There is extra needed for an AC unit to be heat pump capable, a reversing valve and high end specs for both sides (thick walled piping and A coil for both high and low sides since they flip sides when reversed). Its not much but it adds up.
@@stewartread4235 Well Watson, maybe you need to understand how efficiency works. So the input is the same, yet the output on cooling is 1kw and on heating is 3.8kw, hence making heating more efficient than cooling. Efficient does actually mean efficient most of the time.
hydrogen is primarily used for ammonia production and with a massive food shortage around the corner the green hydrogen economy would likely used for fertilizer production rather than energy storage
London rates of GBP 0.105/kWh and 124 GBP/Therm currently, make the heat pump use just GBP 0.42 per 50k BTUs while the hydrogen boiler costs GBP 62.00 per 50k BTUs. So the repayment rate would be somewhere around 162 cycles of producing 50k BTUs.
You should do one about ethanol, it takes more energy and fossil fuel to produce than the energy generated, is worse for your cars and is only propped up by subsidies as well.
@@brushlessmotoring Crop residue, biomass, sewage sludge, black liquor from paper mills, and municipal solid waste can all be gasified and turned via Fischer-Tropsh reactions into gasoline and diesel fuel.
Thanks for this video. I work in automotive and its crazy how often people bring up hydrogen. Now I can tell them about your video and save some time explaining why it's not a good idea.
They'll dismiss it - the hydrogen hope is religion at this point, you are trying to reason with zealots. Hydrogens real use these days, especially in automotive, is to 'distract and delay' from BEVs, people are sticking with gasoline and using hydrogen as an excuse why they are not giving an EV a college try, that's why Oil and Gas are putting so much effort in too, it's to put on a good show and convince people EV's are the 'BETAMAX' to Hydrogen's 'VHS' (kids, ask your parents).
Alternatively you can point to Real Engineering's "The Truth about Hydrogen" video. There are numbers to show how inefficient to use hydrogen for passenger cars.
@@brushlessmotoring we can credit Toyota, other legacy OEMs, retail hydrogen companies, and Big Oil for spreading the false gospel of HFC technology. The worldwide ad campaign promoting “the fuel of the future” and “the most abundant element in the universe” propaganda was like cult making religious poetry. I used to be a huge Toyota fan and owned nearly a dozen of their vehicles in every market segment including 3 hybrids. I was intrigued and excited about their investment into HFC and the development of the first gen Mirai HFC vehicle. Except I didn’t just take their word and marketing as gospel. I wanted to learn about HFC as much as possible, as I did with hybrid technology prior to owning my first Toyota hybrid. My own extensive research lead me instead to be critical of HFC and Toyota’s motivations. The more I found out, the less appealing HFC became. And the more sinister Toyota appeared in my view. Ultimately, I ended up going EV with Tesla and the last decade of following the auto and tech industry closely has only solidified my disdain for Toyota’s actions and future outlook. I sold my last Toyota 3 years ago and will likely never buy another. They have lost their way and sold themselves to the devil in my most professional opinion. There’s so much evidence of their corruption and bad faith that I could type about them all day. If being a Toyota fan turned never buying another Toyota again doesn’t make it obvious that what I found out was serious enough for me to abandon their great brand reputation, high standard build quality, and among the best used vehicle resale values, then there’s nothing else I can do to make that any more convincing. At the end of the day an HFCV is just an EV with a lot more inefficient extra parts and processes. And if anyone ever figures out how to turn them into remote detonated bombs…!!!
You can also use hydrogen to refine minerals, for example steel which is responsible for 7% of greenhouse gas emissions. so that's already something big. And to produce ammonia you can also use green hydrogen
@@Chris.Davies steel production is one of the few things that actually does need hydrogen if you want to not use any fossil fuels. Their are already 2 companies in the world doing that: H2 Green Steel in Sweden and HyIron in Germany are both using green hydrogen in the direct reduction process of iron.
Those are the only use cases which actually make sense. Sure there’s no need to be fantastically against hydrogen. But it’s also not gonna be useful in a lot of areas some companies want it to be. Hydrogen is never gonna be a thing for Cars and Semi Trucks, and even storage doesn’t make too much sense considering that the EV car industry is already ready to supply old cars cells to Energy storage facilities. Hydrogen will be needed for Steel production 100% but everywhere you gonna need fuel cells it’s not gonna be efficient enough to make sense. Honestly there’s so much grey hydrogen that gets bought and shipped from the other half of the planet, that it’d be just perfectly sufficient for excess Power to drive electrolysis just for the already existing demand for hydrogen. I don’t have a problem with Hydrogen in general, I just REALLY have a problem with producing it just to use on inefficient use cases that can be better served with other technologies. Safety issues in my eyes always gets disproportionately overstated, there’re so many safety issues with todays fossil fuel technologies that it’s simply mind blowing how disproportionately safety regarding both hydrogen and battery technologies gets problematized
I work in the HVAC industry and while it's true in climate that see below 0 temperatures heat pumps won't work effectively... They are no longer more expensive than a traditional gas furnace and boiler alternative. We actually sell heat pumps cheaper by a small margin and in California you will be required to have heat pumps installed only in the coming years.
It's fascinating that NASA has been utilizing hydrogen as an energy source for their aerospace endeavors. It's unfortunate that some comments overlook the potential for alternative energy sources. Exploring different energy options could lead to even more innovative advancements in the energy industry.
Seaweed biofuel is the solution. Grows fast, doesn't need fresh water or electricity, can make bio crude oil which can be refined into various petroleum products including ATF. No need to change existing vehicles at all
@@WeighedWilson But it will be much cheaper than hydrogen, it will become cheaper with time and this battery is better than hydrogen, no infrastuchre will have to be changed, only bio fuel is better for planes
Hi Marx Mugger. That's a worthwhile suggestion. Anything that turns the sun's energy into fuel directly without draining "processing" energy out of something else should be researched. Cheers, P.R.
Having even a vague familiarity with chemistry would make you hesitant to use liquid hydrogen in close association with people. This highlights for me how many of the proponents for using hydrogen as a non-carbon renewable are not scientists but entrepreneurs on the make.
What are you familiar about with hydrogen and chemistry, is it hydrogen go boom because of bombs and the hindenburg? Yes it's that unstable that 100 years ago they were able to carry around a 10s of thousands of m3 of hydrogen gas without issue and fill 1000 of giant balloon and it was only because they had how ever many 1000s of m3 within it. Just checked. The hindenburg had 7 million square feet of hydrogen in it and it still only fizzled. Get more of a crackle and pop from rice krispies 😂😂
There are hydrogen storage methods without liquifying it. The Australians have come up with a method of storing it in a metal hydride. Four small cartridges hold enough hydrogen to generate 20kwh. It can also be used to make ammonia that is energy dense and burns cleanly.
Ammonia has more potential as an energy storage medium than hydrogen, at least outside of rocket fuel. But there's still the problem of all the energy lost in producing it.
@@Kevin_Street All sources of energy cost so much energy to produce and deliver. Right now there are times California actually pays out of state utilities to take their excess solar power. If you are paid to take the electricity wasting some turning it into hydrogen or ammonia isn’t that much of a problem. The problem is the capital investment to take advantage of the infrequent times electricity prices actually go negative or low enough to make hydrogen or ammonia profitably.
@@matthewhuszarik4173the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance. That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient. Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70. Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
@@nordic5490 The problem with electricity storage is cost. Batteries are extremely expensive for the amounts of power stored and pumped storage has a NIMBY problem that makes it next to impossible to increase capacity and many areas it isn’t even possible. So the present goals are to match generation with demand. Solar covers peak demand during the day. Wind can supply power at different times by where they are placed and the prevailing winds. I worked on the coast in central California where almost every afternoon through the evening the prevailing winds picked up during the duck tail demand period. A very large wind farm is planned for off the coast to take advantage of this. Combined this with available pumped storage and battery storage works for most situations. Until this is completed keep combined cycle natural gas plants that can be brought on line quickly for emergency peaking requirements.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 California is not flat, and I suspect it has plenty of candidate pumped hydo potential sites. Would you choose; - Battery storage with a >95% round trip efficientcy - assuming a final electrical load - pumped hydro @ 70% round trip efficientcy - assuming a final electrical load - hydrogen @
You missed why it's being used in real life: industrial production, like steel production needs hydrogen instead of coal. Green hydrogen is always based on over production, when electricity is not needed.
To make matters worse for hydrogen boilers, the price of heat pumps will drop down as more of them are produced. Currently, heat pumps are about 50% more expensive than whole house air conditioners in the USA, despite being almost the same components.
Hydrogen - The perfect fuel. Except for 2 major hurdles. 1- it takes.more energy to produce, than if contains. 2- To be useable as a fuel, it must be stored as a liquid, under tremendous pressure. If a vehicle with Hydrogen is involved in a collision if the tank is ruptured, it explodes violently. Enough to level a city block. So for the forseeable future, Hydrogen power is a pipe dream
Pink H2 is made more efficiently with Hi-temp electrolysis. Red H2 is made directly from heat from nuclear reactors, no electricity required - Japan is currently doing this. Also, there are natural reservoirs of geologic H2 and they may be very large and self-renewing - basically Oxygen is stripped from water under hi temp and pressure when oxidizing iron, leaving H2.
It's amazing to me that people don't seem to grasp that converting something into something else, no matter what it is, both requires energy and results in energy lost. It doesn't matter if you're turning hydrogen into electricity or burning coal; the more steps, the more energy is lost.
9:12 That math does not check out. First you loose 25% of the energy. 100% -25% = 75% From that 50% is lost again. Which means half of the remaining 75%. Therefore 37.5% of the starting energy remains. That is 62.5% a loss overall not 75%...
@@lelolson3373yes. the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance. That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient.
Governments worldwide are spending over 6 trillion dollars for fossil fuel subsidies. Just saying, it’s not like the old energy system is much cheaper, we just got used to it so much.
The energy density of Hydrogen is far higher than battery and a recharge can take much less time. Also allows storing much more energy. Create it with grid power at night. Batteries can’t store very much power.
@@jsbrads1 hydrogen will be great for powering homes. For a moving object, we need the space savings that batteries provide. At this point, absolutes about what batteries can't do is premature. Energy density continues to increase. My only desire for EVs at this point is that they make the battery technology upgradeable. I would love the idea that I could get 800 miles from 10 minutes of charge today, but perhaps 2000 miles tomorrow.
@@tonystorcke I’ve always thought we should be making Gold/Platinum batteries, maybe after we harvest some asteroids the price of materials will be more reachable.
@9:29 If each of the processes are efficient as given. The percentages should be applied one after another. In a multiplicative way, that would be #1 (100% - 25%)*100% = 75% #2 (100% - 50%)*75% = 37.5%
the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance. That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient. Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70. Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
@@nordic5490How kind of Germany to bid up the price of cheap hydro in Norway and raise the energy costs for the citizens of a country that actually prudently planned their energy future. 😂
@@nordic5490 Obviously difficult for anyone in politics who has been entertained by the hydrogen lobbyists - but a point well put by anyone who has any common sense.
I was like, wtf. Where did he get that quote from. I have a heat pump and paid nearly nothing as the government had subsidised it. Even at full price it wasn’t going to break the bank and we even got a fantastic Japanese model.
Not $12,000. It was £12,000, which is the typical retrofit figure in the UK based on the standard government estimate. That's for a whole-house installation - a heat pump providing both house-wide heating and hot water. UK houses don't use air ducts. Their central heating is done using circulating water and heat exchangers (inaccurately called 'radiators') in each room - no idea why this is the case. Often the pipework is as thin as the original builders could get away with (to save money) and not sufficient for the lower working temperatures, and the heat exchangers too small. So fitting a heat pump means ripping out the entire heating system, right down to getting up the floorboards and making holes in walls to access the pipework, and building a whole new one. That's why it's so expensive. The power output is also less than a gas boiler, so it'll likely involve upgrading the house insulation. Part of the problem is that a lot of the UK's housing stock was made to be really cheap to build - the building firms don't have any reason to care about utility costs after they sell the house. So rather than build with a lot of expensive insulation and care for thermal design, they would just install an over-powered gas boiler. Gas is cheap. Installing a heat pump in a new build home is far cheaper. But there's not much reason for construction firms to do so: It's still more expensive than a gas boiler, and doesn't add as much to the value of the house as it costs, so to them it's a net loss.
@@vylbird8014small nitpick: it is NOT inaccurate to call them radiators, as that is what they do. You can also call them heat exchangers, but not every heat exchanger is a radiator, while every radiator is a heat exchanger.
@@reappermen It's misleading. They radiate a little heat, yes - but only incidentally. They are primarily losing heat by convection. The double-panel ones even have heat exchange fins on the inside.
Neglecting the possibility as storage isn’t as easy as saying batteries are cheaper. They are, but batteries loose energy over time and deteriorate much faster than a hydrogen container would. Batteries are better and more economical for daily loads. But you also need energy backups for infrequent and less common energy needs. E.g. a long Winter with less wind than usual. Won’t be a problem every year. But it will happen some years. For these cases, having a reliable long term energy storage that can reuse existing infrastructure (e.g. refurbished gas storage and gas turbines) while also transitioning fluidly rather than running two types of infrastructure can be valuable. Where you use fossil gas in the short term and phase it out slowly over time. Thus guaranteeing grid stability, reducing upfront investment cost and having a transition period where companies can get real world experience with the technology and the economics before relying on it.
up in alberta there is a company developing a process that does the steam reforming underground and only takes the hydrogen leaving the co2 underground. this may have some merit but again , storing and transporting the hydrogen in large quantities becomes a big issue . they have done pilot plant so far
Actually basically everything thats been developed from touchscreens to computers, the internet etc have all been goverment projects. The private sector don’t really innovate they only market things.
@@felixarbable You mean we've been living under communism all this time and didn't know it? I'll agree that government sponsors way too much, but it is mostly in weapons, besides that its a hodge podge of stupid crap, latest government invention is the whole LGBHD+TV movement, that yeah, that was government getting sponsored, did well there LOL. Dude, your statement is so insanely stupid that I'm just gonna leave it there.
The problem Is not a mirage,if we need to replace oil which will run out at some point, hydrogen which is abundant is the only viable option today. Which is why money is flowing in it, batteries also have oil problems run out of mineral at some point
True. But they can easily be lower emission than natural gas - even if their electricity is produced by burning natural gas. The heat pump effectively multiplies the energy output of burning the gas. (Though at a lower temperature - sorry, no perpetual motion.)
All that money spent on hydrogen energy research was not wasted. Sometimes experiments have negative results. We didn't fail, we just found a thousand ways not to make a light bulb. Was it a lot of money, yes. Was a lot of it wasted on graft, probably. But on the whole it was noble. Minor aside, whether heat pumps are viable depends on their purpose. If it's for home heating they're great a miracle technology, assuming the outdoor temperature is at least 20F. Below that you're going to rely entirely on "supplementary" resistive heating elements. If you're trying to heat water for use as hot water, they're entirely useless. Heat pumps using non-CFC refrigerants are only capable of about 60F temperature gains, and above 40F they become very inefficient.
It's hilarious that all this "green energy" is less efficient than traditional energy and more harmful for the environment. Granted, not to the end user perspective, but all the processes and storage that has to be done behind the scenes is worse in every way.
Hydrogen works only, ONLY when you have essentially free electricity. Hydrogen can be stored, but you loose a lot of energy doing it. So yeah, only makes sense if you have a lot of excess electricity, for example during peak sun hours when solar power generates more power than you need. In most cases other storage methods are still more efficient. But the theoretical benefit is that you theoretically have unlimited storage capacity. Again， with our current electric grid and power production， it really doesn't make sense. You would first need a massive change in our electricity production where we have frequent and extreme electricity surplus that hydrogen makes sense.
That is coming. Lots of excess power majority of the time. It’s called superpower. In Australia there’s a lot of roof top solar. During the middle of the day there’s a lot of solar generation. There’s lot of renewable energy generation coming online and in the pipeline. The idea is to build more than we need. Then 90% of the time we would have way too much energy production. Superpower. And what to do with it? Use it for green hydrogen and ammonia production etc and then export and sell it to Japan etc. The idea is that hydrogen would become the new oil. Like Saudi Arabia today produces and exports a lot of oil, tomorrow Australia would produce and export a lot of hydrogen.
I mean, if they are doing subsidies, that just means that the market will not be self sustainable unless there is subsidies. Look at electric cars a lot less would be sold if the subs are not there. The charging infustrucre is so slow, and no one is really building it. Its not economically viable. Everything around electric is subsidized.
Yes, they have a Tesla parking lost charging station near my place, and I see people dropping off their cars, then jumping into a good Ole gas burner and then getting dropped off in the morning to get the car all the time.
@proy3 Yeah, that means that they are treating gas as a utility, just like electric and public transportation and other industries and public services.
Hydrogen isn't the correct choice for releasing it to the public, as it is both difficult and dangerous to store and transport. The H2 molecule is so small that it sneaks thru the molecules of any metal pipe used for its distribution. It make the metal very brittle, ending in a sudden failure of the pipes - and associated explosions. Liquid Hydrogen remain the best rocket fuel. Beside industrial uses, and as rocket fuel, Hydrogen is unsuitable for transportation and power generation...
So for big cargo ships as I understand it they are working on the solution of producing e-methanol or e-ammonia as a substitute for fuel. As far as I know both processes needs hydrogen for their production.
I thought the same. Most solutions of our decarbonisation problems involve hydrogen at some point. Power to x needs hydrogen and these fuels of what kind they are are needed for planes, shipes maybe trucks and trains. Steel industry needs hydrogen as well, because there are only less other options like electrolysis which is complicated in that case. Next thing would be the chemical industry, it needs a lot of hydrogen in all kinds of situation.
I have an idea for hydrogen air travel. What if you filled a giant balloon with hydrogen, then strap what is basically a plane fuselage to the bottom for people to sit in. Then, you use giant, electric propellers powered by solar to move through the air. Why has no one tried this?
Transport for London (TfL) are doing some trials of hydrogen fuel-cell buses. A good few years ago most of the fleet that served the RV1 route were hydrogen but the route was canned, no idea what happened to the buses.
a city on germany had this kind of trial, it worked but was too expensive, which is "not a problem because hevily subsidized" but then they realized it was impossible to scale up because the bigger refueling station was impossible to be built close to the city due to the explosion risk.
the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance. That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient. Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70. Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
Get hydrogen using green energy source like wind or sun ray is good But i think the main problem with hydrogen is It can destroy metal of it's container. So it is so difficult to save and keep hydrogen
Couple other things not included in video to the nature of hydrogen: Hydrogen is a tiny particle, it escapes through the side walls of steel pipe, slowly, but scale it to just half the cars in the world. Has to be stored cryo or compressed. Cryo constantly worms, insulation can do so much, it eventually (about 2 days from storage temp to venting) needs to be used or vent to cool itself, more losses, park in a garage for fun times..... also if pressure gets too high and it vents it will spontaneously combust, visualize flame thrower no ignition source needed (hydrogen rubbing on air particles hard enough is enough heat to start it). Compressed at 3K psi makes for a HEAVY tank, also can't be alone (this one I don't know why) in compressed tank it needs to be dissolved in liquid and some sponge material. You don't get to store much of it like this. The damage to the environment and society environmentalist do. We in stead could be perusing actual technology instead.
I've said the same thing about consumer hydrogen electric motors and Toyota's huge investment in their R&D. It just doesn't seem to make sense. The barriers in energy density are hard, scientific facts, not potentially solvable issues in battery chemistry. The only thing I can think of is they're using consumer vehicles as a sort of small-scale, worst-case scenario test bed for development of hydrogen electric generators to replace diesel back-up generators for buildings.
It's all about keeping people in their gasoline cars, Toyota talks about hydrogen to distract their consumers from looking at EVs, consider the Mirai as a marketing project for the Prius, and it all makes sense - when Toyota eventually has to write off all these stranded assets, both fuel cell and combustion, their massive debt will be downgraded to junk status, and it will probably be the end, automotive moves far slower that most other industries, but they dug their own grave all the way back in the mid 2000's when they cancelled their electric RAV4 project, made in collaboration with a very young small Californian company, called Tesla.
Seems to me when it comes to Toyota it's the Japanese government subsidizing it's development. Japan wants to depends less on imports and solutions like red hydrogen might be a way to do that
Hi fixed. I'd guess their R & D costs are tax write-offs. They can either give the dough gratis to the govt, or give it to their boffins to play with. Boffins might discover something useful, who knows? Cheers, P.R.
Toyota is big driver of hydrogen, in auto industry at least. Besides, some arid places need Hydrolysis to generate drinking water....those plants can be used to store H2
The fundamental mistake this video (and many others) makes is assuming we are playing a zero sum game on a national level, where the old theoretical efficiency arguments might be true. But we are not in a zero sum game. We have many until now useless deserts whose solar energy, once harvested, needs to be transported. And with electric cables e.g. from Australia to Europe being out of question, hydrogen reigns supreme in this regard, especially once salt water electrolyzers will be available on an industrial level. So I disagree strongly, the subsidies are a very good investment since hydrogen will allow us to access new energy sources that are currently out of reach. And we have to do it because the all-electric 100% renewable energy future is even more unrealistic due to the fluctuation problems mentioned in this video. The only exception would be a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or aliens introducing new technologies to us.
I work for a hydrogen company as a lead technician. We make our own hydrogen that we ship to sites & make our own hydrogen propulsion machines that turn the hydrogen back into electricity (only 1 company does ehat we do) and you would be amazed at how u reliable hydrogen propulsion is. Its wayyyyy to u reliable to be able to let the public use it.
Solar panels on cargo ships make some sense because of the large surface area and vast time at sea. They could have a hybrid transmission that mixed diesel and electric energies, or maybe just an electric screw added to the diesel screws. But just like semi-trucks, the less energy they have to store and carry is the more cargo they can store and carry. So they should replace energy storage with energy generation as much as possible.
It is really only tankers that have free deck space, other cargo ship have giant hatches on deck where solar panels wouldn't be suitable, besides it would be a miniscule amount of energy provided.
Yeah in addition to what the above reply said, putting solar panels on modes of transportation has already been shown to be DOA. They generate very little energy compared to everyday consumption, and only work best on clear days, tracking the movement of the sun. Having solar panels on a moving and rotating boat out at sea, at the very best, will just be a ginormous waste of money with very little benefit.
There've been some interesting experiments with putting sails on cargo ships. Not old fashioned cloth sails, but modern rigid or inflatable structures that can be stowed when not in use. I don't think they provide enough energy to make the ship diesel-free, but they can cut down on the amount of fuel needed for a trip.
Before making a comment like this always try to make a few back-of-the-envelope calculation. The largest container ship in the world could carry around 10 000 m2 with solar panels. This gives us an installed capacity around 1500 kW and a yearly production around 1500 000 kWh, or 1500 MWh. The engines produce 72 000 kW or 72 MW. And they can do so 24/7 for a total production of 630 000 MWh. Or 420 times more than what the solar panels can produce. Would you have the ship clad in solar panels to save 0.25 percent of the fuel? That is, unless the greater weight/drag actually increase the total fuel consumption.
@@SweBeach2023 I think that computer controlled sails on cargo ships to reduce fuel usage is a better use of money than solar panels, we know wind can add substantial gains, we just need to scale up our sails and ability to control them remotely without a large crew. I think the tech is starting to mature, but won't be seen implemented until bunker fuel is banned in ship usage and countries step up emissions controls for ports, too cheap to just continue polluting otherwise. I don't normally advocate for increased regulation, but the maritime shipping industry really needs it, especially in these times where China has uncountable numbers of cargo ships that can technically (and have already been) transporting large amounts of troops/supplies/weapons for the PLA and lies about their emissions.
Well said, party pooper 😂 There is also issue with the fuel cells (for converting H2 back to electricity) and their need for rare platinum metals which makes scaling hard to envision.
Battery storage and rapidly improving battery technology and deployment is the future. I wish that $280 billion had gone to installing Megapack arrays to replace peaker plants.
Hydrogen for rockets makes sense over batteries not because of cost but because the hydrogen is both the energy source and material pushed in order to propel the rocket. You can’t move an object forward in space with only a battery.
The video is talking about how they used a hydrogen fuel cell for electricity to power the computers and other electrical devices. This is separate device and function to the rocket engine that propels the rocket.
@@solexxx8588 yes and its still technically a fuel it is a substance that is consumed to provide a desired reaction just like a reactor the uranium is still called fuel.
12:40 heat pumps are not expensive.. where the hell did you get 12k gbp??? Heat pumps are the exact same as air conditioners, except they have an extra reversing valve. The actual cost of heat pumps to most people is just the cost of the reversing valve. I.e. 100 bucks maybe
Air conditioning in the UK is a rare thing - we use circulating water for central heating. £12,000 is the retrofit cost to install a heat pump that provides both heating and hot water, including the cost of ripping out and replacing all the heating pipework and radiators with ones suited to a lower working temperature. It's a lot more cost-effective in a new build. Air con in UK homes is generally not seen as worthwhile. Sometimes the temperature does get uncomfortably high, but never for more than a couple of weeks. Those occasions make headline news. So why pay a fortune for house-wide air conditioning that's going to sit unused almost all of the time? Cheaper to just put up with the heat, or if you really can't stand it, buy a little standalone unit.
Heat pumps suck if you live in an area that gets below 40F/4.4C. My parents replaced the system at they cabin because most of the time they spend there is in the winter and it never felt warm. The efficiency drops as the outside temp drops it simply couldn't keep up.
That’s not really a good analogy. It’s very common for heat pump or AC units to be undersized for a space to save money upfront on purchasing the equipment. That doesn’t make them inefficient it just means they’re not designed for the size of the space.
I think with a combination of advances in how quickly batteries can charge, capacitors and overhead power lines you could make HGVs and buses work even if you need to go hybrid for edge cases and you wouldn't need a large engine, just enough so that if you know your going on a route with a shortfall you can run the small generator the whole way enough to make sure you would arrive with enough battery left over and I am going to assume that once you get to your destination you would plug in for unloading / loading. FFS flywheel have worked for buses before where they quickly charge the flywheel at every stop, so worst case install a flywheel and battery.
WSM's statement that a methane molecule has "inner energy" might better have been expressed as the fact that hyrdrocarbons have less stability than water. But he's certainly right about hydrogen having no future as a green source of energy.
Re: South Korean New and Renewable energy policy. I suspect the very power companies you say are being made to start grey hydrogen plants lobbied for the "new" in new and renewable for the very reason you stated - they were cheaper to make.
hydrogen fuel cell technology only makes economic sense if electricity can be produced at an extremely cheap rate to support the energy requirements of electrolysis. this would require diverting attention from high-cost, low-yield solar and wind power toward more economical and zero-emission nuclear power. Unfortunately public perception of nuclear power has been tainted by disastrous mismanagement, so we will be stuck searching for new lithium reserves for decades to come.
Actually piping hydrogen is more of a nightmare than a dream. It requires special metal alloys to do it long term. One option is saving it as a hydride such as iron titanium hydride.😮
I have to disagree. There are challenges with green hydrogen, however there are locations and use cases where it has huge potential. If you look at Western Australia which covers a land area of 2.6 million km2, with a coastline of 12,500 km, has consistent winds that blow 60km inland, and in the North has the highest level of solar radiation anywhere in the world. Right near locations where you can produce some of the cheapest sustainable energy you have massive energy hungry mine sites that are all moving towards zero carbon operations. Combine with being the largest produce of Iron Ore, there is also significant opportunity and projects being developed to use green hydrogen to create green steel. Companies like First Mode have already proven the benefits of green hydrogen for heavy industry mobility and are in the process of retrofit of about 400 ultra-class haul trucks with their hydrogen fuel cell powerplants, plus developing the infrastructure for hydrogen production, refueling and battery recharging. The Western Australian government is also currently trialing the use of green hydrogen to power 100 homes in a regional town and also developing refueling infrastructure for use by heavy industry.
The UK study is suspicious (who funded it?). BEV buses should make sense because the average speed is very low and all the energy for acceleration and deceleration is recuperated with regenerative braking. The vast majority of commercial trucks don't need the extreme range so could be electric.
Theres a big error in the heat pump installation cost. Its not 12 000 but more like 2500 Pounds. In Norway we get them for 1900Euro installed with electrician.
I don't think its stupid, it just as has a rather niche use case. It's pointless for cars, planes and trucks, especially as batteries become more energy dense, but it could work well for shipping. Large ships could easily handle the weight of hydrogen and the needed insulation to secure it. As they only travel to large ports, the energy infrastructure could be managed at those points.
King County Metro has 1 or a few BEV buses. These boast an impressive recharge time of ~15 minutes every few hours, which lines up with the operator's work break. So this advantage of hydrogen buses might be nullified too.
What about freight trains? They could simply attach a hydrogen tank car behind the loco for it's fuel source and the conversion should be fairly straight forward. It's not like they don't haul far more dangerous materials anyway.
(1) Depends on the freight type (nobody wants to add more dangerous explosives into flammable/other explosive cargo), (2) hydrogen is very easy to escape from containment due to its small molecule size, (3) maintenance issues similar to that of its passenger counterparts (pitting corrosion). Nobody wants to have their 5 km-long train got stuck in the middle of nowhere.
Hydrogen powered iron ore trains are are progressing now in Western Australia. They travel 100kms in remote areas with some driverless. Also operate in one of the best and cheapest places to generate sustainable energy with several green hydrogen projects being progressed.
Hydrogen boilers powered by nuclear baseline power is almost perfectly net zero, except for the construction materials and installation with us significant, but it's a fixed cost up front - the most cost effective kind of cost.
Hydrogen aircraft will always be impractical because for the equivalent energy compared to jet fuel hydrogen will require nine times the volume. The carbon fiber tanks will also be very expensive and weigh many times more than the hydrogen inside the tank. Imagine an aircraft where the entire a few slash was full of these tanksthis is why hydrogen aircraft will never fly.
12:00 Right, except for the fact that water is an even stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. From the EPA: "Water vapor appears to cause the most important positive feedback. As the earth warms, the rate of evaporation and the amount of water vapor in the air both increase. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this leads to further warming." It is almost like the entire industry is one big, elaborate con...
Uh...? If you watch this segment and think there's an industry con, you're correct. But it's how much more expensive heat pumps are compared to air conditioners.
Yes, water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But the good news about water vapour is that it has a maximum concentration. When that is reached clouds form and the water comes down as rain. It is not possible to add any amount of water to the atmosphere. But any amount of CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Luckily the oceans absorb quite a bit of the CO2. Another factor that is good for us is that CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas. Otherwise, the situation would already be much worse. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes some degree of greenhouse effect, moderately increasing temperatures. The slightly warmer air can hold a bit more of water vapour which in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This is how they play together.
In the video you mention that in the UK there might be a case for buses to use hydrogen as a power source. Indeed there are buses in the UK which use hydrogen as a fuel. This is a good idea as long as you do not let anyone with any mathematical skills or accountancy qualifications near the project. If you do they will point out that each mile travelled by a hydrogen bus costs 6 times more in the cost of fuel per mile compared to electricity. As a bus spends a lot of time travelling clearly the cost per mile of fuel is a concern. Therefore if anyone with any interest in cost looks at hydrogen for buses the project will die. Buses do not have to work 18 hours per day they can easily be rested for and hour or two, to literally recharge their batteries. The UK has a "rush hour" in the morning and same in the evening. During the day and evening demand drops and so the number of buses on the roads decreases.
It uses a chemical reaction between aqueous Sodium Hydroxide and aluminum. The result of that reaction is hydrogen, which is gathered and directed to a fuel cell that drives the car.
I like lithium Ion batteries instead, its Charged by lightning provided by Fairies in the sky, it also comes delivered by the Stork, no need to mine for minerals from the ground :D
Hydrogen ist the base of the future. Everything is based on hydrogen, you can make all sorts of hydrocarbons from it, it’s cheap, easy to store and transport.
That's when we barely use hydrogen at all, and there's therefore a lot less opportunities for something to go wrong. If you 1,000X the hydrogen vehicles/plants/etc. then you 1,000X the number of hydrogen explosions unless you can find a way to make it safer. But as the Hindenburg showed this has been a problem for a long time.
Batteries have an energy density of 0.1-0.27kWh/kg meaning they are more efficient at storing all the energy you give them, but they can’t store much of it. Hydrogen has an energy density of 39.6kWh/kg, meaning they are less efficient at ‘charging’ but overall can store so much more energy than batteries meaning longer range, along with the benefit of fast refuel times. It’s a battle of efficiency of energy stored over total amount of energy you can store. Because of this battery cars are good for short distance everyday use cars and personal vehicles, especially when combined with renewables like rooftop solar. Hydrogen is more suited for more powerful longer range cars, trucks and busses with the hopeful future of ships and planes
Great video! The worst part of the hydrogen idea is the entire hydrogen energy ecosystem is less efficient than a pure electric energy ecosystem by around 60%. That means more expensive to consumers and operators and this is the true killer. It’s a really bad joke.
@@Cybernetic_Systems they do use green hydrogen, because as I understand it direct hydrogen iron reduction from green hydrogen is the only option to make steel without fossil fuels
One of the ways that Earth is so weird is our planet's incredible density. On Mars, hydrogen atoms reach escape velocity just by being at room temperature. (Temperature is the average speed of gaseous molecules and atoms) Our gravity well is large enough that hydrogen can't escape until it's much hotter. And our massive magnetic field keeps the solar wind further out, so hydrogen molecules need to have even more temperature to escape into space. Unlike Mars where hydrogen, and even oxygen regularly blows away in the solar wind.
My understanding is hydrogen works it way up and drifts off into space, but on that journey, it contributes to warming. Hydrogen venting from cryo storage contributes to warming, unless flared, and when flared in air (rather than pure oxygen) it creates NOx emissions due to the high temperature.
Both are right. All of our primordial He-3 has bubbled up and out into space. So what we have left is byproducts of nuclear radiation - alpha particles, aka He-4. It's another reason Earth is So Weird. - He-3 is perfect for nuclear fusion. But He-4 is noble and won't fuse. But can be supercooled into a superfluid that's Bosons instead of Fermions and can occupy the same space. - Lithium's rare Li-6 can be fizzled (lysed?) into He-3 in a breeder reactor. - The COLEX process for separating rare Li-6 from common Li-7 uses extremely dangerous hydrated mercury, and no nation on Earth will perform it. - So we have a future of internal combustion on Earth (only place with enough oxygen, another reason Earth is So Weird), and nuclear fusion outside Earth. - Also probably shipments of He-3 down to Earth for terrestrial fusion.
@@StephenGillie thoughts on ‘natural hydrogen’ likelihood? There is a lot of buzz about deposits of hydrogen just lying around, color coded ‘white’ - but I can’t see how it could be at oil and gas scale - but I don’t know enough about the geology.
There is one fundamental problem with all of these new ideas: no one looks at the new issues CREATED by the new technologies (which often are even worse than the issues that the new technology was designed to fix 😂)
Green hydrogen is a new proposed of renewable energy. The research is ongoing , it takes times to overcome all the challenges before producing green energy which is safe and cost effective for multiple usages.
To me, hydrogen's potential value is if you manage to find a way to transport it (nearly) as efficiently as electricity, with hydrogen offering storage along with transportation. Imagine building clean sources like nuclear, wind, or solar out in the middle of nowhere (avoiding the NIMBY problem which is one of the biggest things holding us back from cleaner options available today) on land that otherwise has minimal value/use (Canadian tundra, deserts, etc), and allowing them to generate to their maximum capacity regardless of in-the-moment demand. There are massive problems, efficiency is obviously a problem, but we don't currently have any really fantastic storage options and transmission is horribly inefficient, so decoupling generation from demand has some potential. Don't get me wrong, if I were forced to put money into the hydrogen market today I'd be shorting them, at best this will be something we see in 20-50 years and we may well have better solutions (I suspect so, I hope so).
For buses you could have a battery swap system. Drop the battery out from underneath the bus at the bus garage. Use an automated hydraulic system to do it.
Hi Andrew. Yes, I've said that before as well. But why not extend the system by having a universal battery design to fit all cars, or several even. Instead of gas stations, ""battery stations", and a five minute change done with the same speed as changing a tyre. The battery station's stock of flat batteries could be charged up overnight during off-peak rates, especially with wing power. Tyre sizes have been successfully standardized. Cheers, P.R.
In Germany, the main rationale seems to be that it allows for the possibility of storing much more energy over a longer period of time than batteries. As one needs a storage option when relying on wind and solar alone and wanting to heat houses with heat pumps in winter, hydrogen power plants seemed the only option to the German government. What do you think about this?
Its not only "not the only option", its not even a valid option due to the losses and costs involved. We have perfectly fine flow batteries, hydro storage and alternative battery chemistries that are either viable now or very close to it ... closer already than hydrogen can ever get.
Hydrogen is utterly garbage for fixed location energy storage. There is an entire host of battery options that are highly efficient, and far cheaper when facturing in economies of scale that they are only now starting to make use of (e.g. previous global lithium Mining was absolutely tiny compared to the available deposits and new needs).
How about recycling industrial heat waste for household heating, along with batteries, potential energy and other storage solutions? Practically some nuclear power does not hurt anyone but petro-conglomerate though.
Temperature limits to electric heat pump are currently because of their refrigerant, not fundamental physics. For example the fundamental limit of COP in the case of -30C to 25C heating is around "5". So with the correct engineering it really should work in Canada too (COP=3 would be more realistic obviously, we cannot do actual Carnot cycle).
9:33 That's not how mathematics work.
It would be 1*(1-0.25)*(1-0.5) => 0.75*0.5 = 0.375 => 37.5%
That's still not much better, but quite a lot more than calculated.
Energy conversion efficiency of a gasoline combustion engine is about 20-25%, diesel can reach 40%, so that's not that bad.
@@ThePmfatima That's quite bad. Remember that hydrogen was being generated from electricity. Generating the initial electricity itself is already not very efficient, so hydrogen is adding another cycle of that by going back into chemical energy.
@@ThePmfatima The thermal efficiency of gasoline car engines is in the 30-40% range now. Your data is old.
@@dzcav3 Who cares if my data is old for gasoline cars. Why are we trying to justify keep using them, when renewables are more than catching up and what we can't justify anymore is not making the transition?
Who are you still trying to fool?
@@ThePmfatima You said: "Who cares if my data is old for gasoline cars. Why are we trying to justify keep using them, when renewables are more than catching up and what we can't justify anymore is not making the transition?
Who are you still trying to fool?"
So by your reasoning, we could use temperature data from the 1970s to prove that the earth is actually cooling?
Why are we trying to justify keeping them? My comment merely referred to outdated information. But since you brought up the topic, renewables are NOT catching up in the area of transportation. EVs are expensive to buy, very resource intensive to produce, fire prone, expensive to insure and repair (ask Hertz), expensive to charge using public chargers, and time consuming to charge on long trips.
The question should not be who am I trying to fool; I only stated basic, objective facts in my first comment. The question should be who are YOU trying to fool with your propaganda?
This video is accurate in its assessment around green hydrogen for transport, which is an idea that's died. But here's the actual case for green hydrogen:
Places like Japan and Singapore have 25usc/kwh electricity prices and no land available for renewables.
Places like Western Australia, Sahara desert in Egypt, Patagonia have vast barren land with fantastic wind and solar sources where you can produce renewable energy at 3usc/kWh.
Even if you lose half your energy to efficiency and half to transport, you're still providing renewable energy at half the cost of fossil fuel energy. Add in a value on the carbon emissions and there is the potential for a large, highly scalable source of decarbonisation of electricity grids.
The potential of green hydrogen is to decouple where you generate renewables with where you use it. Renewable resources are free, if you can build your wind/solar plants where it's windiest and sunniest you get limitless green cheap energy.
That's not to say hydrogen doesn't have problems to solve, but it's too early to write it off completely given the potential.
This channel doesn't do very good research IMO and is generally clickbait. I have seen 4 of his videos now and each one cherry picks facts and makes big leaps to make some point.
@@doresearchstopwhining you're living up to your username where you expect some kind of neutrality on ClickTube
@@BangBangBang. Well they are interesting subjects and I get sucked in because I want to hear something novel but then when you get to the end of these videos you realize there are always things either missing that contradict his point or everything hinges on some big assumption. I'm basically done with this channel since it is a waste of time but it's always something and then the comment section is bunch of idiots chiming in agreeing based on some even more half baked assumptions. Such is the world we live in....
The video is simply inaccurate about Green Hydrogen. Period. Just call it what it is.
@@doresearchstopwhiningwhat are these new improvements?
The only designs I've seen so far are using drinking water through a RO filter and electrolysis of water to create the hydrogen and oxygen?
"If it's more expensive and worse for the environment, why do they do it?"
It's other people's money. If it was there own money that had to be spent to comply, the politicians would never pass stupid rules.
Because it promises to be non-disruptive. Just shovel money at the existing fossil fuel companies and they promise they can make it work without any major infrastructure replacement or changes in lifestyle. Same pipes, new gas.
I guess because the majority of people are not aware of it and it's a story that politicians can sell
You forget that the base reaction burning hydrogen is very clean and has the most heat given off per pound of fuel.
It's *other people's money* plus it's optics. Having a "hydrogen powered bus" looks better to the end user public than a well-maintained (no plumes of black smoke) diesel bus, even if it consumes more resources and creates more pollution that the end user public does not see.
@@samsonsoturian6013Great gravimetric energy density. Rubbish volumetric. You need a big fuel tank, but it doesn't weigh much.
There is another important factor you missed. Since hydrogen is a very small molecule, the leakage problems that exist with methane are vastly greater with hydrogen. All hydrogen storage and delivery systems leak both accidentally and deliberately. Once in the atmosphere. Hydrogen blocks the breakdown of methane. Thus, it is indirectly a greenhouse gas making the whole switch to hydrogen pointless in all but static industrial applications where it can be generated and used at the same location..
Thanks for that information which is fucking true!!! i had no idea! Thanks
@@hul8376no idea, true😂
This is the single most important consideration
It was hinted at in the explosion stories. Combine the leakage with the video issues and it sounds simply useless. Imagine if the South Korea money had been spent on Nuclear SMR, Thorium or Uranium.
Where did you get the information that hidrogen blocks the brake down of methane????
Are you aware thet hidrogen is super light and fastly escapes into the highest parts of the atmosphere???
There is also one last problem that you missed.
Hydrogen is a VERY small element. And it’s also very corrosive.
So all the current methane infrastructure can’t be used to transport it, but needs new infrastructure.
Yes. Hydrogen can work its way into the structure of steel.
What about storage in a solid form. I have seen fuel cells using this. The hydrogen is gasified right before usage.
@@jonnelson9760 Immense energy losses, completely infeasible. You can't efficiently store and utilize hydrogen, just based on its fundamental properties, in any of the 4 base states of matter. Its either too cold, requires too much pressure, interacts with the vessel or is not energy dense enough to warrant the expense.
The only use Hydrogen has is to do chemical synthesis of things that need hydrogen.
@@aenorist2431 Well I was thinking about using a hydrogen fuel cell to power my electric tricycle. It would replace the battery. I believe it used cylinders of magnesium hydroxide. I confess I don’t remember the hydroxide but I’m pretty sure it was a hydroxide. The problem is it would of cost $6,000 - $10,000 and my wife would not have been pleased with that. It also would weight 50 lbs versus 30 lbs for a 1.7 kWh battery.
@@jonnelson9760 Solid hydrogen? You'd need to cool to like 14 Kelvin. Insanely cold. Or I guess you could compress it millions of atmospheres of pressure... not feasible and also extremely dangerous.
I have been hearing this fantasy future of hydrogen for years. Year after year I tell people Hydrogen will never be the answer, no matter how much hopium people inhale. Side note, a heat pump is also known as an air conditioner running in reverse, it is essentially identical, except there is a reversing valve. Mini split air conditioners usually double as heat pumps, as it is essentially free to add the feature. So the cost of a heat pump is often zero, except central A/C manufacturers found out they could massively overcharge for the feature.
And they are more efficient at heating than cooling
There is extra needed for an AC unit to be heat pump capable, a reversing valve and high end specs for both sides (thick walled piping and A coil for both high and low sides since they flip sides when reversed). Its not much but it adds up.
@@jimmahr.4665 Its about $100 AUd more than cooling only.
@@rge24491 no sh*t Sherlock, my a/c unit is more efficient at cooling than heating. Cool 1kw, Heat 3.8kw.
More efficient doesn't mean efficient.!
@@stewartread4235 Well Watson, maybe you need to understand how efficiency works.
So the input is the same, yet the output on cooling is 1kw and on heating is 3.8kw, hence making heating more efficient than cooling.
Efficient does actually mean efficient most of the time.
hydrogen is primarily used for ammonia production and with a massive food shortage around the corner the green hydrogen economy would likely used for fertilizer production rather than energy storage
theres a fertelizer plant close to me thats now building electrolysers to make H2 for the amonia instead of methane reforming.
London rates of GBP 0.105/kWh and 124 GBP/Therm currently, make the heat pump use just GBP 0.42 per 50k BTUs while the hydrogen boiler costs GBP 62.00 per 50k BTUs. So the repayment rate would be somewhere around 162 cycles of producing 50k BTUs.
it sound like less than a year of usage for a familly home : isnt ?
Hidrogen is very Explosive when mixed with air and very hsrd to contain
You should do one about ethanol, it takes more energy and fossil fuel to produce than the energy generated, is worse for your cars and is only propped up by subsidies as well.
Unfortunately it has a lot of political support
Is it true hemp, or a certain long grass are the better alternatives? I think there was video about this.
only works in brazil where they make it from cane which has more sugar than corn and gasoline is expensive.
@@brushlessmotoring Crop residue, biomass, sewage sludge, black liquor from paper mills, and municipal solid waste can all be gasified and turned via Fischer-Tropsh reactions into gasoline and diesel fuel.
@@brushlessmotoring Ethanol is ethanol, doesn't matter if it comes from grapes, corn, or hemp.
Thanks for this video. I work in automotive and its crazy how often people bring up hydrogen. Now I can tell them about your video and save some time explaining why it's not a good idea.
They'll dismiss it - the hydrogen hope is religion at this point, you are trying to reason with zealots. Hydrogens real use these days, especially in automotive, is to 'distract and delay' from BEVs, people are sticking with gasoline and using hydrogen as an excuse why they are not giving an EV a college try, that's why Oil and Gas are putting so much effort in too, it's to put on a good show and convince people EV's are the 'BETAMAX' to Hydrogen's 'VHS' (kids, ask your parents).
Alternatively you can point to Real Engineering's "The Truth about Hydrogen" video. There are numbers to show how inefficient to use hydrogen for passenger cars.
@@brushlessmotoring we can credit Toyota, other legacy OEMs, retail hydrogen companies, and Big Oil for spreading the false gospel of HFC technology. The worldwide ad campaign promoting “the fuel of the future” and “the most abundant element in the universe” propaganda was like cult making religious poetry.
I used to be a huge Toyota fan and owned nearly a dozen of their vehicles in every market segment including 3 hybrids. I was intrigued and excited about their investment into HFC and the development of the first gen Mirai HFC vehicle. Except I didn’t just take their word and marketing as gospel. I wanted to learn about HFC as much as possible, as I did with hybrid technology prior to owning my first Toyota hybrid. My own extensive research lead me instead to be critical of HFC and Toyota’s motivations.
The more I found out, the less appealing HFC became. And the more sinister Toyota appeared in my view. Ultimately, I ended up going EV with Tesla and the last decade of following the auto and tech industry closely has only solidified my disdain for Toyota’s actions and future outlook. I sold my last Toyota 3 years ago and will likely never buy another. They have lost their way and sold themselves to the devil in my most professional opinion.
There’s so much evidence of their corruption and bad faith that I could type about them all day. If being a Toyota fan turned never buying another Toyota again doesn’t make it obvious that what I found out was serious enough for me to abandon their great brand reputation, high standard build quality, and among the best used vehicle resale values, then there’s nothing else I can do to make that any more convincing.
At the end of the day an HFCV is just an EV with a lot more inefficient extra parts and processes. And if anyone ever figures out how to turn them into remote detonated bombs…!!!
you're all EV fanatics.
@@MrLTiger I am, but won't speak in others names.
So, you had a statement. Would you like to expand? Are you a hydrogen enthusiast? I'm listening!
You can also use hydrogen to refine minerals, for example steel which is responsible for 7% of greenhouse gas emissions. so that's already something big. And to produce ammonia you can also use green hydrogen
You just don't get it.
@@Chris.Davies steel production is one of the few things that actually does need hydrogen if you want to not use any fossil fuels.
Their are already 2 companies in the world doing that: H2 Green Steel in Sweden and HyIron in Germany are both using green hydrogen in the direct reduction process of iron.
Those are the only use cases which actually make sense. Sure there’s no need to be fantastically against hydrogen. But it’s also not gonna be useful in a lot of areas some companies want it to be. Hydrogen is never gonna be a thing for Cars and Semi Trucks, and even storage doesn’t make too much sense considering that the EV car industry is already ready to supply old cars cells to Energy storage facilities. Hydrogen will be needed for Steel production 100% but everywhere you gonna need fuel cells it’s not gonna be efficient enough to make sense. Honestly there’s so much grey hydrogen that gets bought and shipped from the other half of the planet, that it’d be just perfectly sufficient for excess Power to drive electrolysis just for the already existing demand for hydrogen. I don’t have a problem with Hydrogen in general, I just REALLY have a problem with producing it just to use on inefficient use cases that can be better served with other technologies. Safety issues in my eyes always gets disproportionately overstated, there’re so many safety issues with todays fossil fuel technologies that it’s simply mind blowing how disproportionately safety regarding both hydrogen and battery technologies gets problematized
Liquid hydrogen must be kept in a vacuum. How could it be used for cars?
@@ErnestImken Did I say cars? and compressed hydrogen is what is used now, hydrogen cars don't make sense though
I work in the HVAC industry and while it's true in climate that see below 0 temperatures heat pumps won't work effectively... They are no longer more expensive than a traditional gas furnace and boiler alternative. We actually sell heat pumps cheaper by a small margin and in California you will be required to have heat pumps installed only in the coming years.
It's fascinating that NASA has been utilizing hydrogen as an energy source for their aerospace endeavors. It's unfortunate that some comments overlook the potential for alternative energy sources. Exploring different energy options could lead to even more innovative advancements in the energy industry.
Seaweed biofuel is the solution. Grows fast, doesn't need fresh water or electricity, can make bio crude oil which can be refined into various petroleum products including ATF. No need to change existing vehicles at all
What's a barrel of seaweed bio-oil cost? 4x conventional oil?
@@WeighedWilson But it will be much cheaper than hydrogen, it will become cheaper with time and this battery is better than hydrogen, no infrastuchre will have to be changed, only bio fuel is better for planes
Hi Marx Mugger. That's a worthwhile suggestion. Anything that turns the sun's energy into fuel directly without draining "processing" energy out of something else should be researched. Cheers, P.R.
How can we replace coke to make steel? Not with seeweed?
Having even a vague familiarity with chemistry would make you hesitant to use liquid hydrogen in close association with people. This highlights for me how many of the proponents for using hydrogen as a non-carbon renewable are not scientists but entrepreneurs on the make.
Gas companies want to use steam-methane reforming to launder natural gas into the grid as "green" hydrogen fuel.
I worked with hydrogen before. The risk was none. There are many safety measurements. Is even more dangerous work with gas.
What are you familiar about with hydrogen and chemistry, is it hydrogen go boom because of bombs and the hindenburg?
Yes it's that unstable that 100 years ago they were able to carry around a 10s of thousands of m3 of hydrogen gas without issue and fill 1000 of giant balloon and it was only because they had how ever many 1000s of m3 within it. Just checked. The hindenburg had 7 million square feet of hydrogen in it and it still only fizzled.
Get more of a crackle and pop from rice krispies 😂😂
@@jacobitosuperstarIf only there were measurements for gas... 🙄
Hydrogen is perfectly safe, when the system is engineered correctly.
There are hydrogen storage methods without liquifying it. The Australians have come up with a method of storing it in a metal hydride. Four small cartridges hold enough hydrogen to generate 20kwh. It can also be used to make ammonia that is energy dense and burns cleanly.
Ammonia has more potential as an energy storage medium than hydrogen, at least outside of rocket fuel. But there's still the problem of all the energy lost in producing it.
@@Kevin_Street All sources of energy cost so much energy to produce and deliver. Right now there are times California actually pays out of state utilities to take their excess solar power. If you are paid to take the electricity wasting some turning it into hydrogen or ammonia isn’t that much of a problem. The problem is the capital investment to take advantage of the infrequent times electricity prices actually go negative or low enough to make hydrogen or ammonia profitably.
@@matthewhuszarik4173the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance.
That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient.
Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70.
Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
@@nordic5490 The problem with electricity storage is cost. Batteries are extremely expensive for the amounts of power stored and pumped storage has a NIMBY problem that makes it next to impossible to increase capacity and many areas it isn’t even possible. So the present goals are to match generation with demand. Solar covers peak demand during the day. Wind can supply power at different times by where they are placed and the prevailing winds. I worked on the coast in central California where almost every afternoon through the evening the prevailing winds picked up during the duck tail demand period. A very large wind farm is planned for off the coast to take advantage of this. Combined this with available pumped storage and battery storage works for most situations. Until this is completed keep combined cycle natural gas plants that can be brought on line quickly for emergency peaking requirements.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 California is not flat, and I suspect it has plenty of candidate pumped hydo potential sites.
Would you choose;
- Battery storage with a >95% round trip efficientcy - assuming a final electrical load
- pumped hydro @ 70% round trip efficientcy - assuming a final electrical load
- hydrogen @
You missed why it's being used in real life: industrial production, like steel production needs hydrogen instead of coal.
Green hydrogen is always based on over production, when electricity is not needed.
To make matters worse for hydrogen boilers, the price of heat pumps will drop down as more of them are produced. Currently, heat pumps are about 50% more expensive than whole house air conditioners in the USA, despite being almost the same components.
Hydrogen - The perfect fuel. Except for 2 major hurdles.
1- it takes.more energy to produce, than if contains. 2- To be useable as a fuel, it must be stored as a liquid, under tremendous pressure. If a vehicle with Hydrogen is involved in a collision if the tank is ruptured, it explodes violently. Enough to level a city block. So for the forseeable future, Hydrogen power is a pipe dream
Pink H2 is made more efficiently with Hi-temp electrolysis. Red H2 is made directly from heat from nuclear reactors, no electricity required - Japan is currently doing this. Also, there are natural reservoirs of geologic H2 and they may be very large and self-renewing - basically Oxygen is stripped from water under hi temp and pressure when oxidizing iron, leaving H2.
I think what Japan is doing is still lab, or preparing to build a production facility.
It's amazing to me that people don't seem to grasp that converting something into something else, no matter what it is, both requires energy and results in energy lost. It doesn't matter if you're turning hydrogen into electricity or burning coal; the more steps, the more energy is lost.
It’s so good that government has to subsidize it
9:12
That math does not check out.
First you loose 25% of the energy. 100% -25% = 75%
From that 50% is lost again. Which means half of the remaining 75%. Therefore 37.5% of the starting energy remains. That is 62.5% a loss overall not 75%...
From the initial energy
@@lelolson3373yes. the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance.
That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient.
watched the podcast and its really interesting to see how amazon utilized warrants to make a quick bag on them
What is the name of the podcast?
@@simedtrading9669 Broken Business Models. They discuss lots of scam-like companies in a podcast format. Very detailed and informative analysis.
In 2:35, its not a hydrogen fuel cell but its a hydrogen jet engine
Governments worldwide are spending over 6 trillion dollars for fossil fuel subsidies. Just saying, it’s not like the old energy system is much cheaper, we just got used to it so much.
Going to hydrogen is like shifting from records to cassette tapes while MP3 players were flying off the shelf.
The energy density of Hydrogen is far higher than battery and a recharge can take much less time. Also allows storing much more energy. Create it with grid power at night. Batteries can’t store very much power.
@@jsbrads1 hydrogen will be great for powering homes. For a moving object, we need the space savings that batteries provide. At this point, absolutes about what batteries can't do is premature. Energy density continues to increase. My only desire for EVs at this point is that they make the battery technology upgradeable. I would love the idea that I could get 800 miles from 10 minutes of charge today, but perhaps 2000 miles tomorrow.
@@tonystorcke I’ve always thought we should be making Gold/Platinum batteries, maybe after we harvest some asteroids the price of materials will be more reachable.
@9:29
If each of the processes are efficient as given. The percentages should be applied one after another.
In a multiplicative way, that would be #1 (100% - 25%)*100% = 75% #2 (100% - 50%)*75% = 37.5%
You are still left with 37.5% efficiency vs 75% efficiency; moderately a moot point
@@robertbanfic8700vs 25% you mean.
the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance.
That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient.
Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70.
Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
@@nordic5490How kind of Germany to bid up the price of cheap hydro in Norway and raise the energy costs for the citizens of a country that actually prudently planned their energy future. 😂
@@nordic5490 Obviously difficult for anyone in politics who has been entertained by the hydrogen lobbyists - but a point well put by anyone who has any common sense.
A heat pump for just one room in a house or apartment cost about $600 or less!
$12,000 applies only for a whole house ducted installation!
I was like, wtf. Where did he get that quote from. I have a heat pump and paid nearly nothing as the government had subsidised it. Even at full price it wasn’t going to break the bank and we even got a fantastic Japanese model.
Not $12,000. It was £12,000, which is the typical retrofit figure in the UK based on the standard government estimate. That's for a whole-house installation - a heat pump providing both house-wide heating and hot water.
UK houses don't use air ducts. Their central heating is done using circulating water and heat exchangers (inaccurately called 'radiators') in each room - no idea why this is the case. Often the pipework is as thin as the original builders could get away with (to save money) and not sufficient for the lower working temperatures, and the heat exchangers too small. So fitting a heat pump means ripping out the entire heating system, right down to getting up the floorboards and making holes in walls to access the pipework, and building a whole new one. That's why it's so expensive. The power output is also less than a gas boiler, so it'll likely involve upgrading the house insulation.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the UK's housing stock was made to be really cheap to build - the building firms don't have any reason to care about utility costs after they sell the house. So rather than build with a lot of expensive insulation and care for thermal design, they would just install an over-powered gas boiler. Gas is cheap.
Installing a heat pump in a new build home is far cheaper. But there's not much reason for construction firms to do so: It's still more expensive than a gas boiler, and doesn't add as much to the value of the house as it costs, so to them it's a net loss.
12,000 or 600 your still only getting enough heat for one room
@@vylbird8014small nitpick: it is NOT inaccurate to call them radiators, as that is what they do.
You can also call them heat exchangers, but not every heat exchanger is a radiator, while every radiator is a heat exchanger.
@@reappermen It's misleading. They radiate a little heat, yes - but only incidentally. They are primarily losing heat by convection. The double-panel ones even have heat exchange fins on the inside.
Neglecting the possibility as storage isn’t as easy as saying batteries are cheaper. They are, but batteries loose energy over time and deteriorate much faster than a hydrogen container would.
Batteries are better and more economical for daily loads. But you also need energy backups for infrequent and less common energy needs. E.g. a long Winter with less wind than usual. Won’t be a problem every year. But it will happen some years. For these cases, having a reliable long term energy storage that can reuse existing infrastructure (e.g. refurbished gas storage and gas turbines) while also transitioning fluidly rather than running two types of infrastructure can be valuable. Where you use fossil gas in the short term and phase it out slowly over time. Thus guaranteeing grid stability, reducing upfront investment cost and having a transition period where companies can get real world experience with the technology and the economics before relying on it.
up in alberta there is a company developing a process that does the steam reforming underground and only takes the hydrogen leaving the co2 underground. this may have some merit but again , storing and transporting the hydrogen in large quantities becomes a big issue . they have done pilot plant so far
What is the name of the company and the process?
This is how government sponsored anything goes. Corporations are all for it. You pay.
Actually basically everything thats been developed from touchscreens to computers, the internet etc have all been goverment projects. The private sector don’t really innovate they only market things.
@@felixarbable You mean we've been living under communism all this time and didn't know it?
I'll agree that government sponsors way too much, but it is mostly in weapons, besides that its a hodge podge of stupid crap, latest government invention is the whole LGBHD+TV movement, that yeah, that was government getting sponsored, did well there LOL.
Dude, your statement is so insanely stupid that I'm just gonna leave it there.
I love this video.
This is fantastic.
It explains the thermodynamics of hydrogen production.
This is great work.
The problem Is not a mirage,if we need to replace oil which will run out at some point, hydrogen which is abundant is the only viable option today. Which is why money is flowing in it, batteries also have oil problems run out of mineral at some point
Heat pumps are not zero emission unless they get their electricity from a zero-emission source.
True. But they can easily be lower emission than natural gas - even if their electricity is produced by burning natural gas. The heat pump effectively multiplies the energy output of burning the gas.
(Though at a lower temperature - sorry, no perpetual motion.)
Overwhelming the electric grid with heat and transportation demands is a great idea! Ask California how well it works!
All that money spent on hydrogen energy research was not wasted. Sometimes experiments have negative results. We didn't fail, we just found a thousand ways not to make a light bulb. Was it a lot of money, yes. Was a lot of it wasted on graft, probably. But on the whole it was noble.
Minor aside, whether heat pumps are viable depends on their purpose. If it's for home heating they're great a miracle technology, assuming the outdoor temperature is at least 20F. Below that you're going to rely entirely on "supplementary" resistive heating elements. If you're trying to heat water for use as hot water, they're entirely useless. Heat pumps using non-CFC refrigerants are only capable of about 60F temperature gains, and above 40F they become very inefficient.
It's hilarious that all this "green energy" is less efficient than traditional energy and more harmful for the environment. Granted, not to the end user perspective, but all the processes and storage that has to be done behind the scenes is worse in every way.
The point isn't helping the planet,it's lining the pockets of your friends.
Hydrogen works only, ONLY when you have essentially free electricity. Hydrogen can be stored, but you loose a lot of energy doing it. So yeah, only makes sense if you have a lot of excess electricity, for example during peak sun hours when solar power generates more power than you need. In most cases other storage methods are still more efficient. But the theoretical benefit is that you theoretically have unlimited storage capacity. Again， with our current electric grid and power production， it really doesn't make sense. You would first need a massive change in our electricity production where we have frequent and extreme electricity surplus that hydrogen makes sense.
That is coming. Lots of excess power majority of the time. It’s called superpower.
In Australia there’s a lot of roof top solar. During the middle of the day there’s a lot of solar generation. There’s lot of renewable energy generation coming online and in the pipeline. The idea is to build more than we need.
Then 90% of the time we would have way too much energy production. Superpower. And what to do with it? Use it for green hydrogen and ammonia production etc and then export and sell it to Japan etc.
The idea is that hydrogen would become the new oil. Like Saudi Arabia today produces and exports a lot of oil, tomorrow Australia would produce and export a lot of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a great way to turn 10kw of excess electricity into 2.5kw of usable stored energy.
I mean, if they are doing subsidies, that just means that the market will not be self sustainable unless there is subsidies. Look at electric cars a lot less would be sold if the subs are not there. The charging infustrucre is so slow, and no one is really building it. Its not economically viable. Everything around electric is subsidized.
Everything around gas is also subsidized. The US alone subsidizes $20BN in subsidies annually.
@@proy3 that is horribly misinformed.
The " subsidies " are tax breaks, mostly for wildcatting which is the riskiest part of oil production.
Yes, they have a Tesla parking lost charging station near my place, and I see people dropping off their cars, then jumping into a good Ole gas burner and then getting dropped off in the morning to get the car all the time.
@proy3 Yeah, that means that they are treating gas as a utility, just like electric and public transportation and other industries and public services.
Hydrogen isn't the correct choice for releasing it to the public, as it is both difficult and dangerous to store and transport.
The H2 molecule is so small that it sneaks thru the molecules of any metal pipe used for its distribution. It make the metal very brittle, ending in a sudden failure of the pipes - and associated explosions.
Liquid Hydrogen remain the best rocket fuel.
Beside industrial uses, and as rocket fuel, Hydrogen is unsuitable for transportation and power generation...
Hydrogen powered transportation should be called Subsidy powered transportation.
So for big cargo ships as I understand it they are working on the solution of producing e-methanol or e-ammonia as a substitute for fuel.
As far as I know both processes needs hydrogen for their production.
I thought the same. Most solutions of our decarbonisation problems involve hydrogen at some point. Power to x needs hydrogen and these fuels of what kind they are are needed for planes, shipes maybe trucks and trains. Steel industry needs hydrogen as well, because there are only less other options like electrolysis which is complicated in that case. Next thing would be the chemical industry, it needs a lot of hydrogen in all kinds of situation.
I have an idea for hydrogen air travel. What if you filled a giant balloon with hydrogen, then strap what is basically a plane fuselage to the bottom for people to sit in. Then, you use giant, electric propellers powered by solar to move through the air. Why has no one tried this?
Ever hear of the Hindenberg airship?
@@jimcherry685 That's what I'm trying to reference.
That's the best idea so far, but just as the rest of the dumb ideas, it's not very feasible. Think "Hindenberg"..
Hi Caden. Can I sell you a ticket on the first flight? Cheers, P.R.
Transport for London (TfL) are doing some trials of hydrogen fuel-cell buses.
A good few years ago most of the fleet that served the RV1 route were hydrogen but the route was canned, no idea what happened to the buses.
a city on germany had this kind of trial, it worked but was too expensive, which is "not a problem because hevily subsidized" but then they realized it was impossible to scale up because the bigger refueling station was impossible to be built close to the city due to the explosion risk.
the total amount of electricity needed to propel a car travel a certain distance by first conerting to hydrogen, is 3 - 5x more electricity than is needed to just charge an ev to drive the same distance.
That is the problem with hydrogen - crazy inefficient.
Surplus renewable enregy can be stored with pumped hydro, with a typical 'charge' / 'discharge' efficientcy of %70.
Even Germany has built an under sea transmission cable to Norway, and is leasing a pumped hydro faclity there to store Germanys surplus renewable energy.
Get hydrogen using green energy source like wind or sun ray is good
But i think the main problem with hydrogen is It can destroy metal of it's container.
So it is so difficult to save and keep hydrogen
Couple other things not included in video to the nature of hydrogen:
Hydrogen is a tiny particle, it escapes through the side walls of steel pipe, slowly, but scale it to just half the cars in the world.
Has to be stored cryo or compressed.
Cryo constantly worms, insulation can do so much, it eventually (about 2 days from storage temp to venting) needs to be used or vent to cool itself, more losses, park in a garage for fun times..... also if pressure gets too high and it vents it will spontaneously combust, visualize flame thrower no ignition source needed (hydrogen rubbing on air particles hard enough is enough heat to start it).
Compressed at 3K psi makes for a HEAVY tank, also can't be alone (this one I don't know why) in compressed tank it needs to be dissolved in liquid and some sponge material. You don't get to store much of it like this.
The damage to the environment and society environmentalist do. We in stead could be perusing actual technology instead.
I've said the same thing about consumer hydrogen electric motors and Toyota's huge investment in their R&D. It just doesn't seem to make sense. The barriers in energy density are hard, scientific facts, not potentially solvable issues in battery chemistry. The only thing I can think of is they're using consumer vehicles as a sort of small-scale, worst-case scenario test bed for development of hydrogen electric generators to replace diesel back-up generators for buildings.
It's all about keeping people in their gasoline cars, Toyota talks about hydrogen to distract their consumers from looking at EVs, consider the Mirai as a marketing project for the Prius, and it all makes sense - when Toyota eventually has to write off all these stranded assets, both fuel cell and combustion, their massive debt will be downgraded to junk status, and it will probably be the end, automotive moves far slower that most other industries, but they dug their own grave all the way back in the mid 2000's when they cancelled their electric RAV4 project, made in collaboration with a very young small Californian company, called Tesla.
Seems to me when it comes to Toyota it's the Japanese government subsidizing it's development.
Japan wants to depends less on imports and solutions like red hydrogen might be a way to do that
Hi fixed. I'd guess their R & D costs are tax write-offs. They can either give the dough gratis to the govt, or give it to their boffins to play with. Boffins might discover something useful, who knows? Cheers, P.R.
Toyota is big driver of hydrogen, in auto industry at least.
Besides, some arid places need Hydrolysis to generate drinking water....those plants can be used to store H2
The fundamental mistake this video (and many others) makes is assuming we are playing a zero sum game on a national level, where the old theoretical efficiency arguments might be true. But we are not in a zero sum game. We have many until now useless deserts whose solar energy, once harvested, needs to be transported. And with electric cables e.g. from Australia to Europe being out of question, hydrogen reigns supreme in this regard, especially once salt water electrolyzers will be available on an industrial level. So I disagree strongly, the subsidies are a very good investment since hydrogen will allow us to access new energy sources that are currently out of reach. And we have to do it because the all-electric 100% renewable energy future is even more unrealistic due to the fluctuation problems mentioned in this video. The only exception would be a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or aliens introducing new technologies to us.
I work for a hydrogen company as a lead technician. We make our own hydrogen that we ship to sites & make our own hydrogen propulsion machines that turn the hydrogen back into electricity (only 1 company does ehat we do) and you would be amazed at how u reliable hydrogen propulsion is. Its wayyyyy to u reliable to be able to let the public use it.
Exactly.. ! The video is very misleading.
This videos is by far the worst so Farm from WSM, it should be classified as missinformation
This videos is by far the worst so Farm from WSM, it should be classified as missinformationn
"u reliable" is that a typo for unreliable? You typed it that way twice.
Solar panels on cargo ships make some sense because of the large surface area and vast time at sea. They could have a hybrid transmission that mixed diesel and electric energies, or maybe just an electric screw added to the diesel screws. But just like semi-trucks, the less energy they have to store and carry is the more cargo they can store and carry. So they should replace energy storage with energy generation as much as possible.
It is really only tankers that have free deck space, other cargo ship have giant hatches on deck where solar panels wouldn't be suitable, besides it would be a miniscule amount of energy provided.
Yeah in addition to what the above reply said, putting solar panels on modes of transportation has already been shown to be DOA. They generate very little energy compared to everyday consumption, and only work best on clear days, tracking the movement of the sun.
Having solar panels on a moving and rotating boat out at sea, at the very best, will just be a ginormous waste of money with very little benefit.
There've been some interesting experiments with putting sails on cargo ships. Not old fashioned cloth sails, but modern rigid or inflatable structures that can be stowed when not in use. I don't think they provide enough energy to make the ship diesel-free, but they can cut down on the amount of fuel needed for a trip.
Before making a comment like this always try to make a few back-of-the-envelope calculation.
The largest container ship in the world could carry around 10 000 m2 with solar panels. This gives us an installed capacity around 1500 kW and a yearly production around 1500 000 kWh, or 1500 MWh.
The engines produce 72 000 kW or 72 MW. And they can do so 24/7 for a total production of 630 000 MWh. Or 420 times more than what the solar panels can produce. Would you have the ship clad in solar panels to save 0.25 percent of the fuel? That is, unless the greater weight/drag actually increase the total fuel consumption.
@@SweBeach2023 I think that computer controlled sails on cargo ships to reduce fuel usage is a better use of money than solar panels, we know wind can add substantial gains, we just need to scale up our sails and ability to control them remotely without a large crew. I think the tech is starting to mature, but won't be seen implemented until bunker fuel is banned in ship usage and countries step up emissions controls for ports, too cheap to just continue polluting otherwise. I don't normally advocate for increased regulation, but the maritime shipping industry really needs it, especially in these times where China has uncountable numbers of cargo ships that can technically (and have already been) transporting large amounts of troops/supplies/weapons for the PLA and lies about their emissions.
Actually, you could make the same argument for all “green energy” projects.
It's the case in point that the bulk of science investors don't know anything about science.
Well said, party pooper 😂
There is also issue with the fuel cells (for converting H2 back to electricity) and their need for rare platinum metals which makes scaling hard to envision.
I see advances making electrolysis with grafite
@@offroadsnake ok, but the fuel cells that convert H2 to electricity still needs rare precious metals
@@allanallansson9532 i see some advancements on make fuell cells with grafite. Right now it's not mainstream but in the future it Will be
@@offroadsnake Links and basis for knowing it will be so in the future?
You stated recharging trucks takes too long did you take into account mandated stops for drivers?
So why add more stops again?
Battery storage and rapidly improving battery technology and deployment is the future. I wish that $280 billion had gone to installing Megapack arrays to replace peaker plants.
We're still only a decade away from cheap efficient batteries. For the fiftieth year in a row!
It's the newest grift. A handful of people will take those billions of taxpayer money and produce nothing.
Hydrogen for rockets makes sense over batteries not because of cost but because the hydrogen is both the energy source and material pushed in order to propel the rocket. You can’t move an object forward in space with only a battery.
The video is talking about how they used a hydrogen fuel cell for electricity to power the computers and other electrical devices.
This is separate device and function to the rocket engine that propels the rocket.
Ion drives, all electric 😊
@@petermoller8337 no thay also have a fuel.
@@phalanx3803 Not "fuel", Ionic gasses like argon.
@@solexxx8588 yes and its still technically a fuel it is a substance that is consumed to provide a desired reaction just like a reactor the uranium is still called fuel.
12:40 heat pumps are not expensive.. where the hell did you get 12k gbp??? Heat pumps are the exact same as air conditioners, except they have an extra reversing valve. The actual cost of heat pumps to most people is just the cost of the reversing valve. I.e. 100 bucks maybe
Ok - do most people in the UK already have air conditioners installed in their homes? How much does it cost to have an air conditioner installed?
Air conditioning in the UK is a rare thing - we use circulating water for central heating. £12,000 is the retrofit cost to install a heat pump that provides both heating and hot water, including the cost of ripping out and replacing all the heating pipework and radiators with ones suited to a lower working temperature. It's a lot more cost-effective in a new build.
Air con in UK homes is generally not seen as worthwhile. Sometimes the temperature does get uncomfortably high, but never for more than a couple of weeks. Those occasions make headline news. So why pay a fortune for house-wide air conditioning that's going to sit unused almost all of the time? Cheaper to just put up with the heat, or if you really can't stand it, buy a little standalone unit.
Excelent presentation, there's a boom of this industry, all over the world, but the cost are higher than electricity.
Heat pumps suck if you live in an area that gets below 40F/4.4C. My parents replaced the system at they cabin because most of the time they spend there is in the winter and it never felt warm. The efficiency drops as the outside temp drops it simply couldn't keep up.
That’s not really a good analogy. It’s very common for heat pump or AC units to be undersized for a space to save money upfront on purchasing the equipment. That doesn’t make them inefficient it just means they’re not designed for the size of the space.
Hmmm, I thought green energy was going to save Europe - doesn't seem that way . . .
We aren't using hydrogen to store power. It's cheaper and more effective to use pumped hydroelectric storage, AKA manmade lakes.
Heat pumps don't even work in southern Canada.
No insurance for your home unless you have an alternate (conventional) heating source.
I think with a combination of advances in how quickly batteries can charge, capacitors and overhead power lines you could make HGVs and buses work even if you need to go hybrid for edge cases and you wouldn't need a large engine, just enough so that if you know your going on a route with a shortfall you can run the small generator the whole way enough to make sure you would arrive with enough battery left over and I am going to assume that once you get to your destination you would plug in for unloading / loading.
FFS flywheel have worked for buses before where they quickly charge the flywheel at every stop, so worst case install a flywheel and battery.
WSM's statement that a methane molecule has "inner energy" might better have been expressed as the fact that hyrdrocarbons have less stability than water. But he's certainly right about hydrogen having no future as a green source of energy.
Re: South Korean New and Renewable energy policy. I suspect the very power companies you say are being made to start grey hydrogen plants lobbied for the "new" in new and renewable for the very reason you stated - they were cheaper to make.
Thank you for an insightful video!
Tesla semi solves the problem with charging and driving long distances. Great analysis.
hydrogen fuel cell technology only makes economic sense if electricity can be produced at an extremely cheap rate to support the energy requirements of electrolysis.
this would require diverting attention from high-cost, low-yield solar and wind power toward more economical and zero-emission nuclear power.
Unfortunately public perception of nuclear power has been tainted by disastrous mismanagement, so we will be stuck searching for new lithium reserves for decades to come.
Actually piping hydrogen is more of a nightmare than a dream. It requires special metal alloys to do it long term. One option is saving it as a hydride such as iron titanium hydride.😮
I have to disagree. There are challenges with green hydrogen, however there are locations and use cases where it has huge potential.
If you look at Western Australia which covers a land area of 2.6 million km2, with a coastline of 12,500 km, has consistent winds that blow 60km inland, and in the North has the highest level of solar radiation anywhere in the world. Right near locations where you can produce some of the cheapest sustainable energy you have massive energy hungry mine sites that are all moving towards zero carbon operations. Combine with being the largest produce of Iron Ore, there is also significant opportunity and projects being developed to use green hydrogen to create green steel.
Companies like First Mode have already proven the benefits of green hydrogen for heavy industry mobility and are in the process of retrofit of about 400 ultra-class haul trucks with their hydrogen fuel cell powerplants, plus developing the infrastructure for hydrogen production, refueling and battery recharging.
The Western Australian government is also currently trialing the use of green hydrogen to power 100 homes in a regional town and also developing refueling infrastructure for use by heavy industry.
The UK study is suspicious (who funded it?). BEV buses should make sense because the average speed is very low and all the energy for acceleration and deceleration is recuperated with regenerative braking.
The vast majority of commercial trucks don't need the extreme range so could be electric.
Theres a big error in the heat pump installation cost. Its not 12 000 but more like 2500 Pounds. In Norway we get them for 1900Euro installed with electrician.
I don't think its stupid, it just as has a rather niche use case. It's pointless for cars, planes and trucks, especially as batteries become more energy dense, but it could work well for shipping. Large ships could easily handle the weight of hydrogen and the needed insulation to secure it. As they only travel to large ports, the energy infrastructure could be managed at those points.
3:47 "If you combine methane with water vapor at high pressure..." the process actually favors low pressure. You'll get higher conversion.
Yeah basic steam methane reforming. He should've replaced it with the energy consumption associated with the heating (>800 C) instead.
King County Metro has 1 or a few BEV buses. These boast an impressive recharge time of ~15 minutes every few hours, which lines up with the operator's work break. So this advantage of hydrogen buses might be nullified too.
What about freight trains? They could simply attach a hydrogen tank car behind the loco for it's fuel source and the conversion should be fairly straight forward. It's not like they don't haul far more dangerous materials anyway.
(1) Depends on the freight type (nobody wants to add more dangerous explosives into flammable/other explosive cargo), (2) hydrogen is very easy to escape from containment due to its small molecule size, (3) maintenance issues similar to that of its passenger counterparts (pitting corrosion). Nobody wants to have their 5 km-long train got stuck in the middle of nowhere.
Hydrogen powered iron ore trains are are progressing now in Western Australia. They travel 100kms in remote areas with some driverless. Also operate in one of the best and cheapest places to generate sustainable energy with several green hydrogen projects being progressed.
Outside of CA, there is one hydrogen fueling station in the US - Hawaii
Hydrogen boilers powered by nuclear baseline power is almost perfectly net zero, except for the construction materials and installation with us significant, but it's a fixed cost up front - the most cost effective kind of cost.
Hydrogen aircraft will always be impractical because for the equivalent energy compared to jet fuel hydrogen will require nine times the volume. The carbon fiber tanks will also be very expensive and weigh many times more than the hydrogen inside the tank. Imagine an aircraft where the entire a few slash was full of these tanksthis is why hydrogen aircraft will never fly.
12:00 Right, except for the fact that water is an even stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. From the EPA:
"Water vapor appears to cause the most important positive feedback. As the earth warms, the rate of evaporation and the amount of water vapor in the air both increase. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this leads to further warming."
It is almost like the entire industry is one big, elaborate con...
Uh...?
If you watch this segment and think there's an industry con, you're correct. But it's how much more expensive heat pumps are compared to air conditioners.
Yes, water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But the good news about water vapour is that it has a maximum concentration. When that is reached clouds form and the water comes down as rain. It is not possible to add any amount of water to the atmosphere.
But any amount of CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Luckily the oceans absorb quite a bit of the CO2. Another factor that is good for us is that CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas.
Otherwise, the situation would already be much worse.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes some degree of greenhouse effect, moderately increasing temperatures. The slightly warmer air can hold a bit more of water vapour which in turn increases the greenhouse effect. This is how they play together.
In the video you mention that in the UK there might be a case for buses to use hydrogen as a power source. Indeed there are buses in the UK which use hydrogen as a fuel. This is a good idea as long as you do not let anyone with any mathematical skills or accountancy qualifications near the project. If you do they will point out that each mile travelled by a hydrogen bus costs 6 times more in the cost of fuel per mile compared to electricity. As a bus spends a lot of time travelling clearly the cost per mile of fuel is a concern. Therefore if anyone with any interest in cost looks at hydrogen for buses the project will die. Buses do not have to work 18 hours per day they can easily be rested for and hour or two, to literally recharge their batteries. The UK has a "rush hour" in the morning and same in the evening. During the day and evening demand drops and so the number of buses on the roads decreases.
if your goal is to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist then all you end up with is more problems
All this and our CO2 levels are the lowest in the historical ice records. CO2 is plant food, and CO2 is a mere 3% in our atmosphere.
That was some education!
Thank you 🙏
It uses a chemical reaction between aqueous Sodium Hydroxide and aluminum. The result of that reaction is hydrogen, which is gathered and directed to a fuel cell that drives the car.
I like lithium Ion batteries instead, its Charged by lightning provided by Fairies in the sky, it also comes delivered by the Stork, no need to mine for minerals from the ground :D
Hydrogen ist the base of the future. Everything is based on hydrogen, you can make all sorts of hydrocarbons from it, it’s cheap, easy to store and transport.
Let's store it in your back yard and on your dime.
Fascinating. Thanks for this.
3-5 Hydrogen explosions in the entire world per year is a safety concern?!?
That's when we barely use hydrogen at all, and there's therefore a lot less opportunities for something to go wrong. If you 1,000X the hydrogen vehicles/plants/etc. then you 1,000X the number of hydrogen explosions unless you can find a way to make it safer. But as the Hindenburg showed this has been a problem for a long time.
@@shadowninja6689boy oh boy will u be surprised if u check all electric cars fire in one year....
5 he says is a lot😂
Batteries have an energy density of 0.1-0.27kWh/kg meaning they are more efficient at storing all the energy you give them, but they can’t store much of it. Hydrogen has an energy density of 39.6kWh/kg, meaning they are less efficient at ‘charging’ but overall can store so much more energy than batteries meaning longer range, along with the benefit of fast refuel times.
It’s a battle of efficiency of energy stored over total amount of energy you can store.
Because of this battery cars are good for short distance everyday use cars and personal vehicles, especially when combined with renewables like rooftop solar. Hydrogen is more suited for more powerful longer range cars, trucks and busses with the hopeful future of ships and planes
Great video! The worst part of the hydrogen idea is the entire hydrogen energy ecosystem is less efficient than a pure electric energy ecosystem by around 60%. That means more expensive to consumers and operators and this is the true killer. It’s a really bad joke.
their are some niches like steel production
@@autohmae possibly, but I bet that doesn’t use green hydrogen due to the cost.
@@Cybernetic_Systems they do use green hydrogen, because as I understand it direct hydrogen iron reduction from green hydrogen is the only option to make steel without fossil fuels
@@autohmae good to know.
One of the ways that Earth is so weird is our planet's incredible density. On Mars, hydrogen atoms reach escape velocity just by being at room temperature. (Temperature is the average speed of gaseous molecules and atoms) Our gravity well is large enough that hydrogen can't escape until it's much hotter. And our massive magnetic field keeps the solar wind further out, so hydrogen molecules need to have even more temperature to escape into space. Unlike Mars where hydrogen, and even oxygen regularly blows away in the solar wind.
Don't we regularly lose helium? I don't think there's much H2 in the earth's atmosphere
My understanding is hydrogen works it way up and drifts off into space, but on that journey, it contributes to warming. Hydrogen venting from cryo storage contributes to warming, unless flared, and when flared in air (rather than pure oxygen) it creates NOx emissions due to the high temperature.
Both are right. All of our primordial He-3 has bubbled up and out into space. So what we have left is byproducts of nuclear radiation - alpha particles, aka He-4. It's another reason Earth is So Weird.
- He-3 is perfect for nuclear fusion. But He-4 is noble and won't fuse. But can be supercooled into a superfluid that's Bosons instead of Fermions and can occupy the same space.
- Lithium's rare Li-6 can be fizzled (lysed?) into He-3 in a breeder reactor.
- The COLEX process for separating rare Li-6 from common Li-7 uses extremely dangerous hydrated mercury, and no nation on Earth will perform it.
- So we have a future of internal combustion on Earth (only place with enough oxygen, another reason Earth is So Weird), and nuclear fusion outside Earth.
- Also probably shipments of He-3 down to Earth for terrestrial fusion.
@@StephenGillie thoughts on ‘natural hydrogen’ likelihood? There is a lot of buzz about deposits of hydrogen just lying around, color coded ‘white’ - but I can’t see how it could be at oil and gas scale - but I don’t know enough about the geology.
There is one fundamental problem with all of these new ideas: no one looks at the new issues CREATED by the new technologies (which often are even worse than the issues that the new technology was designed to fix 😂)
Green hydrogen is a new proposed of renewable energy. The research is ongoing , it takes times to overcome all the challenges before producing green energy which is safe and cost effective for multiple usages.
Won’t happen shuffling goals isn’t a solution.
To me, hydrogen's potential value is if you manage to find a way to transport it (nearly) as efficiently as electricity, with hydrogen offering storage along with transportation.
Imagine building clean sources like nuclear, wind, or solar out in the middle of nowhere (avoiding the NIMBY problem which is one of the biggest things holding us back from cleaner options available today) on land that otherwise has minimal value/use (Canadian tundra, deserts, etc), and allowing them to generate to their maximum capacity regardless of in-the-moment demand.
There are massive problems, efficiency is obviously a problem, but we don't currently have any really fantastic storage options and transmission is horribly inefficient, so decoupling generation from demand has some potential.
Don't get me wrong, if I were forced to put money into the hydrogen market today I'd be shorting them, at best this will be something we see in 20-50 years and we may well have better solutions (I suspect so, I hope so).
For buses you could have a battery swap system. Drop the battery out from underneath the bus at the bus garage. Use an automated hydraulic system to do it.
Hi Andrew. Yes, I've said that before as well. But why not extend the system by having a universal battery design to fit all cars, or several even. Instead of gas stations, ""battery stations", and a five minute change done with the same speed as changing a tyre. The battery station's stock of flat batteries could be charged up overnight during off-peak rates, especially with wing power. Tyre sizes have been successfully standardized. Cheers, P.R.
Or just use biogas.
In Germany, the main rationale seems to be that it allows for the possibility of storing much more energy over a longer period of time than batteries. As one needs a storage option when relying on wind and solar alone and wanting to heat houses with heat pumps in winter, hydrogen power plants seemed the only option to the German government.
What do you think about this?
I think it's NOT THE ONLY option!
Its not only "not the only option", its not even a valid option due to the losses and costs involved.
We have perfectly fine flow batteries, hydro storage and alternative battery chemistries that are either viable now or very close to it ... closer already than hydrogen can ever get.
Hydrogen is utterly garbage for fixed location energy storage. There is an entire host of battery options that are highly efficient, and far cheaper when facturing in economies of scale that they are only now starting to make use of (e.g. previous global lithium Mining was absolutely tiny compared to the available deposits and new needs).
@@reappermen For fixed location batteries, sodium instead lithium could be a good alternative too.
How about recycling industrial heat waste for household heating, along with batteries, potential energy and other storage solutions?
Practically some nuclear power does not hurt anyone but petro-conglomerate though.
Temperature limits to electric heat pump are currently because of their refrigerant, not fundamental physics.
For example the fundamental limit of COP in the case of -30C to 25C heating is around "5". So with the correct engineering it really should work in Canada too (COP=3 would be more realistic obviously, we cannot do actual Carnot cycle).