Watch FT Moral Money editor Simon Mundy uncover some of the biggest opportunities and challenges within the global shift to cleaner energy. Click the links below for related videos: *Fusion power: how close are we? | FT Film* on.ft.com/3uo1yvB *Inside the global race for lithium batteries | FT Film* on.ft.com/46ojrrA

@user-hh6ex9md4w

5 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing those interesting videos! It's amazing to see the global shift towards cleaner energy solutions. Speaking of power, have you heard about the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile and durable power station with a massive 5kWh capacity, fast recharging, and multiple output ports. It could be a great addition to your outdoor gear for camping or ensuring quality family time during power outages. Check it out!

@user-hh6ex9md4w

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing these informative videos! It's important for us to explore cleaner energy options like hydrogen. Speaking of power solutions, I recommend checking out the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. It offers a massive capacity, powerful output, and fast recharging, making it a reliable choice for outdoor enthusiasts and RV lovers. Plus, its waterproof technology ensures it can handle any adventure.

@ashishkumarmukherjee5880

4 ай бұрын

Develop a chemical compound usage of waste material effective of plastic pollution and economical which is produce very low cost green ammonia gas l send to mail many countries and organisation but they can't any response or appreciate to support how to save the environment and save the earth

@user-hh6ex9md4w

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing those related videos! It's great to see the global shift towards cleaner energy and the advancements in power storage technology. Speaking of which, have you seen the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series? It's a versatile powerhouse with a massive capacity, quick recharge time, and comprehensive protections. Perfect for outdoor adventures and backup power needs. Check it out!

I used to be lukewarm about hydrogen but recently read about a project at the hospital Rijnstate in Elst, the Netherlands which changed my views. They have a huge array of solar panels of which the electricity oversupply will be stored in a local hydrogen tank by electrolysis. When electricity is needed the hydrogen is converted to electricity by a fuel cell. They also use all the waste heat in the entire round trip process for heating the hospital which increases the efficiency significantly. Because of the waste heat re-use and because it takes less area they choose this solution over batteries. The solar panels never feed electricity back into the grid which also prevents those problems. So the grid is not burdened by this renewable solution, and the grid electricity usage has gone down to some 40% of the original grid electricity usage.

@albex8484

2 ай бұрын

This is in my view the only way to go 100% to renewable.

@Xonikz

Ай бұрын

Hydrogen as stationary battery, great. Hydrogen as driving fuel, stupid.

Hydrogen makes so much sense for ships, trains, and large airplanes. There are fixed routes, a fixed number of harbors and airports, etc. And with small modular nuclear reactors, you could generate hydrogen locally for cheap. I would love nothing more than to see a hydrogen powered cruise ship, shipping vessel, and long haul aircraft. Let's see it happen!

I am pleased that some of the negative points about hydrogen where shared in this video.

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

Being glossed over more likely with mindless uncritical optimism. I have yet to see any pundit fully grasp the TRULY IMMENSE SCALE of what's required.

Could you post links to the other videos in this three part series, please? Or a link to a playlist containing all three?

The guy at timestamp 10:22 who said "Europe is a little bit too regulated in the way it processes it's knowledge", he seems obsessed with getting rid of regulation. The problem I've always noticed is that when people are complaining that there is too much regulation never seem to explain which bit of regulation is the problem. Normally it's a safety regulation, or a tax regulation, or a money laundering regulation, or something else where there is a very good reason why the regulation is there because it's protecting something or someone. But then come along people who complain about there being too much regulation without explaining which regulation, so you can't have a counter argument to explain the reason why that particular regulation is important. I don't like people who complain about too much regulation without saying exactly which regulation they don't like.

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

Excellent point!👍

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

Totally agree. Doubt he really cares about hydrogen as energy bu how much money he can squeeze out of it.

@timogul

8 ай бұрын

"They won't let me make a plant that is 10% likely to explode! The monsters!"

@waqasahmed939

8 ай бұрын

See the charlatans that sold brexit. They said the smart thing

@haddow777

7 ай бұрын

Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Big industry typically complain about regulations because they protect the citizens from corporations exploiting them and doing harmful things. They complain because they could make profit if only the regulations went away. A big part of that is that regulations means nobody is doing some specific thing. In that case, all a big corporations see is an untapped market. Unfortunately, there is good reason to be very cautious around Hydrogen. Free roaming Hydrogen impedes the natural processes that remove Methane, a super greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. As such, Hydrogen is classified as a greenhouse gas and could pose a greater risk than CO2. So why push a Hydrogen economy? Today we produce what would be considered a tiny fraction of the Hydrogen that would be needed in a so called Hydrogen economy. Yet today, The vast majority of the Hydrogen produced is made with Methane or Coal. Fossil fuels. The reality is, despite all this flashy green technology being splashed about, that to produce Hydrogen on the scale of a full economy driven by it, a large amount of it would definitely be produced using fossil fuels. Basically, it's greenwashing for the fossil fuel industry. The very sad reality is that it would most likely accelerate climate change, not prevent it

Hydrogen is a key part of the future energy mix, but there are issues with production, transportation, and energy generation that need to be addressed but glossed over in the video, they are better reported on by others on KZread etc. A major issue ignored in video and by most other commentator is hydrogen's small size, which makes long-term storage challenging as it easily escapes containers to the atmosphere. As hydrogen rises to the ozone layer, where it reacts with ozone to form water, resulting in ozone depletion and the production of water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. If hydrogen becomes widely used as a fuel, the amount lost to the atmosphere and the resulting damage could be even worse than the concerns about the ozone hole in the 1980s. This highlights the consequences of combining economists and engineers tunnel vision without considering historical lessons. On another note, it's important to clarify that the airships mentioned from the early 20th century used hydrogen for buoyancy, not as a power source, this does not reflect well on quality of video

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

Lets then take mesures to avoid that.

@paulmetelmann8952

10 ай бұрын

Thank you for that comment. Hydrogen will have a role to play in transition to a greener future, but it is not a silver bullet to solve all climate problems.

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

@@marpintado that would be like saying that we should contain any of the heavily used / produced toxic pollutants. Take a look at China or many other parts of the world. The person may be smart, but people are often busy / distracted / lazy or just dumb and we see the consequences. Hydrogen is probably harder to contain than any other chemical in laboratory or industry… just imagine it in general public use….

@ssuwandi3240

10 ай бұрын

The technology is still damning too exoensuve i see FT has become a Sneak Oil Salesman channel

@johndawson6057

10 ай бұрын

Exactly

Most imp use of hydrogen is industrial, all reducing agents in industry starting steel, and all metals. Petro reduction. Then ammonia production that is majority fertilizer industry.

This completely glossed over the biggest issue with electrolysed H2 - the awful efficiency, not a lot better than petroleum. The round trip efficiency (electricity to H2 to electricity to power) is around 40%. You have to make a case that it's 2 and a half times better than simply storing the electricity in a battery. There are certainly use cases where the answer to that is "yes", but they're not as many as the proponents think. The second problem is that the fossil fuel industry piggy-backs on the "clean hydrogen" message to push their own hope that making H2 from fossil fuels will save them, always neglecting to mention that "blue" H2 requires CO2 capture & storage, a technology that in 20 years they have completely failed to demonstrate can succeed. In that same 20 years we've gone from no commercial electric cars to the amazing ones we have today and a grid that's rapidly decarbonising.

@Bravo.6

10 ай бұрын

Ok. What is the top speed of Ford model T in early 1900s and what is the top speed of toyota corolla? How was the experience with Windows 95 and Windows 10? How about flying the first flight of Write brothers and A380? Are you getting the big picture?

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

@@Bravo.6 What is the relevance of that glib (and totally irrelevant) remark ? Windows 95 was hugely MORE efficient than Windows 10. It could run perfectly well on processes a tenth the speed ! That's an argument in favour of Win 95 !

@Clone42

10 ай бұрын

haha, "rapidly de-carbonizing." What insane graphs are you looking at? Or are you reporting in from the Lunar colony??

@Bravo.6

10 ай бұрын

@grahamstevenson1740 oh. so are you still using win95? I mentioned those to compare "level 1" things to "level 50" things". There are some genius people who say "hydrogen" is not efficient because it's in level 1.

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

@@Bravo.6 No, but I'm also not using a 66MHz '486 ! That's the entire point. An OS that could run on a single core 66MHz CPU now needs a multiple core CPU running at many GHz ! The needs have increased around 50 fold.

Perhaps one of the major drawbacks to the whole fuel cell family of industry is the need for iridium and other precious metals in quantities greater than known Earth resources.

Green hydrogen for iron and steel production, as demonstrated by SSAB at their Lulea plant, is an excellent idea.

@cliffwilliams8616

10 ай бұрын

I disagree. Hydrogen is a poor reducer of iron ore, it is slow expensive and produces a poor quality final solid which requires a lot of post processing. Look up Ellingham diagram!

@grahamcook9289

10 ай бұрын

@@cliffwilliams8616 No one said it was currently perfect. It is a process in development. How will you make iron and steel when coal is exhausted? There is only 130 years worth left at the current rate of extraction and consumption. Although that will be longer than your life, I trust you expect human civilisation to last longer than 130 years? Iron and steel recycle forever. We should also focus more on recycled iron and steel.

@johnconnor1652

10 ай бұрын

Vu😊p look pl

@alberthartl8885

10 ай бұрын

It will be interesting to see if hydrogen or Molten Oxide Electrolysis becomes the best way to make green steel. 🤔

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

​@@cliffwilliams8616stop talking nonsense! Do you have a better solution!?

It is important to surplace the grey hydrogen we use at the moment with green hydrogen. To be really green the hydrogen must not just be produced from renewable energy, but from surplus renewable energy. In that way it has an important role in compensating for seasonal differences in energy porduction. But it is not a good energy carrier. There are better alternatives for that.

@kapperbeastYT

2 ай бұрын

What are the better alternatives for moveable energy? I'm genuinely curious because all I can think of is synthetic hydro carbon fuels

@MusikCassette

2 ай бұрын

@@kapperbeastYT Top on my list is Sodium. But there are other options. There is also a bit dependence on the use case and on the cost for safety concerns. A Sodiumfire can be a nasty thing.* May I ask, what you mean by moveable? Are you talking about powering vehicles or are you talking about moving Energie within a region or are you talking about equilizing Energy from far away places on globe? *in a way, that is always a concern when you have a lot of any energy carrier in one place, even coal can explode when handle it wrong. but costs for safty might differ.

The ingenuity surrounding some of these processes fills me with optimism for a clean future, there is not one silver bullet but many solutions to suit the prevailing conditions

The overall cost to produce hydrogen to this scale is cost prohitive and just a dream.

There are major issues dealing with hydrogen. There are numerous H2 stations in my area, but at any given time at least 30% of the pumps are offline. Not only that, the stations can only handle a limited number of vehicles due to all the effort needed to compress H2 and cool it to -40 before filling. Trucks typically carry 300kg, enough for only 60 cars (assuming 5kg). This is a fraction of the number of cars one gasoline truck can fill. Despite all these claims of it getting cheaper, it hasn't changed at all here. It's still over $16/kg, so 5kg will cost over $80. Not only that, open the filler door on any Mirai and you'll see an expiration date, after which you are no longer allowed to fill the car. Not only that, the Mirai is rather cramped due to the H2 tanks. The resale value of the Mirai is also absolutely abysmal. We should not be wasting money on this. We should be investing more in battery technology and charging infrastructure, which is FAR cheaper. Each H2 station costs at least $1.9M and they are expensive to maintain. For that price, you can build 40 fast DC charging stalls (Tesla costs < $50K each). Hydrogen is a real pain in the butt to deal with. It leaks like crazy and is dangerous. There have been numerous fires and explosions at hydrogen filling stations. One fire and explosion in my area (Santa Clara) shut down the entire hydrogen supply for six months! Not only that, EV chargers can be installed just about anywhere. I fill my EV in my garage for a fraction of the price of hydrogen. They keep promising cheap hydrogen, but I don't see any sign of it. The only advantage H2 has is fast filling when it works and the nozzle doesn't freeze itself to the car, but the speed of EV charging is rapidly increasing. An Ioniq 5 will charge from 10% to 80% in 18 minutes. While not 5 minutes, these times are still rapidly decreasing.

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

Where is it that you have numerous H2 stations ? It remains to be seen if it's even possible to scale battery production to the enormous levels that would be needed. You're aware that lithium has spiked in price recently ?

@aaronwilliams1249

10 ай бұрын

@@grahamstevenson1740 San Francisco Bay Area. Also, lithium prices are way down compared to 6 months ago. Lithium only makes up 3% of the batteries. Batteries are more sensitive to the prices of nickel and cobalt (for long-range batteries). The price of cobalt has dropped considerably compared to a year ago and nickel, while volatile, has gone down in the past 6 months. Looking at the chart for lithium prices, it spiked last November and hit a dip in May but looks to have leveled off and is cheaper than it was in March. There is no shortage of lithium and I expect availability to increase, i.e. see the recent announcements on the Salton Sea in southern California. Fuel cell vehicles rely on platinum and palladium. Also, note that hydrogen vehicles have a horrible resale value. There is a built-in expiration date on every Mirai sold. Open the filler door and there is a sticker that gives a date after which you can no longer fill the vehicle and must replace the hydrogen components, effectively scrapping the vehicle. Hydrogen has a very long way to go still until it is competitive, and despite all the promises, there is a lot of complexity involved with hydrogen that is unavoidable since you're dealing with a very high-pressure gas that seeps through everything, embrittles metal, and is energy intensive in its handling, from compressing it to cooling it. And transporting it is inefficient volumetrically except in liquid form, where it must be kept at 20C over absolute zero (liquid nitrogen is a balmy 73C over absolute zero). The only thing colder than liquid H2 is liquid helium. The equipment involved with hydrogen is and will remain expensive. H2 is not like other gases. The only thing harder to contain is helium, which, unlike hydrogen, does not react with other materials. To transport it requires either very high pressures (i.e. 10,000PSI) or extremely cold temperatures. It's very prone to leaking (look at how many rocket launches get scrubbed due to hydrogen leaks) and is explosive at a wide range of atmospheric concentrations. And despite the claims of safety, there have been numerous hydrogen explosions and fires at filling stations, at least two of which caused significant damage. An explosion at a H2 forklift filling station in North Carolina damaged 60 homes and was heard across 3 counties. An explosion and fire in Santa Clara shut down the H2 supply in the Bay Area for 6 months. And if you want to see how reliable the H2 infrastructure is, go to m.h2fcp.org/ At any given time at least 30% are offline or limited (slow or can only provide partial fills).

@PierrePinteliere

10 ай бұрын

I quite agree that batteries might be a better option for cars and vans, hopefully in the future with longer ranges. I've been to a course about hydrogen vehicles, in special about the technical aspect of it. And it is abundantly clear that for big trucks, ships and vehicle which carry big loads, this might be somewhat more economically better. See, with EV trucks the payload per truck is by at least one third less, and to think of the range they can do (max 300km) plus charching time (hours, which truckers don't have if they don't need a break)

@djtomoy

9 ай бұрын

No, hydrogen is great, everyone loves it, the end, you’re welcome

@pault1289

9 ай бұрын

​@@PierrePintelierethere could be some use cases for H2 but I've yet to see a good example for trucks/lorries. Although the batteries are heavier than diesel, and remove some load capacity, not all loads meet the maximum anyway. Many journeys in the UK are shorter and a mixed load isn't close to the maximum rated weight of the vehicle (44 tons across 6 axels in the UK).

The headline caveat should be that hydrogen is not an energy source. It's a transmission and storage mechanism. Possibly better than batteries - we'll see. Green grey or emerald is a secondary issue.

@pault1289

9 ай бұрын

Yes, this is what seems to be missed by most articles or films. It may well have useful applications and perform other technologies - but in the meantime efficiency and reducing energy use is a good start.

@AORD72

9 ай бұрын

Hydrogen already seen as worse than batteries for vehicle transport. Over 10% of the worlds car production is battery electric. How many hydrogen cars? So low it may as well be zero. Trucks are also arguably better with batteries, with battery development they will be better.

@johanponken

8 ай бұрын

Efficiency is 'secondary'? ...

@gilgamecha

8 ай бұрын

@@johanponken yes relative efficiency is secondary to the fact that hydrogen is just a transmission medium, not an energy source.

@johanponken

8 ай бұрын

@@gilgamecha Hmm, ok. But efficiency is relevant compared to other transmission mediums. There no "just" about it. Though I've seen another argument here that as a storage medium, if you anyway would be wasting the energy, OK. But

Excellent documentary on Hydrogen and zero carbon foot print. Good news for 22st century revolutionary way to save earth..

Solar hydrogen seems like a good idea for somewhere sunnier than the UK. For 'net zero' all we need to do is to stop exhuming fossil carbon. Our modern lives are based on hydrocarbon outputs of refineries, not what comes out of fossil deposits - they just provide the feedstock for refineries. We should use Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Hydrolysis to synthesise all the good stuff that currently comes out of refineries, and we get to keep all our current technology (prices will change, motivating adoption of non-hydrocarbon technologies). In the UK our greatest potential for renewable energy is offshore wind, which has long 'slack' periods, during which we currently burn gas in CCGT power stations. Given *that's what we have now*, it seems obvious to use excess energy from offshore wind to synthesise CH₄ (methane, mains gas) and store it in vast quantities - as lots of countries already do - and burn it in our CCGT plant when renewable energy is in shorter supply. Otherwise we don't have a workable plan for long, cold, dark, still intervals (which occasionally happen). Generating CH₄ means the first startup can inject their gas today - no new tech is needed. As renewable and synthesis capacity grows, we use less and less methane from fossil sources. We can synthesise other hydrocarbons using the same Carbon and Hydrogen inputs, so everything downstream of refineries *still works*. Synthesising hydrocarbons using DAC and Hydrolysis will make 'hydrocarbons' more expensive than electricity or hydrogen, but that will *motivate* people to switch technology, while the capacity to provide energy directly for hydrogen and electric-only applications (like EVs) will already be in existence. Additionally, the eventual switch away from hydrocarbons (when we're already net zero) will leave us with colossal spare DAC capacity which we can use to 'turn the clock back' - go *net negative*.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

why would we synthesize methane while we still produce hydrogen from fossile methane?

@trs4u

8 ай бұрын

@@MusikCassette I'm not sure I understand your question. If it's rhetorical to point out the missing technology, then you're right - green DAC at useful scale is missing, electrolysis (or other green hydrogen production) at useful scale is missing, and so is large-scale green methane synthesis. My suggestion has a lot in common with other 'net zero' suggestions as far as yet-unbuilt infrastructure goes! None of these is fantasy technology though - green synthesis of fluid hydrocarbons is 'a thing'. If we built those technologies, I have little faith the large projects would all run perfectly in step and brown (philosophically brown) hydrogen would never be used in development. The intention though is obviously to replace fossil methane exhumation.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

@@trs4u right now we produce hydrogen out of methane. whilst emmiting CO2 with that, because we need quite a lot H2 for the chemical industry. And quite a lot of it. It will take a substantial amount of the renewable Energy we produce to replace that. So as long as that is the case if you synthesise Methane using up H2 all in all we just through away energy.

@trs4u

8 ай бұрын

@@MusikCassette Industry like that seems like a reasonable case to tackle first with green hydrogen, but there's a lower-level problem: we don't have a reliable green electricity supply to power such industry! If we solve the intermittency problem by burning green methane produced with excess wind energy, we would already have colossal green hydrogen production capacity, far beyond what industry requires from fossil sources now. There'd be a 'tickover' amount of hydrogen produced which would satisfy continuous industrial demand. The problem with a 'hydrogen-based economy' is that we don't have hydrogen power stations or hydrogen storage at a scale that would solve renewable intermittency, but also that many other vital industries need a colossal supply of carbon in the form of readily-synthesisable petrochemicals. The 'hydrogen economy' seems to rely on ideas like national-scale nuclear energy or secretly continuing to exhume fossil carbon from behind a curtain of shame. Lots of other countries are going to struggle to avoid choices like those, but the UK with its offshore wind potential doesn't need to go there.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

@@trs4u Don't confuse intermittency with unreliability. The sun does not shine at night but its rise is quite reliable. For intermittency we don't have to waste Energy by methane or hydrogen synthesis. There are better options f.e. Na (Sodium) or pumped hydro. But there are also seasonal differences, and those are a few orders of magnetude greater in scale. "There'd be a 'tickover' amount of hydrogen produced [...]" you might underestimate the amount of Hydrogen the chemical industry requires. we are talking about 10% of the current electric energy consumption. more if we use the hydrogen for things like steel production. With the speed renewable are build at the moment, it will take quite a while until we have the excess energy to satisfy that.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, but it only occurs on Earth in combination with other elements. It requires energy to make from water, which means either using fossil fuels or renewables. In the case of electric vehicles it is significantly more efficient to use renewables directly via battery electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel-cell or hydrogen combustion vehicles also require a distribution network equivalent to the petrol/gasoline network of today.

@augustusomega4708

8 ай бұрын

efficiency is important but its not everything...range and atmospheric hygiene are two high priority factors HH answers.

@grahamcook9289

8 ай бұрын

Range is increasing with BEVs all the time with NMC, now also with LFP and the newly emerging Lithium Silicon and even Sodium Ion. BEVs are of course tail-pip emission free and with decarbonising grids becoming ever more lower emission. @@augustusomega4708

@shawnnoyes4620

7 ай бұрын

@@augustusomega4708 Indirect effect of hydrogen on our atmosphere will make it as bad as natural gas in our atmosphere.

@kiwitrainguy

7 ай бұрын

A hundred years ago the same argument could have been made (and probably was) about the distribution network for Petrol & Diesel fuels. Where there is a will, and money to be made, there is a way.

@effingsix3825

6 ай бұрын

Geologic hydrogen wasn’t even considered in this video. ‘White’ or geologic hydrogen has been discovered in abundance, that could substitute kerosene for hydrogen in aviation. There are companies looking to take abandoned oil fields and repurposing them into hydrogen production while sequestering CO2, another source of hydrogen in abundance. In all probability hydrogen can be carried by the same pipelines that convey natural gas or methane. The industrial infrastructure is already there.

Liquid ammonia stores more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen does, and it solves the transport/storage problem.

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

NH3 is also insanely toxic !

@davidjma7226

9 ай бұрын

Solid state hydrogen using Magnesium solves the problem of storage and distribution.

@grahamstevenson1740

9 ай бұрын

@@davidjma7226 Pressurisation at 800 bar is fairly good too.

Great video!

Amazing movies, please keep this up. Should be getting way more views.

"Can hydrogen help the world reach net zero?" - not if we waste precious expensive green hydrogen on easy to directly electrify problems like heating and transportation - and that includes trucks, ferries and smaller boats and most defiantly trains. Most likely short hop flight too - see Harbour Air in Vancouver, BC. Carbon pricing is the correct mechanism, but will never stick across successive governments - it's too easy to unpick and a popular vote winner if framed as 'Want cheaper gasoline? Vote for me!' Reasonably well balanced piece from FT, well done.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

the thing is we still need quite a lot of hydrogen for the chemical industry.

Thanks for this video. Like any pioneering effort, the early days pose many challenges but we have to press on toward the future. It would be great to see another video on ammonia as a hydrogen carrier, particularly in light of recent news that Japanese scientists have formulated a compound that stores ammonia at ambient temperature and pressure.

A really great film.

Make no mistake, having run the numbers on hydrogen, the economics and maths speak plainly : 1) Green hydrogen requires so much renewable power (39-55KWH per kg) that a country would have to commit most if not all of its renewably produced power to generate even modest amounts of hydrogen 2) Shipping liquified hydrogen from Australia, as the Japanese are discovering is not economical and in fact produces an enormous amount of CO2. Burning coal to make electricity to make hydrogen to make liquified hydrogen is one of the dumbest ideas ever. Even using ammonia as an intermediary is not cost efficient or green 3) The hydrogen car industry will never succeed, and has already lost by default to EV's for many reasons :- no hydrogen infrastructure, difficult and expensive re-supply of any such infrastructure, difficult and dangerous on-board hydrogen storage, prohibitive cost of hydrogen fuel cells. Poor performance of hydrogen fuel cells in colder climates. The list goes on In short, not only does hydrogen require alot of power to make, but also to store and transport making it one of the most inefficient fuels. The net result being more CO2 produced when you consider the whole. A proper assessment of migrating away from fossil fuels, realistically is over 200 years and hydrogen rather than helping this transition, actually hinders it. The only benefactors of producing large amounts of hydrogen are the petrochemical and refining Industries who can use all this government subsidized hydrogen to replace some of the natural gas on their fired heaters. Not only do they get to slash their gas bills on the tax-payers expense, but they get to reduce their carbon tax at the same time. Ask yourself why Shell would build one of the biggest hydrogen electrolysis plants in the world, while simultaneously shutting down all their hydrogen refuelling stations in the North of England last year. As with all these things, it comes down to money.

@brianbosch3628

26 күн бұрын

That's why, here in Germany, it will only be used for heavy industry. Some political parties want it to be used for heaters too but that's just not feasible as of now. And also to produce energy, when renewables are not enough due to weather conditions.

0:41: 💡 Iberdrola is investing in a massive green hydrogen plant in Spain as part of their ambitious plan to build a hydrogen economy. 4:13: 🌍 The enthusiasm for green hydrogen may have negative consequences on global warming, and there are concerns about the slow decarbonization of the grid due to the electricity needed for green hydrogen production. 10:32: 🌍 The global hydrogen industry is experiencing significant growth, with three types of projects showing promise: green hydrogen for classic industries, renewable capture and shipping, and mobility networks for captive fleets. 12:40: 🌍 Europe is investing in hydrogen as a solution to decarbonize and reduce reliance on Russian natural gas. 17:42: ✈ ZeroAvia is developing hydrogen-powered engines for planes, aiming to solve two-thirds of the aviation climate impact. 21:55: 💡 Hydrogen has the potential to decarbonize industry and transport, but its role should not be overestimated. Recap by Tammy AI

Good video. Do a video on thin film solar on standing seam metal roof.

Will this increase water scarcity in Spain?

Digging into the #science of #hydrogen as a #feul We set out to assess the current science in a paper, and find that under the right circumstances, hydrogen could indeed be part of a clean energy transition. But done wrong, it could be worse for the near-term climate than the fossil fuels it would replace. While carbon dioxide can be a byproduct of hydrogen production, hydrogen itself emits no carbon dioxide when burned or used in a fuel cell. But when emitted into the atmosphere, hydrogen contributes to climate change by increasing the amounts of other greenhouse gases such as methane, ozone and water vapor, resulting in indirect warming. That’s a problem because hydrogen’s small molecule is difficult to contain. It is known to easily leak into the atmosphere throughout the value chain. The farther it travels between production and end-use the greater the potential for leakage. That much is well understood. But it turns out we know very little about how much hydrogen actually escapes from real-world systems. It hasn’t been clear because there has been no reason to look beyond basic safety thresholds - until now. This is because traditional metrics systematically ignore the near-term impact of hydrogen and other short-lived climate-forcing agents by expressing the warming effects from a one-time pulse of emissions over a 100-year timeframe (GWP-100), masking a much bigger, more immediate influence. There is another reason the warming effects of hydrogen have been underestimated. Until recently, every estimate of hydrogen’s climate-forcing power considered only the troposphere and not effects in the stratosphere. Accounting for both reveals that hydrogen has greater warming potential than is typically recognized. Applying the combined atmospheric effects over a shorter, more relevant timeframe, we estimate the five-year warming power from a pulse of hydrogen relative to CO2 is 20 times greater than current calculations show using the standard 100-year approach. And when we look at the relative warming impact from continuous instead of pulse emissions - which are more representative of the real world - hydrogen is 100X more potent than CO2 emissions over a 10-year period.

Good video. Thanks for sharing.

Great coverage, thank you!

Thank you 😊

Use the same hydrogen reactors and production methods that the Royal Navy used during WW1. Easy to replicate, and quite lucrative today. Modernize and earn serious profit streams.

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

Please, give us a link.

@FT, @DOE, @EUC My father in Las Vegas has been researching and designing hydrogen systems for at least ten years. Enjoy.

"Thermal plasma electrolysis" is called methane pyrolysis and it separates the molecules via thermal degradation, not electrolysis

The elephant in the room - from the FT too. 1) 97% comes from oil - normally called brown hydrogen - except in the UK - where it called blue hydrogen as it magically cleaner there. This is why it pushed so hard - it retains the status quo of the oil industry. 2) The overall efficiency rate of a hydrogen fuel cell car is around 25% (energy from electrolysis to drive train) , the overall efficiency of hydrogen combustion is 12% (electrolysis to drive train). The overall efficiency of battery car (electricity/lets say from solar - like with electrolysis) - to drive train is 70%. So you see - from a simple economics it is stupid to waste energy on creating hydrogen for transport. 3) Fuel cells require rare metals from dodgy countries (like Russia), batteries require lithium (everywhere), cobalt (not much more), and other metals that are found in nearly every country meaning you are not dodgy - and means a small number of countries become powerful - look up the oil curse. 4) There is little hydrogen infrastructure, and that is truly expensive, it will be centralised, unlike electricity that allows people to take power of their energy. 5) Carbon capture technology on large scale has never worked - Australia has been trying this longest and they have not succeeded - it is expensive - economically insane to require it. 6) Energy density - although hydrogen energy content is high/unit mass, the hydrogen storage in a car, and the fuel cell means it poor energy density, no better than just battery. Hydrogen combustion makes no sense for cars as the energy density is too poor for more than 120miles range. It is the economics stupid (leaving aside - safety, storage problems, efficiency, centralised)

@guruxara7994

4 ай бұрын

haddow777 That's incorrect; hydrogen is always used in combination with oxygen to generate energy, and the byproduct is: Water! Hydrogen is considered one of the cleanest elements in nature.

@guruxara7994

4 ай бұрын

1) Maybe in Europe, but globally, there are countries with very clean energy sources. 2) The average efficiency of an SOFC cell is 55%, three times more efficient than any gas combustion engine. 3) Newer cells don't require rare metals; some can be built using ceramics. 4) Water is everywhere; everyone needs water for their daily basis. In the near future, home electrolysis will be way more common than today." 6) Hydrogen is the fuel with the highest energy density; it's more than twice the energy density of gasoline. Compressed hydrogen can be stored in cartridges; a single cartridge would be enough to provide a 180 km range for an SUV.

@tomooo2637

4 ай бұрын

@@guruxara7994 you have to understand lifecycle, where it comes from , storage and transport and usage. Yes hydrogen burns to form water, but it comes 95% from oil using energy and the carbon left over by extraction is dumped as CO2. If it comes from electrolysis, it wastes energy as oxygen, then you have to compress it using energy, and so on You are very 1 dimensional, like saying BEV cars a emission free, no you need to make electricity, you can use emission free energy generation, but you still have to manufacturer wind turbines and solar panels. Hydrogen as a lifecycle fuel is economically insane, and is currently less green than oil, but even when produced by electrolysis is much less green than using that electricity and storing directly in a battery. Final note, fuel cells are very ungreen in manufacture, and only about 50% efficient

@tomooo2637

4 ай бұрын

@@guruxara7994 fuel cells are inefficient Electrolysis is 60% efficient, waste product is oxygen Hydrogen has to be compressed to make it useful, that is very energy intensive, wasting energy Hydrogen is not energy dense, even when a liquid Hydrogen is so small storage is very difficult, it leaks out of everything, it even escapes though unlined steel containers. A cylinder of hydrogen can loose the contents over weeks. It causes embrittlement of steel, it gets into the crystal grains of the metal and makes it brittle like glass. All contained must be lined. It cannot ever be used in existing natural gas pipelines with their legacy pipework of steel, or steel valves etc. Hydrogen is economically insane and being pushed by the oil industry. Why don't you invest in hydrogen then, good luck to you. I am sick of people without an ounce of scientific training commenting on stuff.

@guruxara7994

4 ай бұрын

@@tomooo2637 Petroleum refining has an efficiency of only 5%, much lower than that of hydrogen. Still, oil is used as an energy source worldwide, perhaps because it is profitable for big cartels and corporations. Their lobby and political influence have restricted the advancement of renewables for decades. Hydrogen will likely become a reality in a few years.

FCEV Electric drivetrain is awesome and is superior to anything we've had.

Every time I hear "net zero", I remember that each person exhales approx 8 tons of CO2 annually.....

HiiROC's emerald hydrogen, whilst not realising CO2in to the atmosphere, still uses fossil fuel methane from which to extract hydrogen, of which the World only has 60 years supply left. As innovative as it is, it is only a short term answer of less than 60 years. The plant is also powered by the grid, which includes fossil fuel generators such as natural gas, coal and bio (wood chips).

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

If we on the other hand use that process with methane from biogas that could even be a building block in becoming carbon negative.

@grahamcook9289

8 ай бұрын

Biogas! WTF are you on man?@@MusikCassette

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

@@grahamcook9289 what is your problem?

@kiwitrainguy

7 ай бұрын

bio (wood chips) is not a fossil fuel.

@grahamcook9289

7 ай бұрын

@@kiwitrainguy correct, it is pre-fossil fuel. 🤦‍♂️

If hydrogen is made from natural gas, about 30% of the energy in the original gas is wasted. If it is made by electrolyzing water about 20% of the power in the original electricity is wasted. Hydrogen fuel cells are generally between 40% to 60% energy efficient, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So, at best, about 48% of the original electric energy is available to drive the car. Li-ion batteries are claimed to boast a round trip efficiency of 96 percent or even higher. So hydrogen is a far less efficient fuel than electricity.

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

Probably correct, but batteries have a load of their own problems, such as need for rare metals, where some elements are only found in certain locations… and so we go in an insane loop back to the beginning of people/ countries fighting for control of these metals just like we had with oil 😜, ignoring problems of pollution producing the materials and weight issues etc So no, there is no magic solution coming to save us from our selves

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

On top of which, hydrogen needs to be compressed to achieve sensibly usable energy density (Wh/litre) and this uses further energy that ends up being lost. However batteries are no panacea either, they simply don't store very much energy at all relative to classic fuels.

@mike160543

10 ай бұрын

@@grahamstevenson1740 Precisely. Battery technology still has a long way to go. IMHO flow batteries may be the answer for long term storage. the alternatives are ammonia or , with carbon dioxide capture, methane or methanol.

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

@@grahamstevenson1740 very good point about the hydrogen!

@grahamstevenson1740

10 ай бұрын

@@mike160543 Flow batteries are interesting. Their disadvantages are relatively low energy density and sheer bulk but overcome many other battery problems. I personally doubt that lithium-ion can be bettered for high energy density, there simply aren't many other electrochemically interesting compounds. I've even seen 'liquid air' being outed as a energy storage medium.

Not a single critic was interviewed for this peace. Only people invested in the sector. 2/3 of electrical production is made from hydrocarbons. Coal is mainly used to produce electricity. Green electricity is needed to electrify our economies and hopefully to de-carbonize our electrical grids. Making green hydrogen is very inefficient, and consumes large amounts of water and electricity. It will only be used for steel making and possibly shipping. Airplanes were made possible thanks to the very high energy density of fossil fuels and will disappear with fossil fuels. What this video did not show were the large hydrogen tanks inside the aircraft, carrying little hydrogen because at room temperature, a 1 litre tank contains 0,1 gram of hydrogen. So even at high pressure, the ratio of volume to weight and energy carried is terrible. So unless you are planning to store the hydrogen inside the cabin while the passengers are seated outside on the wings, you are not going to get very far. Hydrogen powered planes are a green hydrogen smoke screen. For the next 30 years, all new manufactured passenger jets will run on kerosene. Boeing has no plans for a hydrogen aircraft, and Airbus only pretends to have such a plan. There is no green future for flying.

@kiwitrainguy

7 ай бұрын

"Coal is mainly used to produce electricity." - perhaps in your country but not in mine. At the moment 88% of New Zealand electricity is being generated from renewables. I take your point, replace coal generation of electricity with renewables and there will be a big reduction in the use of coal. "There is no green future for flying." - experiments are being done on electric aircraft (small ones with 200km range) so that might be the future there.

Clean Energy and Clean Tech 🎉🌿🌿🌿

I read about research using nanotech for efficient splitting of water. That would be amazing if hydrogen can be produced with little energy out of water. Today it requires a lot of energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

@701983

9 ай бұрын

There is no magical device with more than 100% efficiency, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen will always cost more than 39.4 kWh of energy per kg of hydrogen. The most efficient electrolyzer from Hysata, which isn't in industrial use so far, needs 41.5 kWh per kg hydrogen, which means 95% efficiency. Nanotech might bring some advantages, perhaps by avoiding expensive electrode materials like platinum.

@701983

9 ай бұрын

"Normal" industrial use electrolyzers achieve around 80% efficiency (HHV), which means 49 kWh per kg of hydrogen. There is some room for improvement, but not very much. Not as much as some KZread-videos want to make us believe.

@701983

9 ай бұрын

You might refer to hydrogen production with aluminum and gallium. Most news about this method forgot to mention the energy source: The oxidation of metallic aluminum. Of course, you don't need electricity directly for this kind of hydrogen production. But you need a lot of electricity to produce the aluminum which fuels this prozess. Much more energy than simple water electrolysis would need.

@guruxara7994

4 ай бұрын

@@701983 No one is talking about 100% efficiency; if it reaches 60%, it is already four times more efficient than any petroleum-based fuel.

@701983

4 ай бұрын

@@guruxara7994 Anders01 talked about "if hydrogen can be produced with little energy out of water". This will never happen, electrolysis will always need nearly as much energy as today. Maybe a little less, but not a completely different scale.

Green hydrogen for heavy transport such as shipping is a good idea.

@Astrogator1

9 ай бұрын

Really? Why? This as much of a throw away comment as was much of video.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

lets use Green hydrogen to replace gray hydrogen as a chemical. It will take quite a while until we have enough renewable energy to complete that.

@danielhyman8390

7 ай бұрын

There hardly is any.

With respect to storage and trasport why don't we pay attention to the so called 'solid hydrogen'. Other option for production, why not try making use of Aluminum and Sodium hydroxide which produce Hydrogen. Else find the effectice catalyst for electrolysis to get high efficiency process.

Using all that green electric energy to produce hydrogen gas, and then even more electric energy to compress it seems very inefficient use of electricity. Sure hydrogen will be needed in many areas, but for mass public transport it makes no sense whatsoever.

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

If it´s from the sun or wind in the end is a gain.

@SlayerEddyTV

10 ай бұрын

@@marpintado Anything from the sun or wind is a gain. Like I said though it makes no sense to use all that green electric energy to produce hydrogen gas, and then even more for compression and liquefaction, and then even more to transport it all around on trucks, it just isn't a very efficient use of all that electricity for mass transit, and that is with current battery technology, this will look even more ridiculous when the even higher capacity and faster charging battery technology that is already known about that is coming soon. It is simply a better use of the green electric energy to use it directly instead of converting it. "Each step in the supply chain uses up some of the original energy: desalinating sea water to get fresh water as raw material, electrolysis, liquification for shipping, transport via tanker, local transport via pipeline in Germany and re-conversion of hydrogen into electricity. These steps would eat up at least 70% of the electricity originally produced." BBC Article 'Could hydrogen ease Germany's reliance on Russian gas?' - 22 August 2022 E- car: Energy 100% > Transportation and storage >> Electric battery (high capacity > E-engine: Overall effieciency rate ~70 - 90% Hydrogen car: Energy 100% > Electrolysis > Compression and Liquefaction > Transport and filling > Fuel cell and power generation >> Electric battery (low capacity) > E-engine: Overall effieciency rate ~25 - 35% -------------- Hydrogen carried by a fuel tanker would need to kept at 700 bar in pressure. How many tankers would be needed to fill a fuel station? Typically 1 diesel tanker per day would fill a station. If you want to carry the same amount of energy in hydrogen as 1 diesel tanker, guess how many tankers would be needed to fill a fuel station? Answer: 18

@SlayerEddyTV

10 ай бұрын

For most over things like shipping, steel making, flying, and much more then yes green hydrogen will be very much needed.

@guruxara7994

4 ай бұрын

Petroluem as fuel is highly inefficient, gas internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, the fuel cycle of gasoline has only 5% of efficiency, still we use it globally.

Thanks for visiting us and featuring our HYBRIT project for fossil-free steelmaking in the reportage!

@JohnVieiraact

10 ай бұрын

you guys are top! Grattis!!

절대자는 인간에게 태양과 수소를 주셨으니 오염 없는 세상을 만들어가는 뜻임.

For God's sake: From WHERE do they get the hydrogen?!?! This emperor is for sure completely naked.

@whateverIwasthinkingatthetime

2 ай бұрын

Water. You should know this

Hydrogens potential was the thebtrillionsbof tonnes of fire Ice in n Most continental shelves around the oceans. The preasure atbdepth solidified the hydrogen, giving energy security to many countries that are at danger. Japan, Korea, the USA and even Fabulous New Zealand has several thousand years of reserves of hydrate.

Why not as long as we can control its fundamental characteristics . Long Live Human 🤞🤞🤞

Where/What is the first part of this series??

thank you

Liquid ammonia is likely better as a fuel source.

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

Lets get to Pluto then and get a bunch of it!!!

great documentary to list all names to short as soon as magic R&D budgets will be over

Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon with improved strength and fracture resistance compared to other forms of iron.

Agree!

Converting methane into carbon and hydrogen does not produce CO2 but the electricity one uses for the plasma torch contributes to it. This goes without saying creating and using plasma is thermally inefficient for the high temperatures needed, so I would be pleasantly surprised if the whole end-to-end cycle was not wasting energy in the process. Of course electrolysis also wastes energy in the conversation process, but it is a matter of which one is less wasteful, that is the point which is not clear from the video!

@fsbgaming1588

10 ай бұрын

indeed. the idea was cool and all. i have high hope and its seem like solving problem but as right now it doesnt.

It's like when a gas boiler breaks down at home, except now we are doing aeroplanes.

State advisory is 72 month acclimatisation for one half decade residence or three generations depending on city within panes

Why not carry metal dust like zn etc and whenever hydrogen is required, just react with water. This can later be recycled using renewable energy. I guess efficiency will be higher than electrolysis + cold/pressurised hydrogen.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

I highly doubt your guess

@pritamsinha5479

8 ай бұрын

@@MusikCassette I am not someone from the sector bro... But had learned in high school that the reaction is there. Now, carrying hydrogen requires a lot of energy (cooling + transport). The same is not applicable for zn/Al powder. I really don't know about the efficiency of converting back the oxide to metal VS electrolysis. Well, hope someone figures that out.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

@@pritamsinha5479 the recation is there. But it is a really uneficient way of doing it.

Go Green team!!

There is a case for using hydrogen for the long term storage of energy that would otherwise be wasted. Other than that it is far to inefficient to be practical. Hydrogen is being pushed hard by the fossil fuel energy companies because it is easy to make H2 from hydrocarbons, thats the only reason anyone is still talking about it.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

I think there are better candidates for that (f.e. Na) But in the near future it is not even about storing energy. It is about replacing grey hydrogen for the applications, that we already use it for. At the current speed of transition it will take quite a while until we have enough seasonal overcapacity to replace that hydrogen.

Hydrogen economy has the problem, that only 50% minus electrolytic heatlosses are the real gain. Even powerstoring in batteries has more efficiency, but the H2bosses have blind eyes

Many thanks for visiting our Paris office and for the interview of our CEO Pierre-Etienne Franc about the opportunity to invest into clean hydrogen projects and solutions. We will pursue our mission towards scaling up of the clean hydrogen economy.

@Briand-ei1gs

9 ай бұрын

You are just pursuing grifting money from the government just like all these other green energy scams.

I firmly believe that Green Hydrogen is the best way to decarbonising the globe and the key element to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal

@danielhyman8390

7 ай бұрын

Sure, let's waste ⅔ of our power turning electricity into hydrogen and back again into electricity that you already had in the first place (before you wasted loads thus tripling your costs)

Very very good.

We better hope something works. Get into it.

Really interesting and much better explained than expected, it did need to explain more about the fact that converting elextricity to hydrogen and back into useful energy is about3-6 times less efficient than just using electricity. I agree though that even so it is a very useful part of our future. but why is the presentation so Clive from drop the dead donkey?

Can't be scaled up on a global level,,,, you gotta love physics.

@kapperbeastYT

2 ай бұрын

Why not?

Missed out alot here like Stargate hydrogen cells and University of Tartu decades of research into hydrogen economy.

@danielhyman8390

7 ай бұрын

With still no viable solution s

I have a fabulous idea; let's let the people who are completely clueless as to how anything thing actually works (the politicians and their apparatchiks) design our lives for us.

We need Oxygen generators or the liquid oxygen from electrolysis to use for combustion. The nitrogen must be removed from the combustion process. There will always be problems with inefficient implementation and leakage.

Proton Technologies of Calgary Alberta has developed the cheapest method of producing hydrogen from shut in oil wells and they do not use electricity and it’s slowly being adopted around the world.

Hydrogen's low energy by volume makes it unsuitable for transportation. It takes 16 hydrogen tube trucks to transport the equivalent energy as 1 diesel tanker, how much pollution are you creating with 16 diesel tractors? Much more efficient to move renewable energy over wires and directly into batteries when energy is used. Hydrogen made from renewable energy using electrolysis should be used to make fertilizer and produce steel locally. Conversion to and from electricity is wastefully inefficient, and transporting hydrogen in pipes without leaks is near impossible except under very tight controls like space flight and even then leaks are a problem.

11:06 using hydrogen for transport is very inefficient.

14:50 added benefit of using hydrogen is less Mn will be needed given the sulfur isn’t coming from coke.

I’m curious to know about supply of raw hydrogen & fuels for generation of hydrogen energy… use of Atmospheric hydrogen can lead to drought ma like situations & global warming.. Hot dispel of water would burn all microbes present in soil water & pH level would be affected… I’m curious about production of hydrogen…

Anything green is good.

22:45 it's really that simple. electrification and nuclear are generally more feasible and the better choice, overall, in most cases but when they aren't, alternatives such as hydrogen could be and should be of great use. it is not either or and anyone who says so is presenting a false dichotomy. the energy transition WILL demand the use and implementation of as many different sources of renewables as possible. hydrogen is part of that.

how much cost per cube meter of hydrogen

Absolutely

What percentage of our atmosphere is CO²? Have you seen a chart showing the CO² percentage over the last 400k years?

@craigmdietrich6916

10 ай бұрын

I've compared CO2 percentages from today's Wikipedia and a 1965 encyclopedia: both report 0.04%. No change in over half a century?

The focus on climate change, whilst significant, misses the real point that fossil fuels are finite. There is only 60 years worth of oil and gas and 130 years of coal left at the current rate of extraction and consumption. Without starting the change from fossil fuels now to renewables, then human civilisation as we know it today will collapse.

@Briand-ei1gs

9 ай бұрын

People adapt. We can deal with resource scarcity but we cannot handle the intentional destruction of our energy systems and economies. None of these so called green energies provides a net return. In monetary terms. They will never pay for themselves. That means there are trillions out there in bad debt. Couple that will less and more expensive energy from green energy and you get the biggest economic crash in history

@anxiousearth680

8 ай бұрын

​​@@Briand-ei1gs"In monetary terms" That's the exact mindset that brought us into this mess. The free market is not the be all, end all. The competition it creates is great for innovation. And it does a great job of simulating what people need the most at any given time. But it is still ultimately a simulation. It can be blind to certain aspects of reality. Namely things of collective good. For example, a coal plant's best interests is to run with as little cost as possible. This includes relaxing air quality controls. This is great for the company, as it now can reinvest those profits for more plants. But it can't see that the particulates are 'costing' a fortune in the health and welfare of society as well as draining human capital. That's why we regulate, to correct this blindness. All the green initiatives is part of that blindness correction. Because while fossil fuels are the easier choice today, easy choices will create a difficult life for us tomorrow. They're 'cheap' because environmental damage has no direct monetary cost. And yet, climate change will easily cost us trillions as well if we continue recklessly.

@Briand-ei1gs

8 ай бұрын

@anxiousearth680 haha. Well we have already ran on wind and solar. As little as 200 years ago. If we go back to wind and solar. The lifestyle we can expect is the same one we had back then. I think most people have accepted whatever negatives coal, oil and gas you are claiming. It will be interesting to see how people like you adjust. I don't think most people like you could spend a 12 hour day behind a mule and plow. Almost makes me want to root for it just to see it.

@Briand-ei1gs

8 ай бұрын

@anxiousearth680 blah blah blah. More unreality and terrible reasoning power. Particulate matter causing health. The first thing when a country adopts coal oil or gas as an energy source is massively increased lifespans. Increased access to clean water,hygiene Not being exposed to starvation. It goes on and on.

@grahamcook9289

8 ай бұрын

@@Briand-ei1gs You make a fair point and we must make the most of the remaining fossil fuels over the next 60 years in the most efficient way to enable migration e to fully renewable, otherwise we will go back 200 years with the collapse of human civilisation as we know it today.

Hydrogen paradox is the following: to produce 1kg of H2 you need 6 litres of water of good quality. For scale the Toyota Mirai's 400bar reservoir holds 7kg for a 300mile range. Calculate out all that H2 activity you mentioned how much water m3 will be required? 2022 saw the Rhine, the Mississippi and Yangtze almost running dry. Where will they get the water they need to produce H2 at volume? Ah desalination you say and forget about the the devastating effect of dumping brime in the sea. "Clean H2" needs to be examined on its environmental impact and its energy efficiencies . There is a role although not massive.

@user-nb5sr7by6y

10 ай бұрын

Water treatment plants could be tapped for water. Let's not get overly excited.

@marpintado

10 ай бұрын

Processing hydrogen for energy results in water, in the end a balance could be obtained.

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

@@user-nb5sr7by6y you are serious? Did you read what was written?

@Astrogator1

10 ай бұрын

@@marpintado that assumes a perfect closed cycle, there is no such thing.

@cliffwilliams8616

10 ай бұрын

Muppet: you need 9 litres of water, not 6!

Definitely this is the future, methanol liquid fuel to fuel methanol fuel cell (and then electric motor without battery with way longer range and "rechargable" by refueling liquid methanol in just a minute just like any diesel engine. This is the future, better than "normal hydrogen" because methanol is a liquid fuel directly and easy derived from green hydrogen and way better usable than hydrogen because no need compression pressure storage and or ultra low temperature needed. Methanol liquid room temperature fuel is just a drop replacements in any gas station with little modification and same happens even with combustion engine but obviously fuel cell Ev gives more efficiency .

Need 4k

A bit short sighted...it may be green in the sense that it is low CO2 emitter, but it ain't blue, or are we believing that we do not have a water scarcity problem?

why don't they use electricity directly??????

@samuelo5052

5 ай бұрын

Because then the oil and gas companies can’t pretend to still be relevant. They want hydrogen so they can provide the oil to crack the hydrogen out of since electrolysing water would be stupid

I watch it for a hours💀

To obtain financial freedom, one must either be a business owner, an investor or both, generating passive income, particularly on a weekly and monthly basis. That's the key to living a financially stable life. This trick has never failed. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life and put this basis to work and practice. Jessica Darrell have been a great manager, mentor and guide. Her support and advice has helped shaped my crypto trading career.

@isabellaegger

10 ай бұрын

I get a lot of recommendations for Jessica Darrell from friends. Her strategy must be good for people to testify a lot about her.

@maxineleary1422

10 ай бұрын

For real she's very profitable

@maxineleary1422

10 ай бұрын

Whole life is a joke in every sense, the investment side of a whole life policy gives the poor return and stabilized the rich

@joshuasteinfeld

10 ай бұрын

How does this whole crypto thing works I'm interested in it and willing and ready to invest heavily but I need an assistant to properly guide me through on how to make a good startup and be successful in it without making mistakes

@joshuasteinfeld

10 ай бұрын

​@@maxineleary1422please how do i get in touch with her ??

See that burning hydrogen gas in the video? The circle of flame. That's an eye, the orange flaming circle with the blue background, that's an eye. It's occultism having to do with their eye. The evil eye. Now, I'm the Eye, the real eye. That's the zero, the 0. Round like an eye, they've been trying to net me, get me in their net. That's what netting zero is, but I'm still out here. I'm here to fix the world, like the fixx song, Saved by Zero. 0. The eye. LLXIIX77

Hydrogen takes 3 times as much energy as you get back. SO that's NO for storage and land transport because pumped hydro and batteries work better. But hydrrogen will be useful for synfuels for airlines, and to replace coking coal in metals manufacture that require a reductant, and some green chemistry - and maybe SOMEindustrial heat (but most will be direct electricity and thermal batteries for that.) So NO to hydrogen in cars and trucks and grid storage, but yes the others

The only advantage of H2 is it’s big inner energy, but to realize these gravimetric 39,4 kWh/kg H2 the electric or chemical expense exceeds the revenue. All other is desire-thinking and irreal😂

H2 is horribly inefficient medium in comparison to chemical batteries. And with the rate of advancement in the battery field today I firmly believe that they will surpass H2 on cost and performance by the end of the decade.

@MusikCassette

8 ай бұрын

We don't need H2 as a medium for energy storage, we need it as a chemical. And we can use its production to compensate for seasonal differences in energy production.

@davefroman4700

8 ай бұрын

@@MusikCassette Go back to school. Its not a chemical. Its an element. And its a lot more inefficient and expensive than a chemical battery. You have to generate 3x the amount of electrical power to generate enough H2 to give you an equal amount of energy from a battery. Even Compressed Co2 is a better long term solution.

So they take water, they use lectric to get hyrdogen out, and then they burn the hydrogen to make steel and call the steel green. Did I miss a step? They take energy to get hydrogen, then they BURN the hydrogen, to make steel, and then they call it green. It may be cheaper to make steel this way, but USA plants that use electric heaters are more "green" than this because they don't BURN anything. This whole video makes sense until you ask... just one god damned question about what they do with the hydrogen. They burn the hyrdrogen Why they burn it? because if they turn

@anxiousearth680

8 ай бұрын

As I understand it, it's not so much the energy that is used but the chemical properties. Green steel replaces coal with hydrogen as the reducing agent. I'm not to keen on how the chemistry works though.

I will write my conclusion. To reduce total CO2 emissions, long-distance transportation, especially trucks, should use hydrogen, and gravity power generation should be increased worldwide. I obtained a national electrical qualification in Japan, and solar and wind power generation is currently on the rise in developed countries. However, since power generation using natural energy is unstable, it is necessary to use surplus electricity as effectively as possible in order to stop large-scale thermal power generation. Until now, pumped-storage hydroelectric power generation, which pumps up water, has been the mainstay, but it has the drawback of taking a long time to generate electricity. Gravity power generation, which raises and lowers weights, quickly reaches the power generation speed, so it has the advantage of being able to generate power immediately while watching wind and solar power decrease. My idea is to configure gravity power generation in a single building, and during times when there is surplus solar power generation, weights will be picked up and stocked on a conveyor on the upper floor of the building. This would cover the instability of natural energy power generation, and in the event of a power outage due to a disaster, it would also be possible to transport the weights to the second floor using a forklift. (Power is transmitted only to high-priority facilities such as hospitals) Please see my website for ways to reduce CO2 emissions at home.

23:30 25% of the world's energy supply from hydrogen!? It's not SUPPLY! It's a DEMAND. You need loads of energy to create it. It may be a STORE but there are way more efficient ways to do that.

There is unfortunately a high risk that EU will kill this with its regulation. The UK on the other hand has the potential to become a European Hydrogen powerhouse now that it can have more competitive regulation. Possibly in cooperation with Japan, another large hydrogen player.