ขนาดวิดีโอ: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
What do you make of the hydrogen hype?
@Coda Alive There is no global warming. It's climate change and that is just the change of season. The molecules mix and change their formations and become new molecules all the time or they separate and become mor simplistic. Let me ask you when the Earth was just fuming with carbon. And I mean right at the beginning of everything. Why would it become good to life all of a sudden. That's because the planet is designed to change these molecules and suit itself because life does. It processes it and uses it as energy. That is what has been happening since the 1st organisms. Anything at high concentrations could not be that healthy but at the same time it will dissipate and it will be renewed. Like it always has. Plus if the planet does warm up that would be because the Earth is just getting to its natural temperature we are still technically in the ice age just exiting it. And we survived ice age so we'll be able to do it again if it happens. Either way there will be tons of water and food. Just getting rid of vehicles would bring back so much more life because vehicles kill a lot of animals far more then you could imagine. And it's not the pollution that it spews out and I don't like calling it pollution because it's technically a natural compound that is quite common for life. If molecules don't revert and/or change to make it a healthier environment due to it being processed in several different ways as well was by tree's life then we wouldn't be here anymore because there would be no air. Life created air by processing carbon.
@BoB BoBy Are you suggesting CO2 isn't causing global warming and its consequences? Or believe renewables are answer to the problem that will also take care of the base load, toxic waste and other problems too? Scientists know it since late 50's, Th MSR was tested and proposed as the safest solution, second choice are APR1400 reactors or similar.I firmly believe in it for various reasons one of which is oil lobby doing everything they can to continue providing dead ends.
@Coda Alive Even your toothbrush is basically carbon based.
@Coda Alive Exactly and we are a carbon based life form which is everything on this planet. It's not bad for us that's for sure. I could go through every step of explaining it. But I have done it several times already so I'm kind of tired of putting that much information down I will again know.
@BoB BoBy You are correct about it, calculations show that even renewables are worse than just burning oil&coal.
Hydrogen has its part to play as a mixed portfolio of energy distribution. The pie is big enough for all players to be sustainable.
As always, the DW Team does a fine job of dissecting the issues, showing alternative technologies, and grounding it all in the real world of costs of production. I see the hydrogen future for humanity and this excellent presentation gives us a solid viewpoint for why that may be so. Zehr gut!
I'm in favor of the green hydrogen. It could power the machines that produce the hydrogen. Like in the case of desalinization plants. Since our ground water has been depleting and rivers drying up; having a desalinization plant would help alleviate drought stricken farmers as well as being a source of fresh water for water bottling companies. The hydrogen that gets pumped out of the ocean into clean water, is just one step away from being converted into the fuel source required to operate a desalinization plant. I'm much in favor of Green tech.
One thing that you didn't mention is that the hydrogen atom is very small in size, so when welding pipes the welds need to be perfect or it will leak, also since the energy content is low you need very high pressure tanks (special welding codes) also quite expensive, finally hydrogen has an invisible flame when burning and is orderless so it's hard to know your system is leaking and or burning.
@ssc Because to store it efficiently is a massive problem. Being the smallest of atoms, it diffuses through any containment materials used and wasted into the atmosphere. Therefore either high pressure or cryo is the only options. And this itself costs huge amounts of energy and more infrastructure where ever it is used. So you end up having to spend energy to store energy, not the greatest of concepts.
@Majikal Bushe since electrolysis doesn't seem to be too complex - why not produce hydrogen *where* you actually need it, foregoing storage and transportation completely? Genuine question
@Cesco You are right, Cesco, natural gas has an additive for aroma. This works since they are similar densities. Trying to mix a gas with hydrogen would result in hydrogen 'floating' upward like a bubble in water. The gasses would separate during storage and likely during transport. Stirring might work but might not. Hydrogen offers tremendous potential, but also presents many technical challenges.
Hydrogen will escape all containment. There is nothing it won't dissipate through. So vast storage or long storage is always at a loss. And the measure needed to slow this process cost energy, so it's a defeatist effort.
It’s amazing this information was missed, or left out! Thanks for your comments! 🙏😎
As a student researching Hydrogen production, I think this video is quite good. Most mainstream news outlets don't really go into detail, they just publish whatever is trendy and grabs attention (like hydrogen cars, planes etc). A more balanced approach is very much needed
@Gospel of Jesus Christ Oh, good grief. You're not gaining anything by interrupting off-subject. You're uncourteous and rude, not gaining any attention to the faith, by your behavior. Think, man.
Me? @richard boyer
forget what they taught u and split water
Bro if it go into detail then no one has a time to watch so so long videos
Sure, that is true and such comment is sadly generally valid for mainstream news on all topics, including wars and viruses. Moreover, I find the people become less critical towards the superficial data thrown at us, which constitutes a basis for electing politicians who take poor decisions.
thus far it seems that alternate energy sources do have enough density or efficiency to replace carbon base energy withe the exception of nuclear. In my mind, we have to implement an ecosystem of alternate energy production, reforestation, conserve energy, a shorter work week, more work from home and downsize our homes to be less energy intensive.
Very interesting subject. Green Hydrogen is something that here in NZ we should be making by the bucket load since the electrical generation industry is either hydro/wind or geothermal. Still have a number of coal and gas fired industrial sites(mostly Fonterra) due to their remote locations but only two gas power stations for residential output. New Geothermal sites are coming on line all the time but our biggest problem is lack of investment, seems a missed opportunity to me.
I did not hear about the fact that even blue hydrogen has to have the reaction run at 1,500F temperature. Where does that heat come from?
Happy to see some of the conclusions is that blue Hydrogen is indeed good for our Fossil Fuel MAnufaturers in this world. Removing CO2 is a waste of energy and resources. It takes a LOT of energy. Problem with Green hydrogen though is that you need a big BIG investment for a little bit of hydrogen. With that big investment you still have relative little hydrogen. That means that you need a lot of GREEN Energy for hydrogen production. Green energy that is also not constantly available. The figures do not add up. In the end the bottle neck is not money but the availability of green energy. We use so much energy that green energy cannot replace that. Let alone green hydrogen. We have to think about our energy usage too and that is still missing a bit in the discussion about energy transition. (Because big players in Fossil Fuel, Airplane companies tell us it is just transition)
This is surprisingly well balanced. TH-clips videos in my experience tend to be almost tribal about alternative fuels, either trying to big them up or debunk anything good that's ever been said about them. This is factual, accessible and unbiased. Well done to all concerned.
@The Wokefinder General And you know this How? Did you hear it on the Murdoch press Org
@whybother now nope. You worship the Crown that destroyed your tribe in Europe. You have Stockholm syndrome. Its is self hatred to denigrate your tribal ancestry like that. Tribe is how God intended human societies. The Crown destroyed Gods tribe. Using "tribal" for a group of non related people is non sensical. A political party cannot be tribal any more than calling a bowl of soup a tribe. TRIBE is a culture with a history. Stop being suckers for the people who robbed, killed and destroyed your ancestors. Im done. The world will end living in a non tribal, Godless, violent, woman hating society. Peace.
@CGR Phenomics no, in the field of science, ‘tribal’ (used in the sense of this dialogue) is a very very bad thing. For example - and I am not saying this to start a covid debate - but Think about how some of the covid ‘facts’ were almost religiously taken for granted by layman and doctors alike because a representative of the government or pharmaceutical company said so. Many of these ‘facts’ are now being rowed back at a frantic rate by even Dr Fauci (if you follow him in the US) and politicians are distancing themselves from them like a bad smell. This was a prime example of tribal science.
Balanced how? Did they even try to ask an economist if this so-called "fuel" makes sense?
@Ron Skancke What exactly is not true?
My dad worked for an hydrogen company and he got fired cause he wouldn’t lie about the gas footprint of the industry. He went into petroleum to work on plant emissions and they used him to basically delay and distract. He then quit started an herb farm and quit paying his taxes, sold kratom and legal mushrooms till he died.
@Steve M i could tell you a whole lot of things that are actually scary lol... But some how life will go on. It always does! not even the great flood was enough! its not just a biblical story either. Many tribes passed down stories of it that never seen a bible. There is a lot more intriguing things than fluoride or big pharma. Any way wanna go out for sushi with me? Maybe we can get diabetes together and have a insulinated relationship for years to come
@Steve M lol that took a lot of effort, just have to word things more carefully. But yeah that Caesium missing from the reactor site in japan is wreaking havoc and that's no myth. You can go follow the articles trailing on seaweed wash ups systematically from west coast usa all around the south america and up the eastern usa coastlines. there is a lot i can't say from a panel i was on, but realize these seaweed beds produce 80% of oxygen we breath and its gone. Sure its great for some companies, but if you like a good conspiracy that's not far fetched. I suggest looking up research into condensing oxygen into solids that can be reverted back into a breathable gas. that tells just how bad the study results were of the panel. Chlorine (a known carcinogen) or flouride are the least of any issue you can imagine. I imagine if mount fuji errupts, we'll all die about 15,000 deaths instantly each. Its a pretty safe assumption. The real dream here is taxing the air (wink). Its the only thing not taxed and global warming campaigns are making that real before things actually catch up that are happening. Things that are far more serious
There are many, websites giving scientific detail.
Sixth and seventh words, 6&7. 'in NZ'.
Fifth word, 5. 'F l u o r i d e'
Enjoyed video, unfortunately it appears no one is thinking outside the box regarding this fuel. Green/Grey hydrogen is produced by electrolysis, l believe for electricity energy production made from fossil fuels could be a thing of the past within ten years throughout the world and very cheaply by comparison to other construction projects.Here is how, most countries are using existing fossil fuel power stations and trying to phase them out making for cleaner options.Why not build hydrogen production and storage facilities on these power station sites, use existing fuel to produce green hydrogen by electrolysis till you have stored three months supply, then switch the power station to run on green hydrogen, topping up the stored hydrogen production when the power station is not switched into the grid.Advantages net zero cost for fuel to run the power station.No major infrastructure or machinery costs as they already exist , only conversion and maintenance required.Ultimately surplus green hydrogen can be produced for road vehicles and other transportation as s being used already around the world.In the U.K. hydrogen is being introduced into the gas network this could be their production supply source.It is sad l have yet to here anybody make these suggestionsC ACooper
It will be decades before H2 becomes mainstream! It does have a place in heavy industry, shipping and even as a 20% mix of heating gas....but beyond that is a really tall ask.
The general consensus in the industries we supply to and work within is that the ultimate final goal is hydrogen: green hydrogen. EVs-no matter how much their battery size is reduced-are still being perceived as the medium solution. This is a very good video though; it's rare to find a transparently balanced one like this.
If you understood thermodynamics you would know that hydrogen energy, like wind and solar, cannot substitute for fossil fuels or nuclear. Not even close.
There is no such thing as green hydrogen. It’s all a myth. How do you think wind turbines etc are manufactured?
I think the backbone being Nuclear and renewables with Hydrogen to replace Coal plants and as energy storage would be a pretty decent idea.
Nuclear is far too expensive. At current LCE evaluations, nuclear fission plants come up with four to six times the per-unit cost of renewables - one can pay a lot of storage solutions from that production price difference.Also the construction time is loooong, often over a decade, and it binds a giant amounts of initial investment for at least five decades. And ultimately makes economies highly dependent on a very few worldwide fuel producers, russia top amongst them. And europe recently experienced how tricky it is to be dependent on russia for energy needs.And all that is not even touching on the long-term waste storage and catastrophic failure potential topics, only economy and geopolitical ones.
@Uncommon Japan has been storing waste unsafely alongside its reactors on unstable ground for 50 years with no safe storage in sight. Australia should not sell uranium unless it can take the waste back and store it safely, and cost that into the price that the fuel is sold for.
Japan (along with other countries I hope) is looking for nuclear options that reduce radioactive waste production… if that can be done then nuclear might become a rational option as a source of heat energy for conversion to electricity, hydrogen etc.
@John Foot Fortunately, ITER gets a decent amount of funding. We get ever closer to fusion
@Ralph Boardman this is simply untrue and a result of statistical manipulation to not include the extreme costs of 'renewable’ infrastructure and storage. Nuclear France has the cheapest electricity in Europe, Germany and California the most expensive in their respective regions.
We should use electricity produced by the new breed of atomic reactors for the production of "greenish" Hydrogen and save our electricity from 100 percent renewable sources for grid use and battery charging. I would like to see a comparison of projected costs for a thorium fueled reactor versus the production of hydrogen from non-renewable sources. We could then make more intellgent decisions as to resource allocation for powering our planet while still seeking to reach our important climate change goals.
Interesting. Living in a place with over abundant sun it would seem that using solar energy to recycle water into its gas components would make sense. I would love to hear what innovations are afoot. Surely it's not so simple but neither was harnessing nuclear energy.
My friend it is that simple =with solar/ wind (Temperature pressure differential )/ phase change-where you can flip hot to cold and create electric - example Tesla turbine then using it for hho or other hydrogen products that has many other uses- example look up browns gas how simple it is to make and it’s many uses = it can be done in the backyard = the more individuals that get with the project the quicker the problems will be solved = the main thing needed is to do by the do method
Because hotter electrical systems increases resistance within system, a hot environment greatly reduced the amount of electricity produced. Hot sun is great for producing hot water but not for producing electricity. The trouble is, you don't need much hot water in hot places.
Far sighted people like Bill Gates see a simple solution: gain of function a virus - release it - provide & force all to take the cure (which would hav risin & aids in it -call them: "adjavancts") reduce human kind to a billion & ... we're there ! energy & pollution problems reduced to tollerable level for a few hundred years.
@stop censoring me - hydrogen solves the solar & wind energy transporting locality problem… everyone has water in their borders; not everyone has lithium battery sourcing & manufacturing.
@RamsFan Yeah but uranium still has to be mined leaving a messy environmental and carbon footprint of it's own particularly on a scale to power the entire world. Then what about vehicles? All electric powered by nuclear? Again mining and disposing of battery materials poses it own problem on the global scale. Considering solar panels can generate efficiently for 20-30 years a wind solar hydrogen combination is by far the cleanest of all, not saying it's perfect but it is currently the best option we have.
I think there was a good comment from an expert at the end there. It showed how these time-based goals are flawed. They create pressure and poor decision making. To me, it’s more about a balanced approach. Not panic. We have good sources of energy that we know. But we are also recognizing that we can evolve that and do better. We can do it cleaner. But can we be honest? Can we be balanced? Some companies seem to struggle with that. So, we need to proceed with wisdom, pure intention, and steady ease. It’s not really that difficult.
It is refreshing to hear this more complete discussion of hydrogen’s potential role in our energy strategy. Too many people are unaware that it takes energy to create hydrogen - that, on earth at least, hydrogen is an energy storage and transport medium, not an energy source. In effect, hydrogen is a battery alternative. The energy lost in creating, storing, transporting, and using hydrogen is significant. As with so many social media and regular media energy discussions, there was no discussion of nuclear energy. Generate hydrogen with nuclear power and the result will actually be emission free. No need to drink petroleum industry cool-aid.
@Ryouko Konpaku as the original video explains, and endless other resources back up, hydrogen has no role to play in the future energy landscape. For that matter neither will nuclear energy because of its long implementation times and hideous capex--even in Japan. Solar plus storage has been dropping in price exponentially and no other technology can keep up, not even wind. Just look at China's build-out of solar, and their statements that they will scale back investments in coal and nuclear plants as renewables become more prevalent, and you should get a good idea where the industry is going. The LCOE of solar plus storage is falling below 1/5 of the price of nuclear. That's pretty much the end of that, and "cheap" hydrogen.
@blade I should've worded it as more economical or cheaper, it's efficient in a way that it doesn't cost much to generate hydrogen this way since it's from waste high heat. These new Gen 4 reactors operate at around 750-1000°C which is more than enough heat for multi-purpose use.As for urgency, these type reactors actually been in research for more than 2 decades now (Japan's HTTR plant has been operating as a test bed since the 1990s), it got restarted pretty recently (2020) since now the Fukushima issue from the public has died down, and it's a vital piece for Japan's hydrogen bet to be carbon neutral by 2050 as it can economically produce hydrogen for a low cost and provide electricity at the same time. It's not that far as a goal and Japan in particular is pretty invested on building them for commercial use here by 2030 as Japan can actually build these types of reactors in record time (5 years average at least here in Japan). For other countries there's also China with their own VHTR plants and it's also almost ready for commercial use on their own provinces this year if I recall, though it operates at lower temps (750°C) than Japan's design (1000°C). And if I recall the UK has recently announced joint cooperation on development using Japan's design for their own use as well by the 2030s.
@Ryouko Konpaku electrolysis is the most energy efficient way to generate H2 (save for any catalyst-assisted methods we haven't discovered yet). While using waste heat in nuclear reactors may be convenient because it's, well, waste heat, it's not an efficient process per se. Also keep in mind that this waste heat isn't wasted everywhere. In European and Scandinavian countries this heat may be used to heat homes. Besides, as you said, this is still at the experimental stage, and building out any significant nuclear infrastructure takes decades because of the effort and regulations involved. We need green H2 for green industrial processes NOW.
There's also the fact that with stuff like Japan's experimental VHTR type nuclear reactors, you could create hydrogen either via high heat electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting due the high temps these reactors operate. These are much more efficient in generating hydrogen compared to low temp electrolysis on green hydrogen since you don't use electricity but rather the waste heat from the reactors. These would have zero emissions as well as generating good yields of hydrogen from the heat from the reactors.
@build Motosykletist What are you- a FLoTbot? Can you concede that energy that exits the party, is no longer in the party? It doesn't mean E has ceased to exist but that it is no longer there. Example: an old school kettle comes to the boil. There are boiling sounds and then a whistling begins. That sound energy does not somehow remain or return into the kettle- it dissipates. This mechanical kinetic energy is both useful (the whistle alerts the user) and useless (the rumbling boiling sound). It's about efficiency.
Great video. I think it gives a balanced view of the issues to be considered. The energy transition is a great challenge - we consume a lot of energy in the world and cleaning it up needs us to get to understand and appropriately use all good options.
Had to split the comment quite a bit to avoid the algorithms.
human population to thrive.
NOT want the ...
to c o n t r o l us, do ...
p y r a m i d, who want ...
Australia's CSIRO developed a liquid similar to ammonia that had a large amount of hydrogen. This liquid could then easily be turned into hydrogen in the vehicle and the other elements are filtered out of the liquid. Large scale transport of low temperature, high pressure extremely flammable gases is fraught with problems, let alone the cost of any type of hydrogen.
Smells of Hindenburg
You didn't explore growing Bio-hydrogen through the harvesting of hyrogen from microalgae. Growing algae and then harvesting hydrogen, a by product of photosynthesis may prove to be the most economical and environmentally friendly hydrogen production method of all particularly as they also consume vast amounts of carbon dioxide as well. A double benefit.
Yes someone should be talking about this but the greedy petroleum lobby won’t let it go easily
Super simplified explanation of what hydrogen strategy is all about. Such videos which explain more and dont pass a judgement are well appreciated
Since I learned about fuel cells in my master degree in the early 2000's I truly believe that the solution to the energy production/consumptiion is to find local green solutions that apply to each market or each country. Green Hydrogen is certainly a good solution to some kind of transportation and to some countries. The challenge is to find the right demand for this beautiful solution.
@Jephro Kimbo I think you need to read up. Both your points are wrong.
@Steve M thorium power plants are NOT SCALEABLE to the power requirements needed on an INDUSTRIAL SCALE! furthermore, there is insufficient thorium isotopes necessary for the conversion to thorium reactors.
human population to thrive.Had to split the comment quite a bit to avoid the algorithms.
Good presentation. One source of hydrogen is in oil deposits. Research has been done were the in situ oil deposits were warmed. This resulted in the hydrogen separating from the oil and rising to the surface of the oil. This then removed from the oil deposits. The biggest issue is how transport the hydrogen to storage as it is very combustible.
Excellent analysis!! Innovation is a continuous process, some day we will discover the truths and solutions around it
To isolate Hydrogen to use as a fuel requires more energy input than the hydrogen offers at output. Hydrogen is a great energy store (battery) but it's not a new source of energy.
Overall, I think everyone needs to understand that the energy transition will not happen with ONLY one renewable energy, or green energy storage. Green hydrogen, green ammonia, fuel cells and what not will all be part of this transition, just like wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
@Paul Sacco no
@Luca Della Sciucca still needed for steel etc
@swissguyflying yes well said ....no magic bullet only an amalgamation of all different types ...
Ammonia has the no-carbon advantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier, but already has a vast mature distribution and storage infrastructure for it's use in agriculture as a fertilizer. It could be both the energy and nitrogen fertilizer source for agriculture without need for the investments at the level of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen.
Thanks for this video, I am a huge hydrogen fan but never quite knew what it cost to make. The best example I could see for it was Iceland that has geothermal energy to produce the product for fuel cells. But some questions back.The comment that production of Hydrogen only leads to 48% capture of CO2. How does that compare to fossil fuel engines and the like. How does that compare to the electricity needed to generate recharge for battery powered functions? Suppose instead you use raw hydrogen to power the internal combustion engine. What are the outcomes for that in terms of the carbon footprint, (CF) of the vehicle output?Why is there the suggestion that how hydrogen is produced now will have the same CF once it becomes more integrated into our infrastructure and engineers are employed to make it more efficient, because economics?What is CF of the exponential increase in the production of electric batteries to replace the combustion engine in terms of toxic chemicals and heavy metals compared to the CF of hydrogen fuel cells. Bearing in mind, initially at least, the life span of a bed of batteries in a car would be five years before replacement is required. While in the meantime, charge holding efficiency will decrease reducing optimal mileage rates. So the production requirements for batteries would be off the scale. Why is the future of hydrogen fuel cells measured on their current efficiency rating given this is in its infancy? The examples abound about it on how familiarity leads to innovation. Chat to Iceland.What does need to happen is to have the established fuel companies encouraged by governments to develop clean energy but with the carrot there must be the stick and for the first two decades government audit on how the carrot is used. (I know, the difficulty is true audit and prosecution of cynical companies. I'm looking at you VW).So in summary, my observation would be, that while there are problems to solve with hydrogen, the generation and use of batteries does not necessarily outperform as an alternative.
It takes, currently🙄, about 38 pounds of battery to equal a pound of gasoline. Hydrogen must be stored at very high pressures. This requires a lot of energy just to do this. Electric and hydrogen powered planes do not have much range. Certainly there is room for improvement in our energy usage but the electric and hyrogen transportation thing is a fad that is emotionally and politically driven. I will be glad when we get realistic.
The focus on hydrogen should start with heavy transport, ships, trains and aircraft. The gap between batteries vs. hydrogen for light vehicles has been looked at for several years and found to be better served by batteries, not only for cost but safety. Hydrogen is dangerous in a vehicle crash, the weight of the structures needed to prevent explosions from accidents just add more weight. On heavy transport the additional weight for safety structure can be absorbed with little loss to cargo hauled.
Hydrogen is an important part of the mix of energy we will need to get to carbon free world but it won’t be the most adequate in every situation. Plus, there’s also PINK hydrogen, which is the one generated from nuclear energy, using small nuclear reactors. Japan is doing a great effort using this latter method
Sure! Let's eliminate ALL CO2 from the planet and starve all of Earth's plant life to death so we don't have to live with the pesky Oxygen those plants produce in an already perfectly balanced ecosystem.
We are going to need hydrogen technologies to colonize the Moon, Mars, Titan and so on. This may be our future after all!
Yeah, their experimental HTGR type reactors could in simultaneously generate hydrogen from the high heat and electricity that isn't considered in this video. Once those are actually in use and online, they would likely be far more feasible for generating a large and stable amount of hydrogen for fuel and still remain a relatively clean source. It kinda lines up with Japan's recent renewed interest back to nuclear energy to lessen its reliance on imports (which made electricity pretty pricey here) as well as the govt's plan to be a hydrogen society in the near future.
I have noticed that the new version of fission reactors can be placed near facilities where hydrogen is used in manufacturing. The reactors can make hydrogen very cheaply and sidestep the need for electricity first.
Interesting analysis, thank you. Have you considered the old-fashioned method of making H2 using dilute sulfuric acid and iron filings? It was the method used to produce large volumes of H2 for the airships at the start of the 20th century.
@SteveTheStratAbuser I think they are trying to come up with a sustainable solution that would last centuries rather than decades. Once the scrap iron and scrap lead acid battries are used up then what?
@Henri de Feraudy No need to produce new when there's lots of scrap iron available and the dilute sulphuric acid can be recovered from scrap lead acid batteries. The waste product is iron sulphate that can be used to produce anemia medication. I haven't done the sums on it, so I have no idea how practical these suggestions are but, if H2 fuel can be produced from scrap materials, it's worth a thought...
Producing iron filings and sulphuric acid is not green at all.
"Backwards" demand can assist green Hydrogen development. What I mean is developing personal sized green Hydrogen products for use at home (water heater, fridge power, backup power, heating small spaces such as the garage or ice melting, camping/campers, etc.) That type of backwards demand from the micro side creates some capital and excitement at a smaller (likely easier) level vs industrial scale.
True ... in fact my thoughts are similar even for the Solar ...instead of large Solar PV its the Solar Rooftops that will help build energy security at local level at low cost incentivized by the govt without major ecological concerns
Excellent video showing pros and cons of hydrogen. But still I see two points not covered here:- impact of metals extraction and exponential need for them into renewable energies- the very short term storage of hydrogen ( few days max).
actually it is a couple HOURS, not days! just examine the latest attempt by nasa to test their newest rockets.
I think battery materials are limited and if they can't be recycled I think there will be a shortage. I think hydrogen has a great future as long as it's green 👍
battery materials are fully recyclable today and cheaper than the mining and refining system. co founder of tesla has a recycling factory already recovering 97% on the minerals. once all cars are battery driven there will be a closed loop system whereby no more mining will be necessary. this is already happening.
The supply chain supporting "green energy" is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Converting electricity to hydrogen that then goes to fuel cells is a dead end solution for most applications, since it wastes way too much energy, that would be best used directly or stored in a battery. While there is lots of talk about batteries, the raw material supply is currently short for the current demand for high efficiency products, much less meeting a 80 fold increase in use to power transportation. Plus the environmental issues associated with production and disposal/recycling. The technology needed to go ahead with truly green energy is a quality, cheap, easy to produce non-toxic battery. That might be discovered this year, or next century. Until then we are wasting resources and creating needless pollution and suffering trying to reach a goal beyond our technological grasp.
Obviously hydrogen should be used to store energy when and where energy is abundant. For example from solar energy. I just read about a Swedish scientist/entrepreneur who made a pilot project at his own home. Being completely self sustained, heating his 500 square metre villa from solar energy converted and stored in hydrogen form in the summer, then converted back to electricity and used to run his geothermal heating system in the winter. That is in Sweden, where you need heat at least 8 months a year. There is no where near possible doing this with batteries.
You make an excellent point. The idea that we’ll some how pull “green” anything out of our collective backsides is emotional diarrhea. If I can again put it indelicately, physics is a &itch! “Clean energy” is simply not clean. Solar panels, electric cars, batteries, windmills that are necessary ON A MASSIVE scale are going to require strip-mining enormous areas of the planet, mostly in undeveloped countries. These “green solutions” are really about making millionaires into billionaires and making the wealthy elites wealthier and feel good about themselves at their cocktail parties. Fusion energy and the shorter range, new safer nuclear technologies have to be developed.
Excellent video with clear point to digest and ponder upon. I think the t worth pursuing. It seems that the biproduct, water, can also help water shortages in some places. I'm all for it's further research.
Huh?Doesnt make a lot of sense, no. Not to me in this shortness anyway.You´d argue the small amounts of water emitted in the fuel cell process - out of hydrogen that has originally been made out of water or natural gas - should then be collected and somehow brought where water is scarce?Just transporting water where it is needes seems much, much more straightforward. And if done by pipeline considerably cheaper, more efficient and less leakage.
I agree with you sir. There are two (not so known) channels I recommend you check out: 1. Hucks&Trucks 2. Edward MitchellIt would take long for me to explain all of these details but these guys are making new hydrogen tech that you may find interesting
As a student of Chemistry In my point of view Green Hydrogen is the future. We may have to use mix and match of different type of fuels. We had a membrane type water electrolysis system which was very efficient and easy to build. It just required enough research minimize the production cost.
It takes exactly the same amount of energy to turn water into its constituent elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen as is produced by burning it. No amount of increased efficiency is ever going to change that fact. Therefore there is never going to be a gain unless the electrical energy is very cheap and cannot be utilised for anything else. When is electricity going to be cheap?
Green hydrogen doesn't exist. Only hydrogen produced by electrolysis does. If you use electricity from solar to manufacture hydrogen then that doesn't change the hydrogen. Can you please stop using this retarded language. Science is not marketing. There is only one hydrogen atom when we do not include isotopes.
I'm not sure about it. Don't forget that an economy, even if only partly driven by hydrogen, will need a gigantic number of new storing facilities, pipelines, trucks, compressors, and thus, raw materials, space, and energy itself. It's about three times more expensive than transporting the generated energy directly by a power grid and storing the energy in batteries and energy buffering plants without an intermediary substance which serves ONLY as a means of energy TRANSPORT.
Hysata hydrogen greatly helps in the renewable production of hydrogen, it is a game changer in making hydrogen meet the cost point needed where hydrogen is the better technological choice. Trucks make sense as they can easily accommodate fuel tanks one or two cubic metres in capacity
Small Modular Reactors could provide on-demand hydrogen, even in remote locations. This would get us off carbon fuels AND batteries (you neglected to point out the huge environmental cost of battery production, or the fact that China has most of the world's rare earth minerals), and allow time for the further development of green energy, which cannot sufficiently meet demand in its current state.
China is the main producer of "rare earth" lanthanides and actinides (which aren't very rare) because isolating and processing them is hard and so environmentally unfriendly that western countries don't want to do it. There are rare earth deposits pretty much all over the globe.
@Brian Don't forget Afghanistan
@Niles Butler well I just found some Stanford coursework on the subject."Different types of energy plants can be compared via a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) - the price that the electricity must fetch if the project is to break even (after taking account of all lifetime costs, inflation and the opportunity cost of capital through the application of a discount rate). The LCOE of nuclear energy plants coming online in 2020 was $95.2/MWh, comparable to conventional coal ($95.1/MWh), above conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired plants ($75.2/MWh) but below conventional combustion turbine natural gas-fired plants ($141.5/MWh). "- Nuclear Power Economic Costs, Kalvin Wang May 4, 2018Energy storage isn't a topic - the answer is *no, not right now for sensible money*.Regarding wind options:- "The reference offshore LCOE project estimates are $85/MWh for fixed-bottomsubstructures and $132/MWh for floating substructures, with a single-variable sensitivity range of $63-$122/MWh for fixed bottom and $83-$174/MWh for floating. This range is mostly influenced by the large variation in CapEx ($2,570-$7,080/kW) reported byproject developers and is partly a function of differences in water depth and distance to shore."- 2019 Cost of Wind Energy Review, National Renewable Energy LaboratorySo offshore is no where near as cheap as you claim and, again, you cannot choose when you need it - you cannot sell your 3am excess wind power to France if they don't need it either.You seem to also forget (I don't know if on purpose or out of ignorance) that Germany has to keep gas powerplants operational to buffer the no-wind events of those turbines - so they are a very real inclusive cost to wind power generation. Wind always needs a fossil backup, gas cannot use a wind backup.
@user936 You are mixing apples and oranges, - I dont know if on purpose or out of ingorance.One thing is cost.Please aquaint yourself with the concept of : levelized lifetime cost of electricity....What does it cost to plan, build, finance, run, fuel, maintain and finally decomission a power plant, divided by what amount of electricity can it produce over its expected life cycle. I believe by your "capital cost/running cost" comment you dont understand/know that basic concept.Questions of storage and baseline production dont have anything to do with that. And at that one metric - at what overall price are we able to produce a standardized amount of electicity - nuclear fission power generation is horribly costly. The most expensive method in industrial use.The other thing is network viability.Matching use with production at any given time.In that : Sure, energy storage is an important topic.And baseline power generation will always be neccessary.But I never even mentioned that. ? Nor does it touch on my argument in any way? Whats supposed to be your logic here?Yes, output of fission pressure generators can be regulated. Inside some constructive limits (Chernobyl basically happened because the tested running it too low at
@Niles Butler I think you are confusing capital costs with operating costs. On top of this you are not considering that we can control the output from fission - we can plan to have X about of kWh over a period of time - not something that can be done with offshore.I think the idea of using hydrogen generation in lieu of the battery storage we cannot produce yet is by itself an interesting idea. But you need the ability to predict power output or have ludicrously immersive hydrogen storage facilities for the 9 days in a row it doesn't blow.
Good stuff--clear, well-written presentation. But hydrogen internal-combustion engine vehicles (HICEVs) were completely left out. Also skipped is the critical issue of hydrogen storage.
It takes as much energy to hydrolyze water into hydrogen and osygen as one gets back from burning hydrogen - so we have to pay for it by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to make hydrogen
Since most of the hydrogen processes are wasteful, I think we shouldn't use it except for where it is the only thing that does the job, like iron smelting, and possibly aircraft.
if you do it from sun energy all the problems you mention are solved
The major difficulty, with sole reliance on renewables, is balancing supply with demand. In countries with large amounts of renewables there can be periods when supply outstrips demand (or overloads local network capability) and during these periods it would make sense to use that excess to create green Hydrogen. There is a project in Scotland at one of the biggest wind farms to build an electrolyser with the H2 being used to fuel buses (I think).As ever a wide range of energy options will be required and H2 will play its part in one form or another.
@lokensga no you need green hydrogen anyway. A) to replace gas and B) for steel plants.
True for now, but as the price of Powerwalls (generically) decreases, they will replace green hydrogen as a balancer of supply and demand.
...yepp.... you're right...
Sorry, no. The major problem with "renewables" is the lack of energy density. Unless you can recreate the windmill farm using the energy from the windmill farm then you are stuck using fossil fuels. You cannot smelt steel or create Portland cement from the energy of a wind farm. End of story. Everything else is a LIE
You’re smarter than the average bear 🐻
I think with any future energy adoption, it has to be take it as it comes and keep sharing the development globally - so we cant ignore blue H2 for a green H2 and work towards improving production, storage, safety, make policies at global and local level and incentivize anyone and everyone contributing to it
There was a seminar broadcast on, I think, UCTV a number of years ago that said that the only way that hydrogen could work for powering fuel cells is if there was a hydrogen plant to make hydrogen in most every town. This was because the energy it takes to transport the hydrogen is so great that some distance (something like 200 or 300 miles) would be more than the energy you could get from the hydrogen. So for hydrogen to be effective, it must be produced reasonably close to where it is used.Is that true?
of course, you can use sewage plant , electrolysis also help them to treat the water
The first, and most intractable problem, is that pretty much ALL of these conversations begin with "our energy needs", then work backwards, trying to find ways to maintain business as usual. We need to take a leaf from the books of the last year when energy "needs" have turned out to be a LOT more elastic than some of us imagined. The first thing we need to do is squeeze out of those economies, the maximum amount of wasted energy. THEN look at how to produce for what is left, and what mix is needed.My home has a wood-fired oven with water heater, powered by trees I grow myself, cut down, till I replace it with electric, by a FF chainsaw. I also have an electric oven and water heating, powered mostly by solar cells on my roof and a Li-ion battery with grid backup. Even so, I have a natural gas hob that is part of the mix. And all year we move among those energy sources as the weather changes, literally shifting from one to the other during the day, switching electricity on and off, starting a fire, using the hob instead of the stove top. It takes work and awareness, all day, every day. THEN it takes technology.
Thank you for this video. I feel it explains things quite well. Personally I think we are going to need Hydrogen for specific things, in air travel for example. But as the video explains, for simple cars it does not seem to make sense, especially with batteries getting (much) better, lighter, and able to store more energy. But we cannot focus on just one solution only. We need different solutions for different cases, and I expect hydrogen has an important place.
It takes exactly the same amount of energy to turn water into its constituent elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen as is produced by burning it. No amount of increased efficiency is ever going to change that fact.
Watch the video again. Hydrogen cannot substitute for fossil fuels or nuclear. The video maker cannot say this directly or censorship happens. Try to become aware of the politics.
If they put it in planes that's it for me for travel.
I saw in another video that that one big problem with Hydrogen is also storage. Being very tiny, its molecules escape more easily out of containers and storage loss is a big problem. I am no expert and would like to know more about this.
It is a big problem, but handling the compressed hydrogen is a more serious issue. The energy expended to electrolyse it from water then compress it to ultra-cold gas or across a phase change to liquid is truly massive. You immediately lose much of the benefit of the fuel. Then there are the safety factors of people putting it in their cars. Potential cold burns refuelling, explosions in air if any serious leaks. Ask NASA how dangerous compressed H2 can be.
Hydrogen can escape quite happily right through some grades of steel. Other grads of steel trap it, and that's worse, because then the steel gets brittle and one day fails catastrophically. This is why people investigated working with liquid hydrogen, but of course keeping the hydrogen that cold adds lots of weight and uses energy. I was a big fan of the hydrogen economy when I was an undergraduate, back when we were all wetting ourselves of global cooling and the glaciers coming back. But then I learned some chemistry and some physics. Speaking of steel, "ordinary" steel is about 1% carbon by weight, so coke isn't going to go away in steel-making.
The world keeps on driving itself towards total war, this problem will only be solved through violence.
Hydrogen is stored in water
@Van Van It is very sensible. More sensible than electric cars.
It was obvious from the very beginning that one type of technology won't be a magical pill that will solve all issues. We need a diversity of technologies to power societies & economies, such as we don't monopolise one natural resource or another (again). Hydrogen has downsides & costs in emissions. Well, as things stand, electric batteries also cause an environmental disaster with lithium and rare elements extraction. No solution will be totally clean, but we can do our best to diversity the market & keep stimulating the development & innovation of even better technologies.
I read about H2 when I first entered college (applied science) half a century ago. H2 production cost was and is still higher than any fossil fuel. Came Elon Musk and his mission to accelerate the transition to renewables. That "accelerated" the pressure on the fossil industry to produce a new "face" in hydrogen - same profits but dressed as the lovely hydrogen. True, it's appealing (although reminiscent of the Hindenburg), but the 2nd law of thermodynamics also implies that every time you transform, transfer, transduce (trans = across, beyond) energy, you lose some. So photovoltaics win 80% of energy transfer to your wheels, to 40% with current H2. Costs? It cost Electrical is powered by solar panels and electrical outlets - found everywhere. H2 is complex, and only funded by big money interests to create the next dependency we pay for. Not blaming them, it was useful for over 100 years. But we need real clean solutions. Our sun powers life, sail boats, wind and water mills, tidal and focused light (Fresnel lens) for a very long time. Well, it's hard to beat the champion. Actually, the most humane, altruistic, generous and free supplier of energy throughout millions of years has been our sun. So the biggest problem mega-energy company have (including nuclear) is that sun-power is simple to harness, and freely available to all, including simple folks like myself. Thank you for your scientific review, that's not been tainted with general hypes. Cheers!
People always imagine creating the infrastructure to power private cars with renewables, e.g., replacing existing gas stations with hydrogen stations all over the country. This is crazy. Renewables like hydrogen should be used for, say, city busses that fuel up at a central "bus barn"'; therefore, only one hydrogen fueling station is needed. Think taxi cabs, school busses, city-owned vehicles, UPS vans, ambulances...any vehicle that is part of a fleet that is used within the city limits. Why am I the only person who is protesting against the replace-the-conventional-car mantra? It seems to me that this also applies to EV's. Why build electric charging stations all over the place? It requires a lot of infrastructure investment. Keep it simple, stupid.
Very interesting thanks. Just one comment... keep in mind that increased demand also increase research budgets, which would definitely increase production efficiencies. That is quite saturated in fossil fuels since most assume that their "golden age" is about to end. In addition, there is alsobio-hydrogen, or semi bio that is being extensively researched and would make hydrogen production more spread around the globe, so in general local markets could supply their own energy rather than relying on a centered industry. That will generate a better control on demand to production ratio and minimize storage costs and need.
For many countries where the availability of renewable energy is limited, either by space or natural resource, it is reasonable to assume that green hydrogen is a pipe dream. Some countries, such as Australia have an abundance of natural resources including wind, in the North of the continent Easterly winds blow consistently for 6 months of the year. In that same area there is a 2000 Km coastline with tides of 7 to 10 metres complete with many chock points where tide races run at between 8 and 12 knots. Though there is little Government interest in investing, there are several private organisations working toward a Green Hydrogen environment. Australia is a unique environment that needs to work toward a hydrogen solution. Most transport relies on trucks, these massive 100 tonne vehicles travel between 1000 and 3000 kilometres and battery will never suffice. There are problems with batteries, repeated recharge cycles reduces their life expectancy, high ambient temperature reduces efficiency, lighting and air conditioning draw large amounts of power as do refrigerated transport, and the list goes on . The issue is not with creating hydrogen, but storage and transport.
Storage and transport may be a disadvantage in some situations, but can be seen as an advantage in others. Generating hydrogen and storing it until it is required can in some cases be better that relying on generating electricity on demand. Likewise, having the ability to transport energy can in some circumstances be a benefit.Green Hydrogen would seem to be a technology that is worth pursuing to fill the gaps that battery, wind, solar, wave and nuclear leave. Heavy equipment, planes and boats, and the cost of electrification of rail are all areas that Hydrogen could offer advantages. Cars and short-haul trucks less so and domestic heating not until there are cost effective micro green hydrogen generators.
I live in the driest continent and driest state and driest capital in the world. The idea of producing hydrogen from water for Australia in my opinion is ludicrous and folly. The SA Govt spent millions on a desalination plant and not one litre has been produced. Water is valuable resource and people have realised this in past but forgotten about the drought's and now investing hydrogen production. Seems to me there is a disconnect. I also lived in interior of Australia and know how precious water is, as most Australians never venture from the coasts to realise how fragile this continent is. Let's us take a holistic approach to energy because I can tell you, good useable water is becoming the rarest commodity on the planet and we should use WATER wisely.
And Australia can export hydrogen to countries that have a harder time producing it.
If moving energy from green generation is the challenge. It still might be overall more efficient to charge a battery ship and ship that to a port of load demand. Or move the heavy industry to the place of green generation.
Like Orkney in Scotland it is using tidal hydrogen to power the docks and there is a vehicle fuel cell charging station.
Just watched your very informative video on Hydrogen. My understanding is that the byproduct of burning Hydrogen is water, the question is what happens to the water produced. If used as fuel in a vehicle is the water stored in the vehicle or released to the atmosphere as water vapour. If released as WV does that not add to GHGs given that WV is the most abundant of the GHGs.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas? ELI5 please...
Hydrogen is definitely one of the fuels of the future. It is easy to produce, easy to store, easy to use, and has no emissions at point of use.You can make it anywhere from any power source, store it in literally just pressurized steel vats and use it in all kinds of applications both through fuel cells and combustion type applications. Depending on the way you deal with the residue from your water source, you can even use it as a way to decontaminate or desalinate water to some extent. Steel mills are usually already close to or besides the sea. Using salt water instead of fresh water for hydrolysis actually turns the waste product of the steel mill's energy use into fresh water, another resource that is scarce. Just because battery technology is "cheap" now does not mean it remains so in the future. Especially considering the lithium and rare earth metals required to make them usually coming from sources that are easy to lose access to. Not to mention the production costs of an EV in terms of emissions are very high.
What we've learnt from the EV boom is that most people aren't conscious of where their energy comes from. You can market a product like a shiny new BEV, but marketing the energy is more difficult, people don't really care.
They do care, they just get bamboozled by the lobbiests and crooked pols. They might care to dig more.
Battery EVs are going to be a great value for commuting with a low "Total cost of ownership" once BEVs get to large scale production. Low fuel cost, scant maintenance, etc. The externalized costs like smog and climate change will not be tasked to the public like the goons in the coal and oil industry are currently doing. 🚗
British company JCB have already pioneered working lorries and diggers using green hydrogen. And Toyota successfully ran a green hydrogen powered Corolla around a 24 Race at Fuji Raceway last summer. So, if these companies can do it, others can too.
Hydrogen liquefaction is further more energy intensive I think and hence, liquifying it for future use is a really hard process especially when it comes to regular automotive and domestic use. But for the industrial purpose it could be. Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables, I think, than focusing on hydrogen propelled cars and trucks. But does the renewables to generate green hydrogen are really green in nature? I doubt that.
@Thomas Maughan Yes as of now it does, but doesnt necessarily means in the future and its already getting advanced. What I was talking abt is, liquifying it, then transporting it over long distance and then regasifying it doesnt make sense to me especially considering the boil-off rates. Stored liquified hydrogen is considered having high volumetric energy density but the issue is as stated before. Instead, incorporating hydrogen production and power generation units near dense populated areas, steel plants, refining and mining units could prove to be a viable option.
"Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables"However it takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. More than you get back, actually.
Hydrogen is renewable genius.
if you use solar cells to make it, it's green. of course you still have to recycle the old panels.
That's why ammonia will be used for transport and storage.
No matter what form of energy we use, the thermodynamic law of entropy tells us there will be environmentally damaging waste products emitted. The question is, what form of energy allows us to collect the waste products most efficiently? It seems that nuclear energy is best in that regard as long as safe reactors can be built that won't run the risk of a meltdown.
"Nuclear waste, such as the waste that has been generated by nuclear power plants worldwide, can remain dangerously radioactive for many thousands of years. For that reason, they must be disposed of permanently, experts say. About a dozen countries, including Finland, Switzerland, and other European nations, are planning deep geological repositories for their nuclear waste. In the US, government officials have proposed storing the country’s waste in a repository beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. For now, waste accumulates mainly where it’s generated-at the power plants and processing facilities. Some of it has been sitting in interim storage since the 1940s."
Thank you for the honnest and complete video. It is a good overview of H2 today.However I would like to point out some flaws:- First there is already a huge H2 market, mostly to produce NH3 but we should focus on these markets first cause it will already take decades to decarbonize NH3 prod. We will get higher veggies cost, but it worths it- Second, the bloomberg report on H2 is ridiculous regarding predictions, not based on any science but just ideology and linear regressions. H2 prod with renewables works mainly with PPA, so constant electricity from network and not only actual renewables. If so, the production won't be continuous and H2 cost will remain high. And to get an electricity network stable with high proportion of renewables, its costs a lot more than the electricity today, so no big H2 cost reduction...
I have a question, how often are the climate goals reviewed? Given that nations seem to be struggling at present to hit the “targets” that were originally set out do the climate change people think there is time to review the targets to make them more achievable.. or have governments across the planet been asleep for so long now that things have gone “past the point of no return, no turning back now”.. to quote phantom of the opera.. Are we all to late?
Green hydrogen, solar, wind, hydropower, depending on the locality.. What about cold fusion?
I do think that hydrogen is a way for some industries to use it as a source of energy. You did not remark in this video about Red Hydrogen that the Japanese have been working on. This may be the best way of producing clean Hydrogen for heavy industries and some forms of transportation.
mix vegetable oil (renewable) with oxygen , in a standard internal combustion engine , the amount needed would be much less than comparable diesel usage , so fuel and output efficiency is greatly enhanced
Clean Hydrogen must be manufactured by electrolysis, so its only value is as an energy storage medium. It’s also not cheap to make unless there’s a large excess of electrical power that comes from non-carbon sources.
Solar energy is hard to store but it could be used for electrolysis of seawater to create hydrogen..? It would reduce the rise of the ocean levels while storing solar energy.Brine from use of seawater, e.g. in desalination, could be dumped in designated small salt deserts. Stacking mountains of salt doesn't harm anything as opposed to leading it back into the sea.
What worries me the most about Hydrogen is its' Flammability as applied to transportation devices. Hydrogen, being the absolute lightest and smallest atom that we know of, has the ability to pass through, or leak, from anything you put it in. This could lead to hydrogen accumulating in enclosed spaces until it reaches an explosive concentration and then BOOM. Pipe fittings valves, pressure regulators and other devices associated with the storage device and the consuming device all would need very high quality (in terms of leak prevention) and likely therefore to be expensive (possibly to the point that someone seeking to improve his profit margin might skimp on this). While the newly manufactured device might be leakproof, what happens in the event of some extreme event such as a crash where the parts of this system could be torn asunder. We already know what happens when this happens to a liquid fueled device such as an airplane or automobile. And how much maintenance would be needed to ensure it remains leakproof during its service life. There are applications (such as glass blowing) where the clean flame of hydrogen is very desirable (even though it is virtually invisible which is a hazard of its own). What about the phenomenon known as Hydrogen Embrittlement of metal and its potentially deleterious effect on metal parts of the hydrogen "appliance". Maybe we should stick to things it is best for and use methane for transportation instead. Methane seems to have all of the advantages of Hydrogen plus by burning it we actually have the opportunity to reduce atmospheric content of it. Just thinking "out loud" though you can't actually hear me but have to read my writing to know what I'm, "saying".
Once Solar Industry has begun its journey, it costs around 3 Dollars/unit to produce and the Process taken for Producing energy through solar is also Very Tedious. But, Now See the Scenario, Due to technology Energy produced through solar is cheaper & Becoming Cheaper. Once, Project has been Commercialized, that will make Producing & Storing Hydrogen more cheaper with the help of Science & Technology. Lets have Optimistic View towards Hydrogen.
Great to see a sort of balanced view, though I do think excessively optimistic... Big hype around heating with hydrogen recently here in the UK, however some pesky scientists showed that you would need about 6 times more energy to heat homes with hydrogen than you would with heat pumps, BBC News article "Study contradicts Rees-Mogg over hydrogen for heating" covers the issue.. Ask Joe did a video considering hydrogen cars, and if they really are dumb, where he goes through the energy costs from source to wheel motion for cars: Petrol / diesel converts about 15% of the original energy into motionHydrogen converts about 27% of the original energy into motionBattery EVs convert about 80% of the original energy into motion...So hydrogen needs 6 times more energy if used for home heating, and about 3 times more energy to drive the personal transport network... Not looking so promising there... Engineering Explained on youtube looked into solar powered cars recently, crunched the numbers suggesting that going for hyper efficient cars like the Aptera (about 10 miles per KWhr energy consumption) are a practical proposition, although the greater practicality of the Sono Sion may well appeal to significant number of drivers (Lightyear Zero will be an interesting footnote in history?). On that point, you were misleading over hydrogen driving vehicles, they do not power the vehicle directly but trickle charge a traction battery that is more able to meet the variation of instantaneous power that personal transport vehicles need; with the solar vehicles the same, the bodywork solar PV trickle charges the traction battery (that can also be recharged as other BEVs) that actually drives the vehicle, with the best case being the Aptera with the full solar package getting up to 40 miles per day extra range in the sunnier parts of the world such as Southern California / Texas / etc., enough to cover the use of not far from half of American drivers without plugging in to recharge except those occasional long road trips.Shipping is seriously looking into ammonia, as they have been carrying ammonia for decades so know it well, and does need a lot of work to put it through existing engines. On that point, there were some serious issues you ignore..Embrittlement is that nasty habit hydrogen has of wrecking widely used materials in our energy pipe network, and in so much of engineering which significantly escalates the cost of using hydrogen...As hydrogen is the smallest molecule, if has this habit of passing directly through some widely used materials significantly increasing the infrastructure/ storage costs for hydrogen. Electrolysis carries a significant energy cost, as does the recombination, meaning that as an energy storage medium hydrogen returns well under half of the energy originally put into hydrogen.Hence the question of why all the hype? In my view the fossil fuel industry has the money to ... distract politicians & media into projects that offer no climate value, but are a greenwash over protecting the revenue of the fossil fuel industry as grey hydrogen would tend to be used as a stop gap in getting these projects up & running, and their maybe not so early days with the attendant large climate costs the fossil fuel industry would really like us to ignore. Great youtube video 'Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage' that is a short documentary with a ... light touch but correct numbers that encompasses hydrogen towards the end of the video.
when you started with steam engine in the 1800s its very crude technology. tbe same goes with hydrogen from beginning of 2000 s. wait 10 15 years later where it will end up once technology advances . Dont be short minded.
I did not know that H2 could be used (i am assuming) in place of coal->coke for steel production...this is exciting and impacts just about everything including "renewable" energy production. I am glad to see that you are looking at what the actual numbers and science are. People seem to be ignorant to the fact that oil/gas/coal are still needed to build electric cars, electrolyzers and fuel cells. We need to look at the entire carbon footprint of say an electric car from raw materials out of the ground to the scrap-heap. The only thing you ever hear about is the part in the middle...when the car is in operation. My opinion is that we should be developing more sustainable nuclear power such as modular reactors, thorium and breeder reactors (for instance to power a steel plant and produce hydrogen by electrolysis for the process or power chemical plants and oil/gas refineries). Hopefully fusion will become practical one day before we run out of uranium. To answer your question above I do not think we can every truly get to net-zero at least until we can find a way to make all the materials we need without any kind of fossil fuels which may be impossible or in the very distant future.
Yes,of course, and those modern nuclear plants are comming,Europe may not care about their Carbon footprint, but they want cheaper power than the gas they are paying for now. For now they'll increase coal and gas use and start using more oil in power production, since they eschewed nuclear they are stuck with fossil fuels and the main thing is to reduce the vast support they give Russia in their genocidal invasions.NuScale plants go from first concrete to grid power in 40 months, EU5.5/Kwh,and load follow wind and solar,plus are good for district heating, industrial power, desalination,and H2.Nuclear has always been our safest power by a long shot, and doesn't have the massive waste problem solar has.
@avoice yes this is true. However this cab always be added later and overall I would think getting rid of the coal is a good step. Natural gas is cleaner and could be used to as the carbon source. I believe that Net-Zero is not truly achievable.
@Fred Schnerbert it's not much greater and the calculation that counts is the lifetime of the vehicles not a single data point.
My understanding is Lithium mining is S America is much like COAL strip mining, and produces a lot of CO2 per pound to produce. So the CO2 to produce an electric car is much greater than that required for the production of ICE vehicles
It would be the most expensive steel ever produced.
Hydrogen would be the best For this world It also could be at every gas station ..You have a choice gas or hydrogen
Just some points about hydrogen. Firstly, when implementing hydrolysis to make hydrogen, the water used has to be extremely pure. Sea water can be used but it needs to be de-salinated first, of course, which requires energy in addition to that used for the hydrolysis itself. Secondly, not all of the water used gets converted to hygrogen and oxygen - there's always some waste. This means that water ends up being a consummable to some degree which could pose a challenge in supply. Thirdly, if we burn hydrogen in the atmosphere as a fuel, the by-products are not just water vapour and energy. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen - not a pure oxygen atmosphere by any means - so we get oxides of nitrogen produced as well as water vapour. These oxides are potent greenhouse gases. Incidentally, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.
This is a good piece. You mention that for passenger cars the battery option makes sense but it only does so in urban or reasonably densely populated areas. In larger sparser areas (eg Australia) there simply isnt the electricity distribution network to allow adequate charging stations to be built. Think about it. In peak tourist times (eg school holidays) some very remote areas get a lot of visitors. Having to wait 20 minutes to do an 80% recharge is kind of acceptable BUT this means having a charging station that can charge, say 10 or 20 vehicles at a time (probably more). This in turn means your cables into tharging station will need to be capable of carrying 1000's of amps. As I said, this is great in an urban area but when you are 1000km away from the nearest power station the cost of setting up that kind of tranmission infrstructure is simply uneconomic. And this is where hydrogen or limited fossil fueld supplies still has a place
Did you know that recharge stations exist on the Nullarbor? 2 44gall drums of oil that run a generator. You plug your EV into that.Apparently the oil used is leftover from the local roadhouse kitchen.Now queue up.
@Robert Wilber : Ouch! 🥴👍
@John Colvin I expect it will be street crime
@Robert Wilber : Wellll.... quite a few of the kids that played with YoYo's went on to create amazing things. Tell the phone-app programmers they can't have electricity, and you will be amazed at what they come up with! 😉
Cost? Where will you get the materials? You think all the kids studying programming phone apps are going to build power systems? 🤣🤣🤣
It's pretty simple. Use energy from renewable sources in every situation you possibly can. For cases like shipping and air craft, where you can't use electricity directly (you can't store enough energy in batteries for direct storage to work) find the most efficient energy conversion method you can for converting the spare energy from renewable energy production into a fuel store that can be used in these cases. Hydrogen, ammonia, flow through batteries... whatever makes sense.Everything else is a distraction. If hydrogen is produced by anything except genuinely green sources it's a distraction. And it's a distraction paid for by an industry with a huge amount of money, a lot of money invested in political ties and a vested interest in dragging their feet as long as they possibly can. The transition will take time, planning and a lot of political will. And the transition will involve fossil fuels, nuclear and whatever other non-ideal solutions, as we live in the real world. But thinking that a hydrogen economy is a solution is just a horrifying misunderstanding. Hydrogen should only be used in cases where we are FORCED to use it, if no better alternatives exist.It took a decade for CFC production to be phased out just in DEVELOPED countries after the 1987 Montreal Protocol agreement (CFCs phased out in 1996). It took 23 years for them to be phased out in DEVELOPING countries. Source: www.britannica.com/event/Montreal-Protocol. Think of how many more people and more money is involved in fossil fuel production than CFCs.Grey hydrogen is MUCH worse than burning the stuff directly, as you at least get the full benefit of the energy conversion of C to CO2 (H to H2O releases much less energy) and don't have to bother wasting energy by trying to find a way to pack it away somewhere. "Blue" hydrogen is an excuse to keep extracting fossil fuels in the hope we can magically, feasibly, sustainably and cheaply keep the carbon locked away somewhere. It's a marketing strategy, and it's a lie/delusion that our grandchildren will hate us for.
Green hydrogen is a solution and a necessary solution, but not the solution. Nothing is binary, especially not in our complex energy systems. Let’s not either discard or solely focus on hydrogen, it’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how it’s being thought of in the real world
@Michael Davison the efficiency is even very high. Its among the highest available. Fueling a car with conv. fuel has 40% effiency or so.
@Michael Davison yes
@Michael Davison Your last sentence is true, but the price of large-capacity storage batteries is rapidly declining and so will displace many green hydrogen solutions.
@William Sharp Uh, no. Ever heard of an XYY male? And other variations whose chromosomes are other than the usual XX and XY.
@Michael Davison yepp.... many people don't understand that something is more than nothing. " Low efficiency" is a MUCH better than zero ...nada....
Hey, this is a great doco but maybe there needs to be more coverage on the methods of storing hydrogen safely - in cars and aeroplanes.We all still remember Hindenburg, more discussion on fuel cells might be important.
I think discovering an efficient and safe fusion reactor for energy would be the game changer in the coming years. And everything would run on electricity with minimal carbon footprint.
The absurdly low cycle efficiency is a killer considering the value of renewable electricity (losses from the electrolyzer, energy lost in compressing the stuff to absurd pressures or energy to liquify, and transportation infrastructure losses). In theory, we could pull C02 from the air and fabricate hydrocarbons from that to complete the carbon cycle. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of liquid hydrogen(!). Practical on industrial scales? No idea, but until we have a large increase in production and drop in price of non-fossil fuel electrical power, none of this make any sense. Thorium fission, fusion, and/or space solar on an immense scale will be needed first.
@Jared Smith Understood, what I am saying is the guy was talking about venture capital money.They look for "WHEN" am I going to get ROI!As far as I know, this is the ONLY solution to the piles of waste we have already accumulated.Thorium based power is one of many power sources, no matter the facts, some will still prefer Solar and Windmills, because it's easier for them to understand them.Just sayin', when you have the "market" cornered, *you have the only solution* for a problem, it's easier to attract capital.
It wasn't the Thorium process ability to "burn" high pressure water reactor waste (heavy or otherwise), it is the fact that Thorium is a relatively abundant element on Earth and the chemistry allows it to combine with Fluorine to make a salt that would be liquid with a low vapor pressure at operating temperatures that caught my interest. This would allow the radioactive part to be at room pressure, eliminating the high temperature, high pressure failure mode of water-cooled reactors. The containment vessels are trying to come apart like all high-pressure bottles. Reactors more so with the combination of high temperature, Neutron bombardment, and high consequence of failure. I agree that there is a great deal of development to be done to make Thorium a commercial power generation option. But it isn't a complete unknown either, LANL had a operating Thorium salt reactor in the mid 1960s, but as it didn't synthesize useful quantities of Plutonium, the concept had no military use and was cancelled.The "small modular reactor" architecture may be useful, time will tell. The SMR concepts have ranged from water cooled, gas cooled (Brayton cycle), metal cooled, both fast and moderated Neutron along with and molten salt concepts. IMHO the molten salt and gas cooled Brayton cycle system make the most sense. At least the gas cooled reactors operate at pressures much lower than the water cooled systems and the mass of coolant and the energy of coolant release is much lower than the water cooled systems.
Thorium sounds good, but I'm a little skeptical.I don't think ELON is a total Uber genius, but the guy is pretty smart, and definitely has connections, so why isn't he or Gates (whose building conventional I think) not getting things ramped up Thorium?The Gates info is from a interview from 2017, he talks about one of his companies building a rector in China. I guess I am assuming it's conventional, but I would have thought if it wasn't he would have said so during the interview.Just based on the supposed ability of a Thorium reactor being able to "burn"/ or dispose of the radioactive waste the older conventional reactors produce, we have enough of that, to make a solution valuable even if it isn't scalable for power production, or has any other issues
In CA, where we have proclaimed the end to ICE vehicles by 2035, We JUST finished a WEEK, where we were WARNED, with a FLEX ALERT, warning of possible rolling blackouts!Ignoring the fact that we already generate so much excess SOLAR, at times, we must PAY AZ and NV to take OUR excess power off the Grid...You wonder why their power is 50% of ours in CA?But yeah, EV's are gonna be a FUN experiences...
Great video: balanced, accurate and informative. Well done.
@Michael Scott Thanks. In relation to renewable energy and green hydrogen, It would be a different world if the majority were as sceptical as us. Alas, we are surrounded by the benighted.
@The Polemist you are a wise person. Your comments are exactly correct. Well said.
@Michael Scott "we are confusing science with emotions"...indeed, people tend to look at these things via the soft warm glow of subjectivity. Unfortunately, en masse the general populace suffers from pathological credulity. That cohort who are too eager to believe in anything is very, very dangerous.
@The Polemist agree completely. The energy loss from making power to making H2 to end point is huge as well. Better to just use the power when it is generated. But…we are confusing science with emotions.
But, it isn't clear about hydrogen's biggest problem, namely, that it takes a fecking HUGE amount of renewable energy to make a tiny amount of green hydrogen. A lot is expected from renewable energy, producing green hydrogen to any significant extent from it is nonsense.
An interesting discussion but the one thing you haven’t talked about is the hype that the only emission from using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or engine is water. There is the potential to emit NOX especially from engines and central heating boilers.
Exactly. Plus ice engines are only 36% efficient. Complete waste of expensive energy.
"It's predicted that Hydrogen could supply up to 20% of our energy needs..."No it won't. Hydrogen is not an energy source but a storage medium.
What about the fact as I understand it is that Hydrogen is very corrosive and it can escape through very very small openings in the storage tanks and that fact that is it very flammable!
Reminds me of Mad Max beyond thunder dome"where ever you go there you are"
There is still the other green energy: nuclear. Massive electricity on demand, zero greenhouse gas. When you look at the situation realistically, nuclear is the clear solution.
Big miss here. It takes energy to produce. Lots of energy. It merely it is a form of fossil fuels. The solar to produce it is manufactured using fossil fuels.
Really good video. However, methane has a GWP of approximately 20-30, not 80 as is presented in this video.
Creating solar panels is incredibly damaging to the environment unfortunately. Geo thermal is one of the few true green solutions but is not used much.
The solutions we hear about will only work in conjunction with the one we almost never hear about: learning to get along using a LOT less energy.
@Charles Swoape agree. that s why i don't care anymore about climate change. this world and all the people can jump off a cliff
Everyone wants to help with climate change, but will not change any of their habits to do so
Good luck with that one!
Look at a map of Korea at night. North Korea is very dark and uses very little energy. South Korea is lit up like a Christmass tree. Where would you rather live ? North or South Korea ? Energy usage gives us our standard of living.
What a great channel, I needed this for my class project
While I respect DW and what it stands for, I would suggest you also make a video on the people lobbying for H2 and their vested interests, namely the WEF, Bill Gates, Klaus Schaub and so on. That will put things on perspective when they actually over hype Climate change and provide an equally hyped H2 as a solution.
First you have to zap the water with...electricity!!!
What about all the non fuel hydrocarbons that are currently supplied to industry from fossil fuels? How do you produce those using green energy? The only way is through hydrogen.That’s why hydrogen is the future, not BEVs.Fossil energy is much more than petrol and diesel, in fact that’s the smaller footprint of the o stall fossil energy industry!
Depends. We will have to produce hydrogen from renewable energy in places where electricity transmission is a challenge. For example, you can do this in places like Saudi Arabia, where there is a lot of sunshine, and they don't know what to do with the excess solar energy due to the duck curve. Other examples could be desert places and offshore windmills
If electricity transmission (via powerlines) is expensive, why would hydrogen transmission (via pipelines) be cheaper?The Saudis don't even bother to transport methane via pipelines, they just flare it in the oil field.And methane pipelines are much less costly than hydrogen pipelines.
Problem in Saudi and other desert regions is that water is a scarce commodity so they have the solar power but nothing to make hydrogen with!
Climate crisis never been so cold in my life?