Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "the battery died"

Neat solution, as others have said it would be good to see what round trip efficiency and energy density is. However the biggest issue with this video is the misnomer - hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a transfer and storage medium, like batteries. So calling it the energy source of the future is the same as calling batteries the energy source of the future - it doesn’t really make sense. What would make sense is calling it the energy storage medium of the future. Which is then why round trip efficiency matters.

@angellestat2730

Ай бұрын

agree with your comment, I also would like to know the round trip efficiency, but that is not the most important factor. That is a mistake that most youtubers channels who talk about the topic made. Roundtrip efficiency is not the factor that a technology should focus, just overall cost. For example, power generation is cheap... really cheap if we use solar and wind. If you invest X on Solar PV Capex (including inverters and everything), you also need X Capex on batteries to just have enough capacity to store half hour of that power output over the lifetime of these technologies. At X*4 of Capex you can already purchase the same power input/output with hydrogen, with the benefit that increasing hydrogen capacity is almost free, meanwhile each time you want to double battery capacity your Capex doubles. Energy efficiency does not matter, because you can double your Solar and hydrogen Capex (which is cheap) and you already matched battery efficiency. In many cases you dont even waste the 60% efficiency lost from the fuel cell back to electricity, because half of all world emisions come from energy sectors who can not run with wires or batteries anyway. They need energy in chemical form (h2 in this case), as Ships, Airplanes, Steel industry, natural gas grid, etc. All this having into account hydrogen technologies that are not mass produced, with mass production, instead 4 hours of capacity (the line between hydrogen and batteries), that line would go down to 1 or 2 hours. With hydrogen you can not only store hours, you can store weeks and months to deal with season disparities. And we need hydrogen to clean all energy sectors even if we use Nuclear or any other power source, but nuclear is 5 times more expensive than Solar and wind, which hydrogen already solves their intermittency issues.

@blefroy

Ай бұрын

@@angellestat2730 Agree in a world where capex is the only item on the table - but there are other limits to installing wind and solar other than capex, so we want to maximise the resources we have. 100% agree re hard to decarbonise sectors.

@effervescentrelief

Ай бұрын

Hydrogen can be burned and therefore is an energy source. In the context of the video, the bacteria are the energy source of this "battery," the hydrogen or storable form are merely the end product which can then be used as an energy source.

@blefroy

Ай бұрын

I think what I’m hoping to find out is the amount of primary energy that is used to ‘power’ the bacteria (energy needed for respiration) per unit of useful energy in hydrogen that can then be realised.

@blefroy

Ай бұрын

(Typically hydrogen would be referred to as an ‘energy carrier’)

I love this. I've always thought the difficulties bottling/containing Hydrogen would always hold it back as an energy storage technology. This solution gives me hope that the universe's most abundant element, can be the better path forward.

@commieSlayer69

Ай бұрын

The poor end to end energy efficiency is still a roadblock tho... Fuel storage was just one of the issues. Even with this, vehicles will have to carry a bioreactor in addition to a formic acid fuel tank, H2 fuel cell and a buffer battery. I don't see it becoming cost competitive at all... Maybe useful in big trucks or ships but not in small vehicles

I'm doubting about this project. 1) before the bacteria reduce CO2 to HCOOH (direct reaction), then the same bacteria oxidize this compound to CO2 (inverse reaction): which conditions allow this metabolic change? In photosynthetic organisms light presence or absence causes the CO2 reduction in carbohydrates or their oxidation. In these bacteria there isn't any trace of chloroplasts. 2) The reduction needs energy: where does it come from? 3) How do we prevent the destruction of these bacteria by other microorganisms? 4) What's happen if we don't feed them? Wich other nutrients do they need? When they'll multiple (bacteria double population every 20 minutes about), raising overpopulation, what will we do? 5) How many energy does the bioreactor consume and how many energy does the batch produce? (Tell the amount of microorganisms population, please). 6) Which size have the system? 7) For you this transport of hydrogen is safe: you don't tell it's formic acid, the venom present in ants, bees, hornets. So how do you prevent some accident? What's for allergic people? How concentrated is the solution? How is it regulated? I don't see any manometer, or pH-meter, or other apparatus. 8) Also heated acid formic in presence of ammonia transform to ammonium formate, then formamide, and finally in hydrogen cyanide: another problem during a fire.

@DaineRic299

Ай бұрын

If i may throw my 2 cents into the ring, 1) It would be a matter of concentrations or temperatures, much like how plants release CO2 at night when photosynthesis can't take place, if the conditions are right then it would be possible that the inverse process could take place. Assuming that there would need to be a metabolic change is not considering that these bacterium already have that 2 way metabolism. 2) The bacterium cannot be treated like a chemical reaction. In classic chemistry there would need to be a reduction but in this case, the bacterium are living things which means that they feed on it and are not just performing a simple chemical reaction. 3) Hermetic Sealing and Teflon Coatings as a start, but we are very good at making very pure things and making sure there is no contaminates would be a trivial process. 4) They explained this in the video, they require a certain temperature to grow and as such, if we don''t feed them then they just lay dormant, if we for example lower the temperatures of the containers, they will survive without food in somewhat of "hibernative" state. 5) Bioreactors don't consume energy, nor directly produce in this case. They leverage organic processes to convert one thing to another. A good example is an alcohol still, that is to say the fermentation process. You give it food, and let it do it's thing, as simple as that. In this situation, they are only using them to convert gaseous hydrogen (H2) into formic acid for the transportation and storage of those hydrogen molecules for a retrieval at a late time. The only energy i could potentially see it needing to consume is the heating of the bioreator to increase colony counts. (You could probably find papers from the university on this bacterium) 6) Scalable, more bacteria = more capacity 7) It is far safer than the high-pressure, inflammable gaseous hydrogen that was used on the space shuttle... As long as you're not drinking or injecting it into your body, i think you will be fine... Last time i check, a sting from a bee was not nearly as bad as a massive firey explosion. Preventing an accident is the same as transporting any chemical... You take precautions and avoid doing stupid things... People are not allergic to the formic acid in those stings, they are allergic to Phospholipase A2 and mellitin in bee stings and antigen 5 in wasp stings (Something i could find out in 1 minute of googling)... Go google the Hazard Diamond for Formic Acid, we know what it is and how to handle it, ISO, FDA and NFPA all have guidelines on handling chemicals in a safe manor. The regular person is not going to be buying bulk quantitys of formic acid, this is more for industrial or commercial purposes. 8)"in the presence of ammonia" so then just don't expose it to ammonia, i don't know places where you just randomly find ammonia, because i think the people transporting it are a little more careful that the regular person. Again, "in a fire", i would much rather not have a massive firey explosion from gaseous hydrogen. This is a 3 step chemical reaction which firstly requires the correct conditions for each step, but you have also neglected to factor in that in a fire, all of those chemicals are evaporated and either taken away or decomposed. Hydrogen Cyanide decomposes at around 100 degree C meaning that if there were a fire it would instantly be decomposed... I understand the concerns but they are not founded in actual science, the Dr. PhD responsible for this has a PhD for a reason, and Festo is a leading company that specialises in bio-mimicry and symbiosis, i think they know better.

@phantomzone2571

Ай бұрын

Your number 2 answer is wrong: bacteria are based on chemical reactions and they are under thermodynamic laws. If they need perform an enzyme they must have their chemical energy storage. Do they feed glucose? They consume that bound chemical energy.

@phantomzone2571

Ай бұрын

Your 5th answer is wrong: bioreactor consume energy, because it need constant temperature, filter the suspension to separate bacteria from formic acid solution, servos to pump the solution in a container, and perhaps an UV system to avoid contamination of the batch. So also I replicate to another your sentences.

@phantomzone2571

Ай бұрын

Your 6th answer is so ... childish. Do you build a bioreactor of every size and shape? I think you have a precise standard of models.

@DaineRic299

Ай бұрын

@@phantomzone2571 Its not wrong, you're misinformed, They anaerobic, meaning that they don't need/use enzyme reactions or Glucose, they feed on other compounds, in this case its hydrogen and formic acid. The chemical energy comes from the chemical potential energy in the hydrogen and formic acid. Yes, i agree that bacteria are based on chemical reactions but they cannot be considered just a chemical reaction as again they are living organism... Everything is under thermodynamic law, they can do conversions like that whilst following thermo-dynamic laws. Have look at a chemical clock. On a fundamental level, it is the same type of reaction.

I love the look of that demo machine. Sick choice of design.

@JinKee

Ай бұрын

The design feels it's a little "pick me"-ass battery. I like my power sources to be efficient, not covered in unnecessary gamer RGB lighting. if there is a blue glow anywhere it had better be unavoidable Cherenkov radiation.

@AIC_onyt

Ай бұрын

@@JinKee i love reactor glow.. A Nuclear bed side light would be nice xD

Festo been popping off lately

@felixthefoxMEXICO

Ай бұрын

Must be cocaine

@AIC_onyt

Ай бұрын

@@felixthefoxMEXICOmaybe they smoked the stuff Nissan engineers used in the 90s :P

I love Festo! Always so innovative.. But saying that current h2 storage technology is "super bad" and the one they created is great without quoting any number or data, It is quite the ad cliche that I was not expecting from them. Current hydrogen electrochemical compression or using metal hibrides are a good solution for small case applications if someone start to mass produce them. It is hard to achieve a good product if nobody goes serious with production. Stop talking bad about other technologies unless you are determined to travel that last mile that any technology needs to become cost efficient.

cooles Projekt - wie kommt man auf diese Bakterien?

okay welcher Wirkungsgrad? also von eingespeißter kWh auf der linken Seite zu verbrauchter kWh auf der rechten Seite?

@Bart_LP

Ай бұрын

Interessiert mich auch :)

sounds nice, whats the energy density of the acid?

@BFP8447

Ай бұрын

Less dense than the hydrogen

@felixthefoxMEXICO

Ай бұрын

​@@BFP8447 😂

@felixthefoxMEXICO

Ай бұрын

Acid = (constantly producing hydrogen)😅

Beautiful video made not for the general public, but to make investors happier and raise market value. Nice PR stunt.

The voice not matching the mouths movement literally caused me a headache lol

@effervescentrelief

Ай бұрын

They're speaking another language.

@maxbas2018

Ай бұрын

@@effervescentrelief I know, they speak german. I went to see the original version afterwards (as german is my native language anyways)

Fantastic!

This is why destroying environments is insane ... the very key to technological break throughs are right there in front of us.

Gibt es von dem Team der Uni Frankfurt eine Studie oder ähnliches mit wirkungsgraden und tiefergehenden Informationen zu dem Thema? Auf die schnelle konnte ich nichts dazu finden. Es klingt auf jeden fall sehr spannend und ich würde mich über ein etwas tiefergehendes Video freuen, um diesen Ansatz überhaupt einordnen zu können. Das ist auch ein genereller Kritikpunkt meinerseits an diesen Videos. Ihr greift immer wieder so spannende Konzepte auf, aber dann gibt es ein kurzes Video mit ein paar coolen schnell zusammengeschnittenen Videosequenzen, mit wenigen Zahlen. Als jemand den diese Dinge wirklich interessieren, würde ich mir tiefere Einblicke wünschen, da braucht es auch keinen großen Aufwand. Ich finde es nur schade, da ich diese Videos sehe, aber danach nicht sagen kann ob es nur „marketing“ durch schein-innovation ist oder wirklich so funktioniert. Wenn ihr wirklich die Innovation treibt nach der es aussieht, dann sollte dem ja eigentlich nichts im Wege stehen auch etwas mehr davon zu zeigen ;)

like this is cool and all, and could probably be used in industry or chemistry to make hydrogen on sight rather than needing to store and transport it in a gas but like, by the time humanity has set up hydrogen reactors that can use this in what like 15-20 years (new tech takes a while) we will be most of the way to a mostly classically renewables based power grid, or the more pressing issue would be the multiple extinction level weather events a year, and not power generation. The issue for solar and wind could be in cold environments but you have an issue with this freezing and lowering production as well, is there even a viable gap in the market for this, for anything other than maybe formic acid production for use as formic acid?

Yes but where does the CO2 go after it is separated?

@user-zl8jd1rf4g

Ай бұрын

It's used it step 1, so my assumption is that its stored and used again in step 1.

@beertje6394

Ай бұрын

The atmosphere but it uses CO2 so its carbon neutral

Interesting idea, but calling it efficient or economically viable (which is implied in the video) is a stretch at best, especially if you were to scale this up. It cant be efficient (both in therms of energy and space) to concentrate this liquid which is essential for long term storage since you cant store a 1 percent mixture of that stuff (unless if it's ok in a usecase to store 1kg of hydrogen in more than one ton of a dilutedd acid. Even if that limit is overcome, there are many maore. Anything power demanding cant use this form of storage (as it is now) because the reactorsize to achieve a high enough throughput compared to conventional methods is gigantic. So saying it doesnt need to be gentically modified to increase throughput and efficiency is more wishful thinking. Besides what would gentic engineering help? i dont think it could fix the fundamental efficiency problems of this process. Bacteria need energy to live and replicate. that energy must come from hydrogen, meaning the "catalyst" isnt really a catalyst either. It consumes (potentially) a major part of the hydrogen compared to other inorganically catalyzed processes. If the underlying biological process has a higher efficiceny than current formic acid pathways it might be viable to look into that, in order to find a more scalable solution, that isnt limited by biological restrictions and can operate at much higher throughputs and small space and low catalytic needs (heat required, materials, resistent to most environments and has few catalytic toxins).

I don't feel this like a legitimate thing. Seems like theranos company

Oh no.. my battery has die.. -You mean it has no charge? No.. I mean all the bacteria has die due a virus 😅

biopiracy at its best

Bacteria. What could _possibly_ go wrong ? 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

rhis channel is a scam

@da6640

Ай бұрын

starting with electrolysis means there's no way you're getting energy out of the system. getting hydrogen is the hard part. and also the step converting to formic acid and back is pointless

@DeaBroggn

Ай бұрын

​@@da6640 As they said multiple times in the video, this is for safe storage and transportation of hydrogen, not for generating it. Can't see anything scammy here. I would be interested in the actual efficiency numbers of this process though.

@phantomzone2571

Ай бұрын

​​@@DeaBroggnThe same bacteria generate formic acid and then they destroy it by inverse reaction. Which conditions allow this or that reaction? In other words how do the bacteria get their chemical energy to reduce CO2 to HCOOH or to oxide HCOOH to CO2? About ten years ago a methanol based battery was invented. So methanol is another way to storage hydrogen. Also every alcohols and every acids are able too. So I don't see any improvement in this way. What is the acid concentration in that flask? Perhaps 10%. I can go in a store and I get a 1 litre bottle of 80% formic acid.

FREE energy from the fusion reactor that shows up everyday (the sun). Solar panels and batteries. No explosive problems. FREE. Your robotics are amazing, but this is a bad idea for practical applications.

Good effort. I don't like it.