The truth about hydrogen

  Рет қаралды 2,191,832

DW Planet A

DW Planet A

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 5 779
DW Planet A
DW Planet A 9 ай бұрын
What do you make of the hydrogen hype?
MrWascalwabbit
MrWascalwabbit 19 сағат бұрын
If the production in enough quantity can be achieved using solar and wind power it is the only infinite resource which also produces zero emission issues. H2O > 2H + O > H2O
Alex Anderson
Alex Anderson 3 күн бұрын
It's not hype. try it. read about it. I already have it. It is great. Don't believe uneducated news presenters.... Figure it out for yourself. Don't trust the scientists they are ripe with lies and corruption. They are inherently corrupt because they do not chose any of the fields of research.
The Pantygun
The Pantygun 7 күн бұрын
The truth is Gasputin's gases only dilute it with carbon. 😀
Richard Fox
Richard Fox 7 күн бұрын
Since you need to expend the same energy (plus losses) to split water that you get back by burning hydrogen, it's not an energy source. That's the key, basic law of conservation of energy. The hype is waffle and lies.
Waqas Ahmed
Waqas Ahmed 14 күн бұрын
@Thesilent One Especially true when ground source heat pumps tend to have an average COP of 5, which makes them cheaper than gas (in the long run) The big issue is the refrigerants
Patrick Kools
Patrick Kools 2 күн бұрын
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.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain Күн бұрын
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!
mofomartian
mofomartian Күн бұрын
The problem with this analysis is it sees everything through the lens of "Carbon Emissions." Hydrogen is a viable energy source because it's abundant, has a high energy density and it's an incredibly efficient combustion source.
John Stride
John Stride Күн бұрын
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.
AlexAlexAlex
AlexAlexAlex 9 ай бұрын
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
Rupak Shaw
Rupak Shaw Ай бұрын
Bro if it go into detail then no one has a time to watch so so long videos
BambinoAmericano
BambinoAmericano Ай бұрын
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.
Petri
Petri 2 ай бұрын
It doesn't go in to detail here either. Just a couple of quotes from "professionals" and no scientific foundation behind.
dave kelly
dave kelly 2 ай бұрын
@Dan d5500
The Ball
The Ball 2 ай бұрын
LOL, balanced? They didn't even attempt to ask an economist. Pure hopium
peter slater
peter slater 17 сағат бұрын
Another problem with this technology is that it uses water to produce the hydrogen and that also is becoming a rare resources as well. With increased population comes increased demand for water and in some countries it's an even rarer resource because simply there's dessert. Short sighted technology in my opinion, we seem to dance from one disaster to the next. Spend money and time on better batteries that can stayed charged for at least two weeks or on techniques to transport energy from space into our homes. One lightning bolt can keep a city charged for a year.
Grant Jones
Grant Jones 2 күн бұрын
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.
Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist 4 күн бұрын
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.
David Budd
David Budd Күн бұрын
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.
cjcormier26
cjcormier26 2 ай бұрын
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.
imho
imho Күн бұрын
@Alex Anderson this happens when you burn it...
imho
imho Күн бұрын
@Stuart Hirsch were those 2 using hydrazine or straight H2?
imho
imho Күн бұрын
@Cesco kitchen gas is methane.
imho
imho Күн бұрын
Hydrogen leaks held up the Artemis launch for 3 years. It's tricky stuff.
Arturo Eugster
Arturo Eugster 3 күн бұрын
@John Crook The cause of the Columbia was covered up, The excuse of the foam falling on the carbon carbon wing leading edge was used. The original FMEA did disclose such a possibility and eliminated. The real reason, as an Airforce satellite image of the Space Shuttle showed , was that the gear door was open on the left side. The door is closed by hand, using a beam prior to leaving the building. It latches, normally. The contractor doing the refurbishment was a contractor, that I don't remember. The damage due to the hot air was well behind the leading edge. FMEA stands for Failure modes and effects analysis.
Bruce Williamson
Bruce Williamson Күн бұрын
If renewable energy is used to produce green hydrogen then we need to see an analysis of the underlying Wind and Solar CO2 footprint. That means tracing all the wind and solar input materials/metals and calculating the underlying copper, aluminuim, etc, CO2 footprint. Were those metals mined and refined using green or fossil fuel energy. Was all the transport/logistics for mine procurement delivered by green or fossil fuel transport. I think we all know the answer.
SupernalOne
SupernalOne 2 күн бұрын
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
Hexa Torus
Hexa Torus 2 күн бұрын
Solar panels aren't green. It takes materials to make them and fossil fuels to make them as well. Neither is wind energy. The energy to transport; the energy to set up the construction, the fossil fuels needed in the plants which make the turbines. Why is no one mentioning this. I thought for sure this would be mentioned in the video. There was to true green solution mentioned here.
Wim Wybenga
Wim Wybenga Күн бұрын
Green hydrogen, solar, wind, hydropower, depending on the locality.. What about cold fusion?
Mark Putnam
Mark Putnam 3 күн бұрын
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.
Albert Ed
Albert Ed 3 күн бұрын
So much energy in the Universe that we should be able to tap into. There must be a better idea out there than batteries and Hydrogen. Some sort of natural energy source that can easily be put into our existing electrical grid so that it would be clean energy. Maybe massive solar farms in hot countries (in the deserts) that are hundreds of km in size. Maybe finding a way to harness the kinetic energy of the Earth's revolution around the Sun or its own rotation or the Earth's magnetic field that can possibly cause an electrical current. Just thinking.
john o'neal
john o'neal 2 күн бұрын
I believe it's all hype. I believe there's a lot of obfuscation of limitations and drawbacks of these infant technologies, especially as pertains to time frames. I believe further that the prime motivation is not ecology at all, but the malign influence of Totalitarians like The WEF, Bill Gates, etc. Reducing freedom of movement seems the actual goal. The idea that replacing ICE with electric anytime soon is even possible is absurd. The idea that our grid could power such a replacement fleet is several standard deviations beyond ridiculous. Meanwhile, if anyone actually cared from an ecological standpoint, it has been eminently doable for fifty years to convert the world's fleet of ICE to relatively clean as it is natural gas. It's the only thing that would have a major impact that could be done now, virtually " overnight" for less than a thousand dollars per car. And virtually no effort in that direction exists. To me, that alone makes the whole thing suspect. How far are we from electric power plants being petroleum free? When is this silly idea that burning fossil fuels to make electricity is somehow greener than just burning those fuels in the first place going to be debunked in the media? Until none of these "solutions" are overblown experiments, and we actually have proven tech built out and in place the whole thing strongly resembles a carnival, complete with hucksters, and I do think that is indicative of a sham.
rlmrdl
rlmrdl 4 күн бұрын
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.
David Hilder
David Hilder 2 күн бұрын
For something that has been used commercially for years beyond others and to date not been competitive or feasible then it is probably unlike to grow that fast in a faction of the time it has been around. Where is the overall lifetime cost analysis and comparison with the other energy sources with all biases removed.
Mike Kelly
Mike Kelly 7 ай бұрын
This is surprisingly well balanced. KZpost 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.
Tony Lupone
Tony Lupone 2 ай бұрын
@The Wokefinder General And you know this How? Did you hear it on the Murdoch press Org
CGR Phenomics
CGR Phenomics 2 ай бұрын
@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.
whybother now
whybother now 2 ай бұрын
@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.
The Ball
The Ball 2 ай бұрын
Balanced how? Did they even try to ask an economist if this so-called "fuel" makes sense?
fr89k
fr89k 3 ай бұрын
@Ron Skancke What exactly is not true?
Edward Kentner
Edward Kentner 2 күн бұрын
Volume for volume liquid ammonia stores more hydrogen the does liquid hydrogen at its boiling point. Ammonia fuel cells are efficient, their residue is water. Current gas stations can dispense ammonia. Liquid ammonia does not need high pressure tanks for storage. What more can one say . . . .
Walter Craig
Walter Craig 2 күн бұрын
Nuclear should be the best solution for energy needs in the future utilizing new designs for nuclear power plants. In the Us the government should fast track 8 to 12 new nuclear facilities to reduce greenhouse emissions. They work rain or shine and weather the wind is blowing or not.
Kurt Fischer
Kurt Fischer Күн бұрын
Hydrogen is a lot like biodiesel with regards to cost/benefits, but some uses may make sense, Shipping may be better off with some of the new small nukes.
Blue Cube (PCS)
Blue Cube (PCS) 5 күн бұрын
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.
Nate Shiz
Nate Shiz 2 ай бұрын
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.
Cheesus Crust
Cheesus Crust 4 күн бұрын
what a champ lol
Sweden
Sweden 7 күн бұрын
The only truth and only true love is the chemical. I'll salute your father through the DMT elves.
Robert McKay
Robert McKay 8 күн бұрын
Yeah sure
bush2far
bush2far 2 ай бұрын
The Acid never lie’s 🤟
Pete Busch
Pete Busch 2 ай бұрын
That's an awesome story.
Carmel 721
Carmel 721 54 минут бұрын
Where did you get your efficiency numbers? What you’re saying is just blatantly completely not true. You’re saying that Taking renewable energy from solar and wind to extract hydrogen from water, then transport to fueling Stations and then to a car where this hydrogen will be used to create electricity is less efficient than charging a battery electric vehicle? In order to charge a battery electric vehicle, you have to build a battery big enough to give you a reasonable amount of range. That battery production already produces more emissions than the production of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle plus its entire life cycle. Also, energy to recharge batteries doesn’t come from renewable production because most battery electric vehicles are charged during the night which means we have to burn fossil fuels to recharge them. So you have to extract either coal or oil from the ground then refine it then burn it in non-efficient ways then produce electricity then charge batteries. Other than that, the time efficiency on battery electric vehicles is ridiculous. The only commodity we have in life is time and if you have to spend it waiting an hour for a battery to charge instead of just fueling your vehicle with hydrogen in a matter of three minutes, you have become 20 times more efficient with your time. Battery electric vehicles are completely non-renewable, we will run out of natural resources to make these batteries which are completely non-recyclable. The whole idea of having and using hydrogen fuel cells is to bypass the need for a battery which is inherently non-renewable and non-recyclable. You could even have your own hydrogen electrolyzer in your vehicle producing hydrogen while you are in sunlight; parked or driving.
farbror Frej
farbror Frej 2 күн бұрын
Cutting emissions by some fraction or percent really won't change anything. Our current economical eternal growth paradigm will quickly neutralize and surpass that. One have to look at economical paradigms and our current living arrangements as well. Start eat vegan and start live in walkable communities with lots of public transits.
Akshay KR
Akshay KR 8 ай бұрын
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
Thomas Maughan 3 ай бұрын
"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.
fred jones
fred jones 3 ай бұрын
Hydrogen is renewable genius.
Drake Koefoed
Drake Koefoed 3 ай бұрын
if you use solar cells to make it, it's green. of course you still have to recycle the old panels.
Yiori
Yiori 8 ай бұрын
That's why ammonia will be used for transport and storage.
Kelly Quinn
Kelly Quinn Күн бұрын
A sustainable and eclectic approach to our energy needs because we have many different levels of consumption from watch batteries to cities and entire countries... Perhaps it's about friggin time we got our scattah together to build global water and power grids??? Geez, we're on this tiny tiny tiny little rock to all intents and purposes it's upto us and us alone. The human corporation has the potential... I live in hope 🐒🎈
tip ton engle
tip ton engle 23 сағат бұрын
Not worried at all about warming planet but more so of the next ice age. Tell the big oil to not worry about emmissions and pump it out as fast as possible!
Mark Neeleman
Mark Neeleman Ай бұрын
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.
Izabela M Sztuka
Izabela M Sztuka Ай бұрын
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.
Kent Colgan
Kent Colgan 8 ай бұрын
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.
blade
blade Ай бұрын
@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.
Ryouko Konpaku
Ryouko Konpaku Ай бұрын
@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.
blade
blade Ай бұрын
@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.
Ryouko Konpaku
Ryouko Konpaku Ай бұрын
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.
Gareth McRae
Gareth McRae Ай бұрын
@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.
Carl Snorge
Carl Snorge Ай бұрын
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.
Rajesh Krishnamurthy
Rajesh Krishnamurthy 4 күн бұрын
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
Paul Bade
Paul Bade 17 сағат бұрын
Perhaps the cleanest power for large cargo ships is nuclear. Nuclear power has already been proved clean, safe and reliable in American aircraft carriers. Over 60 years ago, the U. S. even built a civilian nuclear-powered demonstrator ship, the Savannah. Now there are companies building small modular reactors in the 60 MW range, which is about the right size to propel a typical cargo vessel. A reactor-turbine-generator-motor set would probably be smaller than the fuel bunker and engine in current designs.
Socially Distant
Socially Distant 7 ай бұрын
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.
Andy Grace
Andy Grace 2 ай бұрын
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.
Larry
Larry 2 ай бұрын
@Brian Don't forget Afghanistan
user936
user936 3 ай бұрын
@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). [6]" - Nuclear Power Economic Costs, Kalvin Wang May 4, 2018 Energy 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-bottom substructures 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 by project developers and is partly a function of differences in water depth and distance to shore." - 2019 Cost of Wind Energy Review, National Renewable Energy Laboratory So 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.
Niles Butler
Niles Butler 3 ай бұрын
​@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
user936
user936 3 ай бұрын
@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.
David Edward
David Edward 5 күн бұрын
I’m new to all this, heard it's a good time to buy and basically I've just got cash sitting duck in the bank and I’d really love to put it to good use seeing how inflation is at an all time-high, who is this SamDeymon that guides you, mind I look them up.
David Edward
David Edward 2 күн бұрын
@samdeymon43333
David Edward
David Edward 2 күн бұрын
Trust me Mr Sam is very understanding and patient to ensure you learn fast and carry out trades successfully with effective and guarantee you a stable profit..
Telegram..>>>...>>@samdeymon433
Telegram..>>>...>>@samdeymon433 4 күн бұрын
@samdeymon43333 TeXt DiReCtLy to Start.
Henry Nathan
Henry Nathan 5 күн бұрын
indeed, Sam Deymon bitcoin technique is really good for beginners trying to understand the bitcoin market. It helped me a lot.
Henry Zachary walter
Henry Zachary walter 5 күн бұрын
My sincere gratitude to Mr Sam for being such a blessing to me and my family. We owe this happiness to you. Thank you!
Uber Donkey
Uber Donkey 17 күн бұрын
When it comes to energy it always seems that there are unspoken drawbacks and we're still at the point of 'what is least bad'. I definitely think paying true cost of a fuel (inc. repair of environmental damage) would level the playing field, but governments like to use green taxes to pay for pensions or health car, not the environment, so they're conning the public, and the true cost of energy can damage current economies,.so is unpalatable. Green hydrogen I think is useful in certain situations. Of course the best energy is very situation dependent.. I'm in Malawi with 14% grid electrification and few current alternatives to burning charcoal and wood for energy, causing hige deforestation.
james stanley
james stanley 2 ай бұрын
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 👍
GB
GB 2 ай бұрын
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.
Richard Anderson
Richard Anderson 2 ай бұрын
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.
J E
J E 2 сағат бұрын
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.
Armstrong jonathan
Armstrong jonathan 3 ай бұрын
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.
peter slater
peter slater 16 сағат бұрын
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.
Tacitus
Tacitus 19 күн бұрын
And Australia can export hydrogen to countries that have a harder time producing it.
Euan Dykes
Euan Dykes Ай бұрын
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.
Chris Edwards
Chris Edwards Ай бұрын
Like Orkney in Scotland it is using tidal hydrogen to power the docks and there is a vehicle fuel cell charging station.
Rafa Nadir
Rafa Nadir Ай бұрын
@Damien Jambu And how exactly are we going to burn NH3?
Ian Cooper
Ian Cooper 3 күн бұрын
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.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
The Truth Shall Set You Free! Күн бұрын
Blue hydrogen is nuts. Green makes sense. But there is so much hype and so little real working that the only real money in it is in organising conferences about hydrogen. 😂
Gerard van de Ven
Gerard van de Ven 28 күн бұрын
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.
Itsgottobesaid
Itsgottobesaid 13 күн бұрын
If they put it in planes that's it for me for travel.
John Dalzell
John Dalzell 2 ай бұрын
You could call the Airbus hydrogen planes the Hindenburg series. Jet fuel is remarkably difficult to ignite with a spark, such as a short circuit in a wire. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely volatile, as we saw in the explosion that destroyed the Hindenburg blimp in 1937.
James Gawenis
James Gawenis 2 ай бұрын
Hydrogen was not the reason for the Hindenburg "explosion". The Hindenburg burned rapidly because of the extremely flammable coatings on the dirigible fabric. If a hydrogen tank gets a hole, it just decompressed, there is no explosion. It's not chemically possible (I've been a practicing PhD Chemist for over 25 years, so I should know).
swissguyflying
swissguyflying 9 ай бұрын
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.
Luca Della Sciucca
Luca Della Sciucca Ай бұрын
@B irrelevant
B
B Ай бұрын
@Paul Sacco no
B
B Ай бұрын
@Luca Della Sciucca still needed for steel etc
Christopher Treacy
Christopher Treacy 2 ай бұрын
@swissguyflying yes well said ....no magic bullet only an amalgamation of all different types ...
John Mark Agosta
John Mark Agosta 3 ай бұрын
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.
Scott Strawbridge
Scott Strawbridge 2 ай бұрын
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.
Jeff Hagen
Jeff Hagen 2 ай бұрын
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.
David Lawrenson
David Lawrenson 5 күн бұрын
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.
Kamalakrsna
Kamalakrsna 18 күн бұрын
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.
David H
David H Ай бұрын
@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.
stop censoring me
stop censoring me 2 ай бұрын
@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.
RamsFan
RamsFan 2 ай бұрын
@Jeremy Beltram Yes, he's your dad.
Marcelo Cerveira de Paula
Marcelo Cerveira de Paula 2 ай бұрын
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
Jephro Kimbo Ай бұрын
@Seafox0011 scientist and ENGINEER that happens to know a great deal about energy and most especially THERMODYNAMICS! energy is NEVER created NOR destroyed it is only TRANSFORMED from one form to another with HEAT being the lowest form of energy.
Seafox0011
Seafox0011 Ай бұрын
@Jephro Kimbo Oil worker?
Jephro Kimbo
Jephro Kimbo Ай бұрын
@B WRONG! hydrogen production on an industrial scale is NOT cost effective. it requires MORE energy to make than it produces. get an education into BASIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS and try again! hydrogen only has at best 40% of the energy capacity of hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel and methane.
B
B Ай бұрын
@Jephro Kimbo LOL green hydrogen is 100% cost effective. Its the future.
Mabelle Ol
Mabelle Ol Ай бұрын
@Jephro Kimbo Thank you... tha's the reality...many maker for a few corporations 🤮 sorry Australia... you got the wrong govrrment🥸
Ken Bellchambers
Ken Bellchambers Ай бұрын
If we had continuous feed hydrogen fuel cells that were small and reliable, electrolysis could be a good way to use home produced solar energy when the batteries are full and the system floating. There is a massive amount of this energy being wasted. Also, by electronically vibrating the water used for electrolysis at the proper frequency, the water molecule breaks apart much more readily. This step makes the process very many times more efficient.
B
B Ай бұрын
We could also pump it into dry regions of the world. Cool down green houses and water the plants and animals.
B
B Ай бұрын
Best idea so far.
chris dyer
chris dyer 2 ай бұрын
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.
Shyamtanu Banerjee
Shyamtanu Banerjee 2 ай бұрын
Yes someone should be talking about this but the greedy petroleum lobby won’t let it go easily
Jordan Eastern
Jordan Eastern 2 ай бұрын
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?
gascal018
gascal018 Ай бұрын
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).
Jephro Kimbo
Jephro Kimbo Ай бұрын
actually it is a couple HOURS, not days! just examine the latest attempt by nasa to test their newest rockets.
Harold Lindsay
Harold Lindsay 3 күн бұрын
I think these guys missed a few Hydrogen Classes....
Damien LIEBER
Damien LIEBER 8 ай бұрын
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
B
B Ай бұрын
@Michael Davison the efficiency is even very high. Its among the highest available. Fueling a car with conv. fuel has 40% effiency or so.
B
B Ай бұрын
@Michael Davison yes
lokensga
lokensga Ай бұрын
@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.
lokensga
lokensga Ай бұрын
@William Sharp Uh, no. Ever heard of an XYY male? And other variations whose chromosomes are other than the usual XX and XY.
Dan
Dan 2 ай бұрын
@Michael Davison yepp.... many people don't understand that something is more than nothing. " Low efficiency" is a MUCH better than zero ...nada....
Dave Wickizer
Dave Wickizer 4 күн бұрын
He seems to have the answers. But I get the feeling he is working for someone in the business. My chemist buddy says pressure is a huge problem and most won't admit how dangerous this is. Maybe we need to go a complete different direction on fuel. There has to be a simple fuel that doesn't require so much refinery and chemical additives.
Carlos Bernuy López
Carlos Bernuy López Ай бұрын
I was very happy with the video until the last question to the audience: "Is hydrogen the fuel of the future? Or should we focus on other alternatives instead?" 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂
Derek Holden
Derek Holden 2 күн бұрын
Let’s just forget the enormously expensive quasi-religious hype; fossil fuels are tried and tested…they are still the future.
PS Paul Stewart ~ Interviews and Inspirations
PS Paul Stewart ~ Interviews and Inspirations 5 күн бұрын
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.
Erik Guillermo Resendiz Mora
Erik Guillermo Resendiz Mora 8 ай бұрын
Very interesting. It would be nice to also analise the impact of facilities in nearby ecosystems and to compare the harmful effects of the three methods of production mentioned here. Also, is the water produced from its combustion to be recovered or released to the atmosphere? If released and used massively, would all this water vapour also become a different type of environmental problem? In the case of lithium batteries, they might be a better solution but what countries have the resource and what are the implications for their people? We can't close our eyes to the environmental damage produced by big transnational companies operating in poor countries that have had plenty of natural resources.
Cherry Juice
Cherry Juice 2 ай бұрын
I can't see how the exhaust water would be a problem. Look at what happens after a rain storm. Puddles at the end of everyone's drive way, wet sidewalks, wet roads, etc. This is a huge amount of water, but it evaporates into the air without notice. Water vapor from cars, buses, trains, etc. would be small compared to a rain storm. If everything was run on hydrogen (I don't think that's a good idea, but it's worse case), we'd have slightly more humid days, but that's it.
Jorge Eduardo Dussán Villanueva
Jorge Eduardo Dussán Villanueva 8 ай бұрын
The water can be condensed and used for other processes. Also, because of water's low residence time in the atmosphere it is not even a concern of some of ot leaks, as it will just quickly enter the water cycle (that is the academic standpoint on this possibility as of right now). An advantage for hydrogen is that a lot of infrastructure for its transportation is already built, in the form of long distance gas pipes used for natural gas.
Penguin King
Penguin King 2 ай бұрын
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.
Douglas Firth
Douglas Firth 17 күн бұрын
As efficiency improves hydrogen will become a staple fuel or internal combustion .Ffinding more compact forms of storage would be ideal or a closed loop electrolysis to fuel and water to fuel
Parr Snipps
Parr Snipps 4 күн бұрын
I don't think we can get away from needing hydrogen, at least for some forms of transport, like ships, trucking, locomotives. Currently there is a tech race to bring down the price per kilogram. Unless we want to heat up past 2C, we will need hydrogen. What fuel is a viable alternative? Algae oil - that was tried but never scaled up.
Wes Kaminski
Wes Kaminski 2 ай бұрын
Simple fact, windmills aren’t green. Look at their cost/GHGs in making of them. These are typically also running only less then 6% of the time
CmdrTobs
CmdrTobs 3 ай бұрын
DW actually does an ok report for once..... relaying basic things that were known decades ago and spelled out in the book "The hype about hydrogen"
Michael Lorton
Michael Lorton 10 күн бұрын
Former USAF flight surgeon here. Hydrogen has a low volumetric energy content so you must store it under very high pressure in order to extend the range of an airplane to commercially-viable distances. As noted, hydrogen is a very small molecule that readily escapes containment unless very expensive alloys and manufacturing techniques are employed. Significantly reduced atmospheric pressure at altitude means that such hydrogen fuel tanks will be subject to significant high intensity expansion-contraction metal fatigue. Non-metallic connectors and valve components are at even greater risk of failure. Catastrophic failure is almost guaranteed over usual useful lives of airframes. The excessive fuel tank weight decreases thrust-to-weight ratios. Frequent x-ray or other structural integrity testing increases costs and ground time. Frequent fuel tank replacements increase costs and reduce sortie rates and aircraft readiness. A small number of short-haul test flights is inadequate to proper safety testing. Ships, maybe; for airplanes, we really need much more realistic life-cycle data.
Peter Chandler
Peter Chandler Ай бұрын
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 motion Hydrogen converts about 27% of the original energy into motion Battery 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.
ushoys
ushoys 2 ай бұрын
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.
Tommas H.R.
Tommas H.R. 9 ай бұрын
A big misconception about Hydrogen is that its NOT an energy source, but an energy carrier. Alot of people have been talking about it as the solution to our future energy needs without mentioning that we need an enourmous amount of clean energy/renewable energy to produce, store and transport Hydrogen. But Hydrogen still has its uses to clean up some industries!
Mooko Joe
Mooko Joe 2 күн бұрын
So we go from putting CO2 , plant food, into the air. To a much stronger heat retainer water vapor.
João Vieira
João Vieira 16 күн бұрын
You dont know about the new way of produce h2 developed recently in japan with a new secure nuclear reactor. The new generation of nuclear reactor makes it almost clean. They will develop a Technologie to deal with nuclear waste.
MrSneakyCastro
MrSneakyCastro 17 күн бұрын
H2 plus O2 is energy bruh
Les Bendo
Les Bendo 20 күн бұрын
Very true.
Abhi 739
Abhi 739 Ай бұрын
@brainsizeofplanet cost and land of wind turbine installation is the main factor, lithiums already been replaced by sodium ion cells, thats an area companies can look at. Wind energy although converts 50% of captured wind compared to 23% for solar, one turbine needs 2 acres atleast producing say 2.75mw, while solar per sq km can produce 180+ MW
Your Life Matters
Your Life Matters Күн бұрын
Let's turn everyone off of hydrogen. We need to focus on photons, ok? The sun is our savior.
Oh Asis
Oh Asis 3 ай бұрын
One thing I rarely hear mentioned is the issue of the size of the hydrogen atom. Since it's the smallest of all atoms, there will be problems in containment and storage. It will simply migrate through whatever is trying to contain it, more so as pressures go higher. Yes, it is sold in H2 cylinders and frankly, I don't know the rate of leakage though that will vary based on materials used and thickness of containers. It also takes a lot of electricity for electrolysis. All food for continuedthought.
TheAnnoyingBoss
TheAnnoyingBoss Ай бұрын
It's size seems to be a blessing and a curse
Andy Grace
Andy Grace 2 ай бұрын
Very true - someone mentioned spin and they are quite right. There are some quantum mechanical issues that arise at extremely low or high temperatures. Actually there is one way of containing hydrogen but it's extremely energy inefficient and useless for most applications. You can heat it to incredibly high temperatures where it becomes a plasma, then you confine it magnetically without it touching any surfaces through which it can leak. Extremely long term this is a potential way to fuse it into helium although the ratio of energy in to energy out is still well below 1:1. Renewable energy is a really tough problem - far harder than any politician or activist who doesn't understand the physics wants to admit.
Jan Hemmer
Jan Hemmer 2 ай бұрын
@Gabriela Kerekes That was about methane.
Oh Asis
Oh Asis 2 ай бұрын
@Eric Johnson Sucking it in, one lungful at a time, squeaky voices driving across town then breathing it into balloons. Tough call.
Eric Johnson
Eric Johnson 2 ай бұрын
That's very true. Look at what they have to do to transport helium and keep losses to a minimum.
form76
form76 18 күн бұрын
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.
Swede McGuire
Swede McGuire 2 ай бұрын
Hydrogen has very large physical risks vs. other fuels. Hydrogen is exceptionally difficult to contain. Gaskets don't stop hydrogen leaks.. rather perfectly smooth 'lapped' metal to metal contact is the most reliable containment methodology, and surfaces of course tend to have imperfections or get marred. The hydrogen atom is the smallest of all atoms, it can make it's way through exceptionally small gaps or channels. Also, hydrogen has a very wide flammability index, it will burn in a vast range of air to fuel ratios vs. other fuels. And importantly, once hydrogen does ignite, it's flames are not visible to the eye! This makes fighting hydrogen fires extremely dangerous for responders, and presents clear risks to anyone in proximity to the fire when it breaks out.
St-Ex
St-Ex 3 ай бұрын
Chemical engineer here, with many years of experience in the hydrogen and related industries: The best use of green di-hydrogen is to use it as... hydrogen! By this I mean to use the hydrogen atoms as such, in chemical reactions, and NOT as an energy vector or storage. For the latter application, di-hydrogen is thermodynamically, physico-chemically, as well as economically significantly inferior to other solutions, mainly but not exclusively batteries. I can foresee some rare exceptions to this rule, though... Green hydrogen? Yes! But to replace grey AND blue hydrogen( the latter being utter non-sense) in industry! Forget about fuel-cell cars, or even trucks! For oceanic transport and long-range air transport, the jury is still out.
St-Ex
St-Ex 2 ай бұрын
@Ralph Boardman Yes, ammonia can indeed be an answer! Ammonia is produced in huge quantities (235 million tons in 2021) for usages in the organic-chemistry, other chemical applications (explosives, ammunitions, etc),, but above all in nitrogen fertilizers. It is produced from "grey" hydrogen (very polluting) and the nitrogen from air by the Haber-Bosch process (little efficient and, again, quite polluting... let's not go into the details). However, technologies to produce ammonia by electrolysis, without going through the di-hydrogen step, are in development. That would be top! Much more efficient then the present way, and even better than going through "green" di-hydrogen. For storage and transport, ammonia is incredibly easier and cheaper to liquify than hydrogen, as it does at -33.4°C, vs -252.9°C. It is very little inflammable, and not explosive at all. It is toxic, though, but you can smell a leak way way before it gets to a toxic concentration, so it is not much of an issue. Ammonia does not leak through just about all materials by permeation like hydrogen does. Ammonia does not damage the installations in which it is stored like hydrogen does (steel embrittlement). And, obviously ammonia can be converted back into electricity, if it is not use, as a molecule, in the production of fertilizers or other products. Conclusion: ammonia can be a most interesting answer. However, a production method avoiding the Haber- Bosch must first be brought to market. There are HUGE renewable-energy projects being planned, using ammonia and not hydrogen as the energy-storaing intermediate!
Bruce Bolduc
Bruce Bolduc 2 ай бұрын
@Ralph Boardman ammonia is another hydrogen carrier and is somewhat easier to transport. You can handle a leak with water. That said you can smell ammonia at very low levels. Hydrogen needs to be stored as a cryogenic liquid or very high pressure gas (also a chemical engineer 😊)
Ralph Boardman
Ralph Boardman 2 ай бұрын
some say ammonia is an answer, can you explain why?
St-Ex
St-Ex 3 ай бұрын
@grittsy I believe that the existing nuclear must absolutely be maintained (save unfixable security issue), as it will, in the countries that have significant amount of it, greatly facilitate and speed up the transition to renewables. Once we'll have achieved complete energy decarbonation, we'll have the time and the luxury to contemplate nuclear shutdown, or further development. As to building new nuclear plants, even of the latest generation, I believe they'll come too late. Between site selection, fighting opposition, obtaining permit, construction proper and then commissioning, it takes the best part of two decades in our countries. Way too long compared to the urgency to act that we are facing. I have obviously read about "mini" nuclear reactors, but I am no specialist, so I shall abstain to relay some opinion that is not fundamentally mine. Having said this, such modules may have the advantage of better power generation geographical distribution, but their power will be greatly more expensive than solar and wind. Several academic teams, as well as think tanks (I recommend reading the Energy Report of RethinkX.com) have now demonstrated that (almost) all countries can generate 100% of their energy needs (not only power, but all energies!) with a combination of solar + wind storage, and at unbeatable low cost; existing nuclear, hydro and other renewable energy resources helping in the transition.
grittsy
grittsy 3 ай бұрын
@St-Ex Interested on your take with nuclear. Small modules still too expensive? Yes I know of the cons with this source of energy. But that to one side pound for pound could it be interim source of power until new tech in the saddle.
Henry Nera 4
Henry Nera 4 Ай бұрын
hydrogen will help transition the “dirtier” industries into a more greener source of power but not a silver bullet to solving our energy and climate change problems. Nor does EV will be a silver bullet solution as well. I think the hydrogen economy and EV industry will co-exist for now to provide a better future for humanity. However, once we solve the hydrogen generation issue, hydrogen will definitely overtake as the better energy source alternative.
oldschoolguy
oldschoolguy 2 ай бұрын
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.
Robert Fletcher
Robert Fletcher 3 күн бұрын
Thorium is the best alternative yet very little research is being carried out. , to my knowledge.
mystray
mystray 2 ай бұрын
"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.
LALAmeera LALAmeera
LALAmeera LALAmeera 2 күн бұрын
Green hydrogen is available and it is transferable
Michael Greenwood
Michael Greenwood 2 ай бұрын
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.
trysometruth
trysometruth 2 ай бұрын
"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."
Bob Wrathall
Bob Wrathall Ай бұрын
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.
Leslie Fish
Leslie Fish 2 ай бұрын
The easiest and cleanest way to make hydrogen is electrolysis, which can be supplied with solar power. Now there's a containment system (resin, bound with carbon fiber, bound with fiberglass) that can hold hydrogen gas under sufficient pressure to feed an engine. The hydrogen can be fed directly into the engine, rather than using fuel cells.
Hasan Mahbub-ul Karim
Hasan Mahbub-ul Karim Ай бұрын
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.
David Lawrenson
David Lawrenson 3 күн бұрын
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?
Alex Anderson
Alex Anderson 3 күн бұрын
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.
Ulriko F.
Ulriko F. 8 күн бұрын
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.
Ricardo Oviedo
Ricardo Oviedo 11 күн бұрын
You forgot to talk about the elephant in the Hydrogen room: storage and distribution. How do you efficiently create a distribution network that requires 3 times the volume for the same amount of energy? Who's gonna paid for it? Hydrogen is very difficult to contain, so building pipelines for it is a pie in the sky.
Dan Poole
Dan Poole Ай бұрын
Hydrogen might make sense for air travel, but a sensible corrolary to the chicken-and-egg problem would be to reduce air travel. This would reduce the intense demand for both fuel and aluminum, freeing up supply of aluminum for other, better uses, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
TheJourneyingEngineer
TheJourneyingEngineer 2 ай бұрын
Thing is, the renewable energy sources are still fossil fuel consumers. Practically all materials used to build those facilities rely on fossil fuel powered production. (Not to mention the recycling problem solar panels and wind turbines have) So I disagree in calling it Green Hydrogen.
Kevin Heerema
Kevin Heerema 7 ай бұрын
Very interesting video! You point out rightly that we should not use our hardneeded and scarce green energy to produce green hydrogen, since too much of the energy will get lost. However, we’re dealing with congestion on the grid (in the Netherlands), which makes it impossible sometimes to install new windturbines and solarparks on the grid. Hydrogen could be very beneficial here. By storing the abundant electricity from hydrogen, we’re not using electricity that would otherwise be brought to the grid. By using hydrogen as a battery of the grid, we’re able to use green electricity also at times when production of green electricity is not possible.
Karl Günter Wünsch
Karl Günter Wünsch 5 ай бұрын
Hydrogen electrolyzers are not dealing well with inconsistent amounts of energy. They need to be run off a stabilized grid with constant energy flow 24/7, first thing to suffer is efficiency, have complete lack of energy and the electrolyzer will suffer membrane decay and permanently lose efficiency and eventually require a new membrane - which is costly both in resources and in price (which will be clear once you realize that these resources contain some of the rarest metals in the world, rare earth metals with their bad wrap are child play compared to for example iridium).
imho
imho Күн бұрын
First you have to zap the water with...electricity!!!
Joe Delaney
Joe Delaney Ай бұрын
I'm hoping Canada, and Germany, work together to develop the use of hydrogen, to better the environment
Allen Widdows
Allen Widdows 10 күн бұрын
One thing that most people miss is that the combustion of hydrogen in air produces water. The problem with water is that it is also a very efficient greenhouse gas; this is demonstrated by how warm a cloudy night is compared to a clear night at the same location and at the same time of year. Increase in water exhaust will also raise the humidity in certain area, making these places even more uncomfortable in the summer. As this video shows, when it comes to energy to operate our society, there is no free ride or magic bullet.
Bill Thomas
Bill Thomas Ай бұрын
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.
Wobby1
Wobby1 9 ай бұрын
Nuclear fusion is starting to look promising, all be it a while away and could be the future for clean energy. Hydrogen certainly has a place for certain types of transportation Shipping, long haul and perhaps aviation. I believe that huge leaps forward in all these technology’s battery included will come about in the next 10-20 years.
asdf
asdf 3 ай бұрын
@Sagittarius-A Black Hole I was just about to make that joke.
Sagittarius-A Black Hole
Sagittarius-A Black Hole 8 ай бұрын
The endless ongoing joke about Fusion is and has been: It will be ready in 20 to 30 years.
Josi Dasilva
Josi Dasilva 2 ай бұрын
You did not mention hydrogen through ionization with PWM (3kHz/10kV) on atomized water (possibly on demand/without need for storage); Compressing and freezing air (with many other useful chemicals as a result). The low efficiency of hydrogen production is meaningless when compared to the environmental destruction caused by harvesting other energy sources and the simplicity on the methods to extract it from water, which has significant room for improvement.
Phillip Leech
Phillip Leech 2 ай бұрын
You need pure oxygen for combustion engines too, otherwise you get NOX pollutants. Once we have local smaller reactors that process water into hydrogen and oxygen, transportation won't be as much of an issue. Hydrogen can also be piped instead of methane. Nuclear plants can produce hydrogen during off peak hours, so that actually makes nuclear power plants more efficient.
David Hunt
David Hunt 2 ай бұрын
Adding more oxygen displaces the nitrogen that would have been available to burn, thus reducing NOx output. An expensive way to do it, but I guess there would be an abundance of oxygen with nothing much to do with these hydrogen electrolysis schemes...
honotiro
honotiro Ай бұрын
Wish this also mentioned the pink hydrogen derived from nuclear. With next-gen small modular reactors, which are not reliant on fussion, but fission instead, this typo of hydrogen can be produced cheaply as a waste product without compromising on safety. The fact that Germany is not even considering nuclear as part of its energy mix, when it's the most efficient (and increasingly one of the safest) method of energy production is baffling to me.
Christopher K
Christopher K 2 ай бұрын
Is it possible to do the electrolysis (with water to get hydrogen) in the car? Then, the byproduct of hydrogen can be stored in tanks in the car. When the car is parked, it can be plugged into an outlet to get electricity to continue the electrolysis and replenish the tanks in the car with hydrogen.
Pranav Vaidik Dhulipala
Pranav Vaidik Dhulipala 9 ай бұрын
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
glynnec2008
glynnec2008 6 ай бұрын
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.
Salamander
Salamander 7 ай бұрын
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!
R Cosworth
R Cosworth 14 күн бұрын
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.
How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries
9:54
DW Planet A
Рет қаралды 579 М.
What Is Green Hydrogen And Will It Power The Future?
15:26
Жездуха 37-серия
24:21
Million Show
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
Жүрсін Ерман ауруханадан шықты | Қазіргі жағдайы қалай?
10:46
Таңшолпан бағдарламасы
Рет қаралды 40 М.
Storing Solar Power on my ROOF!!!
17:08
Quint BUILDs
Рет қаралды 3,2 МЛН
The recycling myth: What actually happens to our plastic
15:24
DW Planet A
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
What was so scary about Tesla’s ideas? | Decoded
15:18
Al Jazeera English
Рет қаралды 3,6 МЛН
The Big Misconception About Electricity
14:48
Veritasium
Рет қаралды 17 МЛН
Why Indonesia is building a whole new capital
12:23
DW Planet A
Рет қаралды 489 М.
Can we stop the deserts from spreading?
12:29
DW Planet A
Рет қаралды 2,9 МЛН
Can desalination solve the global water crisis?
11:13
DW Planet A
Рет қаралды 1,9 МЛН
How China Plans to Win the Future of Energy
16:31
Bloomberg Quicktake: Originals
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН
Жездуха 37-серия
24:21
Million Show
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН