The word "promising" means to me that there is a maze of issues that have to be resolved before a new technology can be exciting.

@johnbest5817

Жыл бұрын

Interesting handle, the programming language?

@tinkerstrade3553

Жыл бұрын

That is a word they are comfortable with because they're still in the raising money stage and making a lot of promises.

@dakralter4957

Жыл бұрын

We will never hear of this again

@choongta

Жыл бұрын

This sort of news is a dime a dozen. Even Wall Street doesn't care for.

@kingmasterlord

Жыл бұрын

no it means that the oil industry knows about it and is delaying it.

This technology isn't here to solve cost per km, it's here to solve practicality, and does it pretty well. The cartridge and reactor will probably be a single unit, seamlessly delivering hydrogen gas at the output, like a removable gas tank. The disadvantage is that the paste leaves a residue at the end, which will demand a very strict recycling chain to avoid the element being slowly lost to the environment.

@thecrapadventuresofchesimo420

Жыл бұрын

I seem to remember that there was once a proposal to swap batteries out of cars with fully charged ones. That didn't happen. I could see pumping the paste before swapping out cartridges. Of course then, the residue becomes a major issue.

@robertchanrussell2010

Жыл бұрын

@@thecrapadventuresofchesimo420 If we know what the residue is composed of we might be able to find an opportunity for it to become component. They used to dump acid from digesters at pulp and paper plants into the rivers, now they have a product that uses it.

@techobservations8238

Жыл бұрын

@@robertchanrussell2010 actually it uses a PEM Fuel cell so you still get water and that water is fed back into the tank to mix with the MgH2 the MgH2 and H2O react to generate the H2 and MgO (Magnesium Oxide) the Magnesium is just a carrier so it would be returned to the manufacturing process to turn back into the goo ... presumably the rest of the ingredients are similarly recoverable

@WeylandLabs

Жыл бұрын

Very well put - recycling is the key ...

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

if it isn't economically advantageous? IT'S WORTHLESS. tesla 4680 packs- for the win.

It's deceptive to say hydrogen is the perfect power source, since it powers the stars. What powers the star is fusion, not a chemical reaction - a vast difference. I agree. This seems more practical for air planes and ships.

@Hellsong89

Жыл бұрын

And from where those planes and ships get their energy from? Not from hydrogen since you need to put energy to it to get it separate and its the burning it that turns it back to water. Too bad efficiency of this is so shit that it does not work as battery option.... and now i'm waiting few months to some other scam company to push out hydrogen battery to gain government/our money that they make disappear...

@CynHicks

Жыл бұрын

Hydrogen is the fuel; fusion is a reaction. We say gasoline powered cars and electric powered cars; everyone understands what that means without being reminded of the reactions involved.

@CynHicks

Жыл бұрын

Also the statement doesn't imply any particular technology. It only speaks to hydrogen as a "power source." Furthermore, the statement itself can't be considered a truth anyway. A "perfect power source (fuel)" is entirely subjective to its application. Fueling the stars doesn't make it perfect, in other words. So, the real point is that this entire discussion is pointless. 🤣

@akulkis

Жыл бұрын

While there might be SOME fusion in stars, they are powered by electric currents, and the majority of the light is produced in a way similar to that of a florescent light bulb.

@JosePineda-cy6om

Жыл бұрын

Wrong. The energy produced by fusion propagates via convection currents to the outermost layers of the star, which radiate because of black body

Power Paste reminds me a lot of the "Hydrilite" solution being commercialized by Carbon280. It's a slurry based on magnesium Hydride as well. From what I understand they're persuing it as a shippable grid-scale energy storage solution.

@Iquey

Жыл бұрын

Magnesium burns with a very bright white flame. I hope they get it into a stable substrate so the results are not too explosive but a controlled combustion or energy output.

@flaviopalmiro

Жыл бұрын

It seems that Hydrilite is made from calcium hydride. It looks like an oil, calcium hydride is a powder. I don´t know what are the drawbacks of using calcium hydride as powder, maybe it would be cheaper.

To me, total lifecycle costs should be taken into account. There are so many EPA Superfund sites, former power plant sites, oil rigs, etc., that for decades have just been abandoned by the companies once they are no longer profitable, leaving behind huge toxic waste to leach into the environment. If the companies were absolutely required to completely remediate, that would've been enormous. I remember a radio interview back in the mid-2000's when gas prices spiked high to like $4-5.00/gal (sound familiar?) and the specialist was saying at the time that if gas was priced appropriately, taking into account environmental and health impacts, it should cost 4-5 times that amount...

@crforfreedom7407

Жыл бұрын

EVs are only viable by the consumption of coal or natural gas as the charging source of the EV. That REAL FACTOR was not calculated into the figures presented.

@kentaltobelli1840

Жыл бұрын

@@crforfreedom7407 for now yes, but in the long run higher demand for electricity shifts the economics to fund efficient grid-scale energy projects... Instead of being slaves to OPEC+

@crforfreedom7407

Жыл бұрын

@@kentaltobelli1840 Yes. "SLAVES" is the operative word here. The entire point to creating an "Electric Monopoly" (which is all 'Climate/Green' politics amounts to) is to make control far easier than were there multiple energy sources to control. Should someone act in a way government disproves of, it's far easier to cut off one power source and deny access to EVERYTHING in society than to have to include the control of gas and oil in the mix. That's why there have been "0" discussions about the use of coal or N. Gas for power stations. In truth, they're very clean. Where's the talk of making them 'renewable'? It doesn't exist. Not for government. It's not important when you know the REAL reason for creating a monopoly: CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF ALL ENERGY.

@dama3979

Жыл бұрын

Yes and then not only will travel only be for the rich but cities will become more dense and depend on the government to provide everything, sound familiar? 🇰🇵 what’s the environmental impact then

@richardmenz3257

Жыл бұрын

@@crforfreedom7407 don’t forget that power plants pollution management is better then the average car. Also once all power can be clean if all cars are electric then it be easier to move over vs having the ability but having to wait 2 generation of car cycles to catch up.

We wouldn't need as much efficient energy if we didn't have powered compost bins.

@FalkonNightsdale

Жыл бұрын

It's not even a compost bin… It's just a crusher/dryer combo… Well-known scam…

I think a hybrid system of having Power Paste and batteries would probably be the most sensible option for now. Use the Power Paste for long distance drives, and batteries for everyday commutes. That way, you lessen the battery weight. Though, a lot of this depends on how heavy and voluminous the hydrogen/paste system is overall. And you'd might have to have a hybrid system of say front wheels being powered by batteries and back wheels by Power Paste, which would have its down sides--particularly for winter driving (though I would argue that most long distance drives are in non winter season, all in all).

The biggest question I have is what does the exhaust look like with this power paste? Does the hydrogen get released from the paste and leave the Mg metal behind entirely pure or will it recombine with other elements and end up being exhausted in some gaseous form? How toxic would those gasses be? If Mg metal is left behind, or some other Mg compounds, how useful would it be to recycle it? Recycling sounds great but often is actually less efficient and environmentally friendly than sourcing raw materials.

@abramburel11

Жыл бұрын

You forgot about the it reacts with water... how much water do we have to carry for a full tank of paste?

@roccov3614

Жыл бұрын

@@abramburel11 That's a good point. I wonder what difference that would make to the numbers.

@Warp10x

Жыл бұрын

Probably magnesium hydroxide, more dead weight.

So well explained,,, great video as always👍

I like the fact that many different types of storage and sources are being investigated. Many opportunities for a breakthrough

I say just keep working at it. I remember about 12 years ago at an electric car club meeting we had an engineer from a major battery company speak. He said the problem that may never be solved is getting batteries to stop run away charges and fires with the higher end batteries. Well, we have that pretty much under control today. Keep working on the hydrogen. I believe it will improve just like the batteries even though an engineer said it would not happen.

@Jefferson-ly5qe

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I hear people say sometimes that battery tech is 'always 5 years away'. Some technologies have been overhyped, but the reality is that batteries have come a long way

Another excellent & informative video with great visuals and easy to understand comparisons.

Hydrogen here on earth is not really a "source" of energy. We have to "make" it - so it is an energy *storage* system. This "power paste" requires water and a fuel cell (it sounds like from your description). Fuel cells are often very expensive, and they don't last all that long. Water may need to be (very?) clean, and it may need to be stored in the vehicle.

@magnuspym

Жыл бұрын

Hydrogen is NOT an "energy source"! It is an "energy carrier". You pump electricity into it(separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecule); then recombine the two in a fuel cell and the electricity you put in drops back out (with a "conversion" loss)!

@earlpottinger671

Жыл бұрын

@666J6R6M6666 Volts is not power, volts times amps is power.

@sneakdebeef4796

Жыл бұрын

and batteries arent expensive? lmao

@rogerfroud300

Жыл бұрын

@666J6R6M6666 - but what is the power? That's all that matters. Ultimately, there's no more efficient way to use Electricity in vehicles than by storing it in batteries. Any other process in between, whether that's Electrolysis or a Fuel Cell, just wastes energy that would be otherwise available in a BEV

@sschmachtel8963

Жыл бұрын

@666J6R6M6666 If you assume 100% effiency that is. But as you might know this is never reached, not even close, unfortunately. The voltage that you cite is the so called reversible potential, where for any electrochemical reaction you have to take into account ohmic losses and overpotentials. At realistically fast rates the voltage of that will be more like 1.5V

My take is, for now, EVs will run more cheaply on batteries. But long haul trucks, planes, and ships might benefit from this technology. My worry with the goop is that little was said of the environmental consequences of its use. What happens to the residue? Can it be recycled? There are lots of questions. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that research into the uses of hydrogen continues.

@kylenolan2710

Жыл бұрын

From the description of its chemical makeup, I feel fairly confident that it could be recycled rather easily. That doesn't mean that it's benign. I don't know what a spill might do.

@FalkonNightsdale

Жыл бұрын

That goo has half the chemical energy as gasoline and ~92% is metal, which after being used, probably being in a form of a fine powder, would have to be stored somewhere. So instead of, let's say 53 litres (~41kg) of gasoline, you'll tank 127 litres of goo (200kg) and eventually, you have to dump ~184kg of powder magnesium. In both cases, chemical energy is 510 kWh.

@kylenolan2710

Жыл бұрын

@@FalkonNightsdale, that energy density is far superior to batteries. Where did you get the idea that it changes state when releasing H2? It seems to me that your objections are based on unwarranted assumptions.

@ferfromla

Жыл бұрын

@@kylenolan2710 As long as it can be recycled, there are a few issues. It sounds like a good idea if it can be produced cost-effectively and without causing environmental problems. We don't need another pollutant we have to worry about.

@ferfromla

Жыл бұрын

@@FalkonNightsdale OK, but is the residue hazardous ?

There is actually a solution that uses both gasoline and Hydrogen/Oxy. However it is only usable by older carbureted vehicles. Simply add in a device ( they can be built out of simple, fairly inexpensive materials) Assemble, run a charge through it using your alternator and run the discharge hose into the top of your carb. Of course you will need to completely reconfigure the carb to run on the extra burnable material (the hydrogen) and the extra Oxy helps the fuel burn as completely as possible. I know it can be done because I've been using it for over 2 decades. Mileage went from 35 mpg on the freeway to a bit over 42, power about the same, exhaust almost too clean to test when I took my old beater into a testing facility almost a year after installing it, just to see why there wasn't any exhaust smell in the garage if it had been running for more than a few minutes. Bear in mind that this is a 1974 car. No catalytic converter, no 02 sensor or anything else. Won't work on fuel injection because you would have to have computer adjustable injectors and you would have to reconfigure the computers from the ground up to actually run clean enough that Catalytic converters would no longer be necessary to burn the massive unburnt gas coming out of the engine. Five years later, I broke a timing belt and had to pull the head to check the valves and the tops of the pistons to make sure there wasn't any damage before replacing the belt and starting the car again. The tops of the pistons looked almost new, the valves didn't look like they had been run more than a thousand miles tops. No carbon build up, anywhere. NICE. Why can't this be the next phase instead of all the toxic chemicals to make lithium batteries, or the danger of working with either compressed or liquid H2? Turn on the car, wait 15 seconds for the hydrogen and oxy to build up a bit so it will start faster, and start the car! Cleaner overall than the EV's when it comes to a carbon footprint and as far as them supposedly removing us from any fossil fuels, well that was a FOOL'S statement. They still require grease and other lubricants for the wheel bearings, steering points and other places, Same with Windmills, TONS of coal to make the steel for just one tower, hundreds of gallons to oil to keep the motor lubed and cool, and of course, LOTS of grease to lube the bearings and so forth. We need oil for plastics, especially in the medical field.

if you start considering materials like this power paste, then you also should consider other liquid fuels that aren't fossil fuels, like biomethanol (in a methanol fuel cell), liquified syngas from a composting facility or pyrolysis plant, and fully liquid batteries.

@jimj2683

Жыл бұрын

Or zip fuels for the ultimate in energy density

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

in reality- h2 IS fossil fuel- because 96% of ALL h2 is made from natural gas. all the other fuels you just mentioned are a FAR better choice- because during their formation- they CONSUME co2 & in doing so, produce clean, breathable oxygen.

Makes sense for small planes, trucks and ships. Every joule of energy we make on planet earth turns into heat, heat that can’t escape due to the green house effect, so if we need to use 4 times as much energy for some paste, hydrogen or power to x, it not only cost more, it also heats the planet much more.

@MrMichiel1983

Жыл бұрын

Except that the heat we produce with machine pales in comparison to solar input. During the night heat can escape, as does our marginal contribution. The greenhouse effect traps heat, but mostly solar heat. If the production process is clean, the impact is negligible.

@FalkonNightsdale

Жыл бұрын

For aviation it's useless - 200 kg (127 L) of the MgH goo contains same energy as 43kg (53 L) of Jet A1 fuel…

@HansMilling

Жыл бұрын

@@FalkonNightsdale Already today we have battery powered planes, so if those can have a longer flight time or carry more weight for the same distance due to the energy density of the paste is higher than a battery, it will be beneficial. But still if it will be more expensive to use than fuel, it will not make it to planes either.

@tombh74

Жыл бұрын

@@FalkonNightsdale It isn't only about energy density of the fuel/battery but also how efficient the engine uses that energy to produce thrust. Still I think there are many many challenges to overcome before it can replace Jet-fuel.

@FalkonNightsdale

Жыл бұрын

@@HansMilling Boeing 747-300 burns around 14,5 tons of jet fuel per hour of flight (910 km/h). When it burns it, it gets all that lighter… This equals 67,4 tons of grey goo, which will mostly remain to be burden for whole trip. It weight about 174 ton and maximum weight is about 350 ton. So, if you reserve 150 ton for 1500 passengers, you are left with ~30 ton for grey goo, or about 30 min/400 km range…

Ricky, thanks for another thought provoking video. Keep them coming!

Excellent program. Keep up the good work.

Thank you for keeping us updated this is very interesting very promising keep us in the loop God bless have a great day

In australia we do a lot of outback road trips and often we have to have fuel drops through the desert tracks (Deisel only) as it can be 1200 - 1500 km between stations, so to be able to carry a spare canister of goop, makes this a possible solution, mind you for a family like us this will only be the case for a dozen times in our life. We do have many many roads with 400-600km between stations, and they have very minimal electricity, but they do have deisel. we have a lot of outback.

@pazznecht

Жыл бұрын

Shoul be pretty easy to bulid solar canope with batteries and EV charging every 200 miles or so.

@lindseyhatfield9017

Жыл бұрын

@@pazznecht yes, that would be ideal but that would have to be funded by the Government and even the Telstra repeater stations regularly get their solar panels stripped off them. There will be a way I am sure, it would be nice to see long sections of the highways with Solar panel sun shelters with charge points and bins so campers can stop charge and have lunch etc.

@notsanctioned8590

5 ай бұрын

@@pazznecht how about using the small reactors they keep talking about putting on every corner?

All your stuff is “so well put together”, excellent channel imo!

@amit4Bihar

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure that crony capitalists will try to kill this innovation as well. Praying to G-d this finally gets success.. Oil is killing societies, lives and our planet

Extremely interesting... I will be following this.. thanks for the video. 👍

@rogerstarkey5390

Жыл бұрын

It's below 30% efficient.

Very interesting. It's the first time I hear about this. Thanks for the video!

This looks viable for electric planes or closed loop hgv/ public transport. For consumer use EVs win, the ability to charge from renewables is a gamechanger.

@stcredzero

Жыл бұрын

I agree with the electric planes idea. This looks like lazing a stick of dynamite for electric planes. 10x the energy density, and electric planes could reach regional jet ranges.

I love your analyses and alternatives! Technology continues to improve! Go go gadget! 😁

@TwoBitDaVinci

Жыл бұрын

🙏

Great video! Much appreciated! Ty!

I can see this being hyper useful if it extends traveling range that far. 100% seeing it used in both shipping and air travel cause it extends the range almost three fold which means if implemented right nonstop from LA to Sydney could finally become a thing. I just don't see cars using it, maybe long haul trucking or trains but it's a bit impractical for Daily driver cars. it might even be really good for emergency back up energy storage systems, but unless there's like just add water to refuel the cartridge I see no practicality in a basic car setup. And on the front of researching other fuel alternatives it very important cause batteries and wind and solar are nice but until we can make capacitive Batteries reliability in these technology will always be spotty. So having something that is plug and play and power as you need it it should be welcomed as long as the price is right.

@retireorbust

Жыл бұрын

Possibly for aircraft would be a much better fuel than current aviation fuel. The best end for aviation though is structural battery...fuel that adds no weight to aircraft.

@patrickkelly6691

Жыл бұрын

It could become as simple as exchanging BBQ Gas Bottles, drive into a service station, switch your empty for a full one and just pay for the gas. The empties are picked up and taken back to be refuelled. This also ensure safety checks on a regular basis. So if these cartridges can be easily swapped out (assuming vehicles designed to be capable of using them, so removal and replacement can be efficiently designed in), then fuel stops would take about as much time as filling up at the pump and far less time than an EV does. The major issues of Lithium Batteries in regard to weight, recharge availability and wait time, non-recyclability, plus of course their increasingly obvious safety hazards would all be eliminated. All of which means this very hopeful looking development will probably disappear without trace

@Dallen9

Жыл бұрын

@@patrickkelly6691 he mentions size equivalents in the video. and if you think about the size ratio it's just impractical outside of like like shipping and aviation. Practicality is important when thinking about this stuff. granted if you think of the hot swapping battery system they were thinking with tesla and you include like a full service car check up like in the early post war and early cold war era coming back then maybe regular people may go for it. Hell I could see various racing leagues going for it cause then it's all purely tire changing or complete elimination of having a pit crew. it'll just depend if anyone adopts it or not. and it'd only be a stop gap measure till either energy storage can out do it or better sources are implemented. Hell maybe a power generation company will pick it up and use it for a back supply or general power production method. just depends on how manufacturing can stream line the technology.

@patrickkelly6691

Жыл бұрын

@@Dallen9 At 5:45-50 it talks about doing pretty much exactly what I stated. It also gives the weight as 79 pounds and giving it a range of 3,000 KM , far less than an EV Battery which only gives a range of 483 km and a weight of 1,056 Pounds - so I doubt the size & weight of the proposed cartridge is a problem even for small vehicles. Any issues around sealing the 'expended' Cartridge, could also be easily managed in that case.

@Dallen9

Жыл бұрын

@@patrickkelly6691 Volume matters. it may be ~80lbs. but it's the same size as the lithium battery. it's not like swapping a Alkaline D battery for a Lithium Ion AA it's a Alkaline being swapped for a Lithium ion equivalent. Same size but longer running time. Would be a pain in the ass. and now your making me realize that it'd just be a humongous pain to implement and wouldn't be worth it outside of maybe emergency power solutions.

Very interesting. I think you're spot on with the fist uses being Ships, Airplanes and Homes. One thing you might want to look/compare at is power past vs solar for homes. Especially recharging EV's.

I really like that you're keeping an open mind about it. Fair reporting all around. I hope they answer all your questions in time. I'd love to see a follow-up.

@Haliotro

Жыл бұрын

Mind so open that brain falls out, yea

@jaytate491

Жыл бұрын

He's obviously biased toward evs. He also makes a lot of assumptions such as the majority of people have solar panels to charge at home with. This is not based in fact, just based in his narrow view.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

@@jaytate491 Look around.

Great video, well done! What I don't understand is that we fail to capture waste energy, and in many cases, doing so is in violation of governmental regulation. For example, when we used to have steel mills in the U.S., the tremendous amount of heat that was escaping furnaces and cooling end-product simply had to dissipate into our atmosphere. But we could have used sterling engines or Peltier devices to recapture that heat and convert it back to electricity. Such opportunities exist everywhere. think of grey water coming down from a 100 story building. A 100 story column of water has tremendous pressure, yet, we don't run it through a Tesla turbine to recapture energy that was used to pump it up the 100 stories. If we repeatedly re-captured waste energy, think of how much more efficiency we would have in our entire energy infrastructure? I would assume at least a 100% increase in efficiency. And think about tall building wobble from wind. Do you know how much energy that building displaces when it wobbles? OMG! 100s of millions of tons of building moving back and forth. We could use electromagnetism to buffer the wobble and capture terra watts of energy.

@charlesgrove6905

Жыл бұрын

Typically from my experience, building owners and subsequently facility management want as few layers of maintenance, sources of work orders as possible. And with over 50% of energy consumption in a building being just heating/cooling air/water, the margin on energy savings/recovered is much easier to realize in those mediums versus a dedicated turbine that would likely take up far too much space in the central plant. Cost far more per KW/hr produced than they can just purchase from the grid, and the pumps would just have to increase the head lost from the turbine. Sure it makes more sense in industrial formats, where the scale of pressures and flows are greater, but the energy COP is just not significant enough in any one building/tower to realize an ROI in short enough terms to create demand.

Reading up a bit there are a few points to consider: - seems to require a hydrogen fuel cell for the final step in extracting electricity (so that weight & initial cost needs considering) - apparently requires "water from an onboard tank" to react with/extract hydrogen from the paste for the fuel cell, so that’s possible more weight ? - half of the hydrogen produced actually comes from the water, which they claim is part of the reason for the height energy density, so it’s not clear whether the weight/space for the water is included in their energy density claims - I’m not sure what the final chemical products are after all the reactions, but it seems likely water is an output from the fuel cell, so there could either be an onboard closed-loop water system, with 50% (given half the hydrogen comes from the paste) water vapour emissions or all water is emitted - that means weight reduction during usage. Not sure if that was accounted for in the calculation in the video - one article states that "The Fraunhofer scientists even say that the driver should achieve a similar range with the power paste extrapolated to a car as they would with the same amount of petrol, if not greater" Interesting stuff though. Sources: Popular mechanics - The Fate of Clean Hydrogen Rests in This Goop Electricdrive - Fraunhofer develops ‘power paste’ that holds hydrogen Slashgear - A New And Safer Way Of Storing Hydrogen Called POWERPASTE Has Been Developed Hackaday - THE FUTURE OF HYDROGEN POWER… IS PASTE?

Power paste sounds amazing! Re-fuel only every 1600km, that's perfect.

@TacDyne

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, for only 86,000 dollars...

@theairstig9164

Жыл бұрын

@@TacDyne plus taxes

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

@@TacDyne I'll do it for $43,000. Watch you tube video of methane car exploding when being refueled.

@danmallery9142

Жыл бұрын

@Marcus Carl This was only shown for comparison purposes. More than likely, they would never put that much fuel into a vehicle. Average range for a gas car is about 350-450 miles. There really is no reason to have a vehicle with more range than that as long as the infrastructure and ease/speed of refueling is in place. The advantage would be making a lighter vehicle, using less internal volume to store fuel. not to mention the vehicle structural weight savings.

@Marcus-kz7rw

Жыл бұрын

@@danmallery9142 you have great points. 👍

at ~6:30min into your video you cover the range difference by weight but there is a missing factor of the equipment needed to exchange the paste into actual electricity. Is this a 100lb device or a 1000lb device? What is the longevity of the device that does this conversion? Is there any waste product produced in the conversion process? Are there other consumable materials required for this device? How is the source of Hydrogen collected to be processed into the paste? If the source is the same as Hydrogen gas does it not still have all of the other issues surrounding just using Hydrogen? I think Hydrogen is a great source providing grid storage when supply is higher than demand (excess electricity) as it can (potentially) be produced and then used at the same site without transportation.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

Just dreaming.

@RichieWellock

Жыл бұрын

Yep certainly factor if that device is heavy , probably dont know the answer to that but will be intresting to see how this 1 develops and if it ever get accepted in mass

@Edwardjonez

Жыл бұрын

I believe most of this is hypothetical and there is no active actual practicality involved in it right now, and I would say close to zero infrastructure exists to support this.

@techobservations8238

Жыл бұрын

the MgH2 is mixed with H2O (water) to release the Hydrogen (H2) - leaving MgO Magnesium Oxide -> the Hydrogen(gas) is fed into a PEM or other Fuel Cell that makes electricity and water... the water is returned to the take to provide more water for the process to continue The resultant MgO can be collected and returned to the manufacturing process. the Magnesium hydride is just a way to store and transport Hydrogen more easily. There are several metal hydrides that can be used in a similar way.

@VinoVeritas_

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha, this KZread channel is click bait. Don't expect anything tangible.

I am impressed, both with this Hydrogen Power Paste and the video by Two Bit da vinci. Dude your 4 bits in my book any day.

Interesting. From what you report, and bearing in mind the unknowns, shipping and aircraft I think, but mainly shipping as weight is no problem and another container or cabin unit can be swapped out quickly.

This may solve the semi-truck problem. Where a vehicle has to travel across a continent and recharging times are a hiccup. It could also be great for trains for much the same reason.

@mr.somebody1493

Жыл бұрын

The "Semi-Truck" problem is easy to solve. It's really a logistical and paradigm problem. Trains are already way more efficient than trucks.

@nagromnewo

Жыл бұрын

This may well be a solution for aircraft and shipping, but the Tesla Semi already has enough range that the limiting factor is how many hours the driver is allowed to work without taking a break. Other manufacturers like Volvo and others are hot on their heels. Of course the majority of semi trucks never cross the country. We have loads at work that just drive back and forth the 24 miles between our warehouse and distribution center.

@WikiSnapper

Жыл бұрын

@@nagromnewo Many semi-trucks that do go cross country are driven by a two person team. This keeps the truck running pretty constantly. So while a single driver is limited, in a team the truck is going almost constantly.

@nagromnewo

Жыл бұрын

@@WikiSnapper the two drivers would still stop and eat and go to the restroom at the same time, or does one eat while the other drives? For those few semis that actually do cross country with two drivers, there will have to be some fast charging infrastructure. Volvo are already working on that, I'm sure Tesla and others are too. Of course, even if cross country trucks with two drivers are not going to be the first to adopt electric vehicles, there is no reason not to for the vast majority. It is also a question whether, with the significantly lower fuel and maintenance costs, it may not be cheaper to give these drivers a bit longer breaks to accommodate charging. I went from $200-250 a month for gas to $30 a month in electricity, and significant savings on maintenance. If semis can get anywhere close to the same level of savings, it would be immaterial to allow the drivers a little more downtime for charging. The actual cost of the vehicle is a very small part of the running costs for a working vehicle, it's all fuel, wages and maintenance.

@sschmachtel8963

Жыл бұрын

Why on earth do you think you should use hydrogen on a train when there is electricity directly available???

I really think the usage of both would really be beneficial to the world. lets keep making breakthroughs in all fields not just hydrogen and batteries. it would also help in the fact that we wouldn't have to try to implement or incorporate the new breakthrough tech into our entire infrastructure, because the infrastructure is made of multiple sources/types of energy's and the world or economy is not reliant on just one energy.efficiency of

@platostien189

Жыл бұрын

Serial hybrid looks promising. High effiency ICE engines mated with electric motors capable of both matianing effiency and high horsepower to weight ratios. They almost certainly arent the answer we will be settled on in a 100 years or so. But they could be a great compromise to get us through while we search for a truly good storage method.

@user-tp5yb4hr4w

Жыл бұрын

yes, i agree with you on all points, i mean we wouldn't want to only get all our power from wind turbines and some freak snow storm blows in and renders this one and only resource handy caped because it couldn't handle the climate. we are better off using multiple power generation sources just incase something unforeseen happens. it would have saved Texas greatly if they had more than one resource during that freak storm they had to go through when they were hit. they were only getting wind turbine power and they took every other part of their infrastructure apart prior to this happening which crippled them significantly as they had no recourse of any backup systems set in place because their idiot politicians decided to take everything else down.

@tmoney8435

Жыл бұрын

if you ask king elon he believes that all other research into other sources besides electric are a complete waste of time. if he had his way there would be no breakthroughs.

@user-tp5yb4hr4w

Жыл бұрын

@@tmoney8435 has he really said this? i mean that kind of sounds ignorant, especially considering he uses hydrogen to propel his rockets into space like all of our rockets for over the last 70 years. i mean sure it took electricity is used to create the hydrogen, but electricity is nowhere near as powerful to propel a rocket into space, and not to mention space you would need better power that is not only more efficient but lasts much longer than a battery supplied with electricity. did Elon really say this?

Great video as always.

I recently bought a vw 2.0 tdi 1,000 miles from a tank highway 800 mixed driving amazing

Here is my rub with anything with H2 used for energy storage. The cycle efficiency is quite low compared to other storage methods and the transportation and dispensing clearly more complicated than with electrical energy. Until we have a clear overcapacity of renewable energy available in order to reduce the cost penalty of low efficiency, H2 energy storage technologies will be viable only in niche applications that are likely to grow smaller as more efficient technologies advance. An example is the trucking industry. Much is made of batteries not being suitable for heavy trucking due to the "limited" 500-mile range, but, the US Bureau of Transportation claimed that in 2017 36% of the ton-miles of freight moved, moved less than 500 miles. That also represents 84% of the tons moved. (The web site is not currently loading for more recent numbers.) That would involve a clear majority of the heavy trucks which are more likely to opt for the cheaper BEV option over H2 no matter how it is stored. In addition, at least some companies will decide it is cost-effective to dwell the interval it takes to recharge at least to 1/2 range in order to pick off the next 14% of ton-miles. That also clearly reduces the market and economy of scale for H2 infrastructure within trucking. This could work in air and sea transportation where it may have a longer runway before any more efficient technology has sufficiently improved in gravimetric energy density. In these applications I would look to contrast with the energy intensity required produce any of the various synfuels being proposed.

It's good to have alternatives. on the upside it doesn't require Lithium or a lot of "rare" elements like Cobolt or other possible materials... I really think it's ok for there to be several different alternatives in the future, they got different advantages and different situations might call for different approaches.

@mnomadvfx

Жыл бұрын

"a lot of "rare" elements like Cobolt" Mosat battery manufacturers are already moving away from chemistries containing cobalt.

@duanesamuelson2256

Жыл бұрын

Salt batteries which have a wider more usable temperature range than Li. Another serious contender is NDB...if you want a "batteries" which not only you don't charge but have an estimated 1000 year life before any signs of power loss.

Possible, it would be great as a backup reserve for Battery EVs, or for use for long distances, with it only used on road trips as far as cars go. The use in semi tractors may be a great potential. First, there needs to de a circular recycling path for the spent chemicals left over.

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

how's 500 miles at 80,000 lbs. gross weight at 2% grade average sound? already done. tesla semi. and redwood materials already recycles 100% of lithium batteries they take in- and recovers 96% battery grade materials, lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite. I'm guessing you believed big oil's lie? 'batteries can't be recycled' right? WRONG. h2 is simply processed natural gas. no different than burning natural gas- those vehicles already exist- except they're way more efficient & don't need platinum. and if you're thinking electrolysis? NO ONE IS GOING TO DO THAT. 96% of all h2 is from natural gas.

You did excellent work in calculating the relative efficiencies of the competing power plant/drive trains. But you only got to a key factor with the application to aircraft, that is vehicle weight. The motive force of any given propulsion unit must move its own mass before it moves the intended payload, people and packages usually). If the weight of an E-automobile equals half of the power delivered to the wheels but an I-automobile (I for imaginary) has the same power output but the vehicle weighs half of the E-automobile then the power train efficiency of the I-automobile will be higher than the E-automobile. The I-automobile is able to deliver more of the motive force to moving the payload around and less is needed for moving the vehicle around.

Love this! Always though that an hydrogen “gel” would be a big plus I believe even more into nuclear batteries.

@jyvben1520

Жыл бұрын

and with that the chance in an accident to have nuclear waste on the road ... ?

@dessa_vr

Жыл бұрын

@@jyvben1520 you don’t know much about nuclear do you? The possibility that a solid state nuclear battery would explode are basically none. And if lithium explode (which is much much easier also cos it does react with O²) the boom and fire is not easy joke. Nuclear fusion is super safe and when it doesn’t work… it will just stop. Cos that’s what happen when it doesn’t work. Nothing. Nuclear is also something natural cos plutonium, uranium and so on…exist in nature. Then batteria like we use now, don’t. So to recycle a batteri is much more difficult then recycle nuclear from fusion. Study more, get knowledge and then try again. You’ll love it. But the way. The only real “green” power is nuclear cos there is no CO² emission.

@Lemonz1989

Жыл бұрын

See thorium batteries videos by Thunderf00t to see how it isn’t feasible.

@dessa_vr

Жыл бұрын

@@Lemonz1989 really. Thunderf00t? 😂😂 And that Cadillac is older then me. And he is full of skittles

@Lemonz1989

Жыл бұрын

@@dessa_vr He’s literally has a PhD in chemistry, and is a prolific publisher of scientific papers. He knows what he is talking about in this case. Besides, you just dismissed it outright, without even looking at it, which isn’t very scientific.

A couple things. One thing that only got touched on slightly was how the hydrogen was turned into electricity. PEM Fuel cell. What is the cost, weight, and volume of this? Maybe it's built into the canister? On the other, you touched on the environmental soundness of creating this. Well compared to Li batteries, I would guess it wouldn't be any worse. In the end, hydrogen is still an energy carrier and would depend on Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERONEI) in making it. Hopefully, it wouldn't end up like ethanol, pork for someone.

@duanesamuelson2256

Жыл бұрын

Current power returns for fuel cells in real time is 7kVa per liter.

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

actually- ethanol can be manufactured in a factory using sugar beets & hydroponics. E85 costs a lot- but not BECAUSE of the cost of making ethanol- but because big oil & the fed 'want their cut'. I could & WOULD happily buy feedstock (non food grade) sugar from mexico & brazil for around 3 cents per pound- which, after paying for the distillery license & fuel road tax translates into about 80 cents per gallon. so why don't I? because the fed would immediately hit me with an import tax (not the case if I'm importing say- clay pots- then, mysteriously- we have 'free trade') on the sugar- insuring that my 'fuel' would cost MORE than just going to chevron & buying it. oh GEE! I wonder who in the world a law like that benefits? which group of corporations would benefit from lobbying for such a tax? there have been more than 6 different startups who did successful pilot production plants, all capable of producing fuel for $1.40 a gallon or LESS- for E100- that lobbied to have this tax removed- and ALL of them were stalled or outright stopped by the fed. one plant, after getting ALL the necessary permitting and being ASSURED they had the green light- built the entire factory & made it right up to hiring employees- ready to produce 100,000 gallons PER DAY- and then was suddenly shut down- and forced to do an ADDITIONAL 'environmental impact study' which took forever- and for which? they never got a real answer- just endless bureaucratic delays- until the company finally just went bankrupt, never having been allowed to produce a single gallon of fuel. the truth of ethanol is- it would out sell & out produce any offerings big oil has almost overnight- except for the fed STOPPING it from happening at the behest of APi. hmm... now, if ONLY there were some super wealthy entrepreneur, that could fight them in the courts until they ran out of excuses & give them tons of attention & bad PR until they're FORCED to back off- ELON MUSK.

@republica843

Жыл бұрын

@@jaybee3165 what are the disadvantages of ethanol?

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

@@republica843 only THREE: you need the space to grow sugar beets hydroponically; AND 2= you have to do it yourself or form a co-op & hire it done yourself. AND LAST? 3) you need to pay the $60 a year distillery license. the other so-called disadvantages are myths created by & for big oil and big government. neither one wants ethanol. why? well, we can't just have you going around taking a short cut straight past their biggest cash cow, now can we? here are some common myths : 1- making ethanol takes away farmland- and thus food & inflates the price of food. WRONG: SUGAR BEETS- grown hydroponically, in a factory. no crop soil required- crop turnaround time is faster, beets do not need tropical temperatures- so in most cases you do not need a heated factory or heated green house to keep the process running. myth #2- 'beets are net energy / net environmentally worse than gasoline. LMAO!!! OF COURSE big oil would say that. and if you're farming sugar cane or corn- in soil- using the usual commercial farming corporations- I'd say true. myth #3- distillation is bad for the 'environment'. in a word BULLSHIT. distillation happens all around us naturally. plants die- and rot on the forest floor- big oil does it commercially at refineries to the tune of BILLIONS of gallons of their product- but then- YOU doing it for YOURSELF is bad for THEIR environment- the environment inside their bank account that is. myth #4: WATER INTENSIVE. yes? and? every time I hear the term 'water conservation'... I am amused to my very core. what exactly do these idiots think is going to happen to the water that will make it 'go away' and never return? as if such a thing is even possible. when you BURN ethanol- you get CO2... and WATER VAPOR! in fact- what the oil heads are trying to push instead of batteries or ethanol? is h2. and where might h2 come from? WATER.. or natural gas. the latter being the stupidest move of all- for reasons we'll leave to another time.

@jaybee3165

Жыл бұрын

@@republica843 #1- you need space enough to grow sugar beets hydroponically, or form a co-op & pay someone in the co-op to do it. a 1000 square foot green house or shed full of racks for hydroponic growning will do nicely- and will give the same output as if you were growing on 2 acres of dirt. this will produce enough for 2 vehicles. #2- you have to pay a small yearly license fee for an ethanol distillery. #3- you need an E85 capable vehicle: more on this: the best bet, if you're going 'all in' on ethanol, is to do an engine rebuild and have the mechanic build the engine specifically for ethanol (higher compression ratio), and use fuel system parts made for it. such a vehicle will get just as good of fuel mileage as an equivalent gasoline powered engine... the difference being- you can never again run it on gasoline. you can just use an E85 vehicle- but you'll sacrifice some fuel mileage. but at 80 cents per gallon? WHO CARES. OR? just keep paying big oil $5 a gallon to do it for you. for those who don't like the extra work? form a co-op, and get a local mom & pop farm interested. advantage to them, they get a steady income from the fuel and the use of cheap fuel for their own vehicles- and they're in the business of growing already. they don't care what the crop is. get a hobbyist brewer (someone who makes their own wine or beer) to do the distillation. badda bing. you buy the gear, pay the subs and ride on cheap fuel. the co-op is fully legitimate, (the group) pays for the fuel tax & distillery license- and you can kiss big oil goodbye.

My 2018 Toyota Mirai got 210 miles per tank, it was promised to be 310. I spent 4-6 hours once or twice a week waiting for our fuel station to be refilled or repaired. I loved the ride. But $16/gallon for a 122liter (32 gal) tank and only getting 6-7 mpg. I heard that the 2019 model was a little better at 279 miles per tank on actual test driving. When the H2 plant in the San Fran area blew up and burned down our SoCal Hydrogen was shipped up there and we were left high and dry half the time. My Mirai was ran over by a truck and the air bags failed to deploy. If they had gone off it would have been "totalled". Instead they rebuilt it and it was never the same again. It would just randomly brake on the freeway and in intersections and the dealer said they had done everything they could do. I gave it back and I am still fighting with Toyota. They auctioned the Mirai for $6000.00 and that was close to the same price as the many Mirai's sold at auction. The dealer had about 30 Mirai's in their lot at a time brought back by owners and from lease's. If you want one badly enough wait for the auctions !!

There was a company 10 years ago called millennium fuel cell they had this cartridge concept but then they disappeared off the map because it wasn't ready for primetime but here it is it reminds me of that changing cartridges in order to power your vehicle trying to think a great idea

This sounds like the smartest solution! Please I hope they do keep going on this!

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

The smartest solution is the one that works, where is the production model?

@Duconi

Жыл бұрын

smart is a strange adjective for a power source. Do you mean you have to be very intelligent to understand how it works? To use it for cars is not smart. Hydrogen already needs about 3 times the energy of BEV, so it costs more than 3 times more. As power past is made out of hydrogen it will cost even more, because of additional steps in processing and because the efficiency is only 50% while it is 60% for hydrogen fuel cells in cars. So for cars it just doesn't make sense (maybe except very exotic special cases).

For many years I've seen energy producers looking for various sources where it is centrally generated and distributed and they can set whatever price they desire within limits There are problems to this as compared to solar combined with energy storage and an electric vehicle, namely it has been noted many times in security policies than an enemy could strike a dozen or so places around the US and practically shut down the whole grid On the other hand millions of houses with their own solar energy storage and electric vehicles would be almost impossible to shut down, thus making the country more secure from sabotage There are other considerations namely the amount of money the people say but generating the electricities powering their own houses powering their own EVS in effect leave money in their pocket and increases the velocity of money in the economy. Why is this important well one basic fact, I remember gasoline at 19 cents a gallon an economist will tell you that the primary cause of inflation is the cost of energy and if that money stays in people's pockets thus increasing the velocity of money in the economic system which benefits the country the people and everyone, except maybe those who want to control energy from a central point which they can increase of their will Scientia Non Domus, (Knowledge has No Home) antiguajohn

@davidcongour61

Жыл бұрын

Spot on! ... and the reason why the fossil fool industry funds so much disinformation about EVs. If every one of us has an EV and a PV array, we no longer hand over roughly $75/week to them any more! I've got my EV, and am working on getting PV, so I can basically drive for free.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

Brains have no home either.

@fuzielectron5172

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree, as above, spot on keeps the populace tied into and depending on energy suppliers. It also moves energy production from using a list of dwindling resources to using a resource water which is vital to the planet and everything on it.

@atmospheres11

Жыл бұрын

What has Latin got to do with this? Is that narcissism? You know that you could have said that in English and it would have been understood as informational and wise rather than clever-guy-needs-afirmation. Now, my reasoning for saying this is because these kinds of subjects need factual data to have value rather than attributing inherent truth to the data purely by personal qualifications or perceived merit. Its a problem because it detracts from the efficacy of knowledge sharing. (Merely the sangfriod opines of your servant in knowledge.... I'm being silly but the point was made 🙏)

@andrewsaint6581

Жыл бұрын

The energy security issue is more relevant than ever at the moment. Since being a child during the '73 oil embargo I've never understood the ludicrous desire of Western governments to by financially shackled to countries with corrupt and unstable regimes. Local generation and storage, which is expanding massively in Australia is the way to go as far as I can tell.

At approx 3.30 it was stated it needs 660 deg at 5 atmospheres to make this compound. At what cost is this in energy, or loss in final hydrogen energy? This seems to be glossed over, unfortuntly. I had a discussion with a truck manufacturer at Truck Expo in the UK, on this and he did not see that you have to put a lot of energy into making Hydrogen, than you get out. Also the energy you use to do so is most likly not green. The use of unused electricity from nuclear station's, wind farms ect at night when electricity storage at present is nearly non-existant, it makes sence to use this to produce hydrogen, but this way of making it will be very small canpaired to the likly consuption. Thanks for your well explained technical videos.

Nice video. This could be a great fuel for peaker plants or for power plants used as cloudy day back up when we move to 100% renewable energy.

At least This doesn't "change everything." Does the goo produce more energy than it takes to make it? We should always be looking for more ways to generate or obtain energy. Eventually, we will discover a good solution, so long as it isn't suppressed like Edison tried to block AC current.

@StefanReich

Жыл бұрын

Wait until it SHOCKS THE INDUSTRY

@Squigglydodah

Жыл бұрын

😆

@emmanuelgutierrez8616

Жыл бұрын

Wait, this is just hydrogen. The simple answer is, no. Why use energy to make the hydrogen based goop instead of just using the energy directly. Nice marketing trick.

@xiaoka

Жыл бұрын

Was this one BANNED by the government too?

@gecsus

Жыл бұрын

​@@platostien189 Sorry, you're perspective is askew. Your facts are incompetently stated as well. Nuclear Energy doesn't require more energy input than it produces. That is ridiculous. We could never do anything if the way you stated it were true. Nothing can produce free energy is true, but we don't count millions of years of plant growth and death with decomposition and pressure to produce oil as energy input when we are talking about a product being produced in a factory. We are talking about generated energy and the consumption thereof and the cost of supplying that energy to construct the product. Be practical, instead of attempting to appear smart or relevant. The question was obvious... How much energy does it take to manufacture the goo? When the goo is used does it produce more energy than it took to produce it? Get a grip, man.

Great video. It’s amazing how our world is finally accepting alternative fuel possibilities, and that we’re now working hard to produce the next fuel alternative. I’d like to see a comparison between this paste, hydrogen, conventional fuel, ammonia fuel, lithium ion, graphene, borophene, and nuclear diamond batteries, etc. I’d love to see who wins out in the near future.

@toddshrader8407

Жыл бұрын

the problem is there trying to push hydrogen cuz they can put a meter to it. we can make vehicles that would run a very long time and cost pennies to do so with compressed air

@lengould9262

Жыл бұрын

Many of us have been warning of this loudly for decades.

@lengould9262

Жыл бұрын

@@toddshrader8407 reference please. Compressed air cycles are EXTREMELY inefficient.

@Duconi

Жыл бұрын

But he put the costs way too low. As power paste is produced out of Hydrogen they have to pay the hydrogen plus extra fees for processing, so it will be more expensive in the end.

@sschmachtel8963

Жыл бұрын

@@toddshrader8407 I think you are greatly overestimating the energy that you get from compressed air. I dont know where you got that idea from, this is a little bizarre

One aspect of hydrogen vs fossil fuels that is often overlooked is the containment cost differential. Due to it being the smallest molecule on earth (H2), it requires high precision and strict tolerances to manufacture systems to transport it (both gas and liquid form) in a leak proof (or close) manner. Gasoline does evaporate and cause losses (and is also flammable / dangerous), but engineering and building relatively lossless and safe containment is orders of magnitude easier than dealing with Hydrogen. Thus the "holy-grail" of some material that can produce hydrogen at the point of use rather than storing / transporting already refined H2.

Love your program and your approach. You did make some serious mistakes about electric battery vs hydrogen. Swapping out a cartridge versus waiting hours for recharge

6:30 and how much range do you get after substracting the additional weight for hydrogen to electrical conversion? What's peak power look like, anyway? You'll probably need additional li-ion batteries or supercaps to store energy for acceleration or regenerative braking, which will also add weight. Given that the majority of weight of power paste is magnesium, I cannot see it gaining any level of success without the 'what do with the leftover sludge' getting well answered... which may take longer than the next battery revolution.

@AnalystPrime

Жыл бұрын

Tesla 100kWh battery weights 625 kg(1377lbs), a hydrogen fuel cell and tanks with a small battery would be hundreds of kilos less. If you make a Model S 10-20% lighter its range will only get better. Storing the paste for reuse would be easy, the problem is the hydrogen tanks would reduce car's storage space, that is why hydrogen works better for larger electric vehicles that would lose more range due to heavy batteries but can easily fit fuel tanks.

@FalkonNightsdale

Жыл бұрын

@@AnalystPrime That is not true... Even if we consider just the "Pump-to-wheel" part: This goo has half the energy of gasoline by volume and 2,5x by weight and 82% is the metal, so if you really drain it of all hydrogen, you still have an extreme amount of deadweight, which you have to dump somewhere, while it is a highly flammable material. Then you have to consider, that it has to be delivered to the exchange station somehow because on-site production is not possible (you need high heat and high pressure) and because it is heavy, with the low amount of energy, you'll have to transport a lot of it, basically frequently moving tons of material in both directions, using additional fuel, damaging road network and putting an intense load on local grid…

@AnalystPrime

Жыл бұрын

​@@FalkonNightsdale What is not true? And why are you comparing it to gasoline? The question is how much does this goo weight and cost compared to batteries. Whatever the exact formula for the goo is it is simpler than therefore cheaper than high tech batteries that need to be made to exact specifications and then combined into battery packs that require additional electronics like heating/cooling and charging systems. Changeable battery packs do not work well for cars because they are the most expensive part of the car and you would need multiple batteries for each car. BEVs also need to have longer range than typical daily use so they will not need constant recharging, meaning you will be carrying a lot of unused battery weight. Refilling the tank, or even changing the whole fuel tank as unit, has no such issues and when the refueling can be done in minutes there is less need to design the car with long range so it can weight less.

@sschmachtel8963

Жыл бұрын

@@AnalystPrime To operate a fuel cell is much more complicated than using a battery

@AnalystPrime

Жыл бұрын

@@sschmachtel8963 1. Plug in charger. 2. Wait. 3. Unplug charger. 4. Drive. 1. Plug in hydrogen hose. 2. Wait. 3. Unplug. 4 Drive. Doesn't seem like it. The car handles all the rest no matter what it is powered by, and compared to automating an ICE engine the fuel cells are very simple.

I think you're spot on with this. This doesn't really solve the main problem with hydrogen wrt normal vehicles, that is how to produce it without emitting CO2, and also produce it in an efficient manner. There's a lot of research going into that aspect, too, but always seems a bit like nuclear fusion in the sense that practical and usable solutions seem farther away than ever. There're are many significant battery innovations that will be rolling off the production lines in the coming few years.. let's see where those take us.

@filonin2

Жыл бұрын

You can just decompose methane using a catalyst. Presto, no CO2.

@yeroca

Жыл бұрын

@@filonin2 what does it decompose to?

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

@@filonin2 What do you do with the carbon?

@sschmachtel8963

Жыл бұрын

@@filonin2 yeah what are you up to? as the other two comments say already ... do you really think that the carbon will fall out as black powder or vanish to the moon? I think you can make methane from hydrogen and coal, but I fear you will have difficulties to do the reverse. There is a process called steam reforming in which methane reacts with water to form hydrogen and CO2, and that is the most common way to produce hydrogen. Obviously that is not really what you'd want nowadays.

@edwardcoulter9361

Жыл бұрын

Can you really? Show me the chemical reaction equations, the catalyst and the temperature required for the reaction(s)

Excellent analysis.

I was an electrical design engineer for 35 years working for a very large electrical contractor for the last 21 years. So, I have some knowledge of the electrical charging for EV’s. It seems that EV is the way to go, but this I’d the truth. If US were to go all in with current EV’s and charging systems, this country would come to a grinding halt! Not only will power plants be many many times short of the production needed to power all the chargers, even if you could somehow control what time they were being charged, but everything from the power plants out would absolutely require total replacement. There is not enough ampere capacity of the underground or overhead lines to charge all the EV’s. There are 200,000 miles of very high voltage lines in the grid and 5.5 million miles of distribution lines after that of which about 98% (a guess) would have to be replaced. Respectfully submitted, Kevin

I like H2 and hope to see a parallel economy with EVs. As you pointed out, I see a good use case for Aircrafts, Ships and heavy machineries. I hope it catches up.

@markwright196

Жыл бұрын

Meh... electrofuels are the most likely resolution for the next 20 yrs

@williammeek4078

Жыл бұрын

This “solution” does nothing for hydrogen’s efficiency problem. Until that is solved, and ur current understanding of physics says it can’t be, hydrogen will never make sense over batteries or synthetic fuels.

@markwright196

Жыл бұрын

@@williammeek4078 The efficiency argument is questionable. Look at wind and solar that is just pissed away most of the time on the grid as no one has a use for it. If you used that its 30% of the wasted power. And no massive scale batteries will not work... electro fuels is the most likely candidate to solve this for the next 20 yrs

@Soothsayer210

Жыл бұрын

@@williammeek4078 one of the main problem with EVs is the weight of the batteries that it drags along. H2 does not that that issue.

@williammeek4078

Жыл бұрын

@@markwright196 what an absurd argument. Curtailment of RE is almost always because of minimum purchase contracts on fossil fuel plants. Otherwise it has priority over other fuel sources because it is vastly cheaper.

Nothing against these labs searching for new answers in energy.. but as you stated, still a lot of questions on this one. Cost being a huge one. Lifecycle. Recycling or reusability. If they can find a use for it where it makes sense, and it’s an improvement without major issues.. hell yeah.. great. If it winds up with as many issues as pluses.. just keep looking.

@369Sigma

Жыл бұрын

Fair points. If this is still a fledgling technology, there could be avenues to increase efficiency/decrease cost, and overall add tweaks and minor improvements. Assuming it has enough benefits to pursue this. Sounds like it does, but I’d have to hear about it from a few sources.

One factor missed in this well presented video is the lithium battery life/replacement cost and recycling issues..

Great video , lot of good information , hopefully one day all cars will run with this new technology for the good of our planet .. Tks for sharing !!

@rogerstarkey5390

Жыл бұрын

It's still only 25-30% efficient overall, and damned complicated! Think about it!

I like the idea of lomi. However 5 hours of power. Or just make a small compost heap and no environment impact, plus you have to make lomi which impacts the environment in many ways.

@listenmypeople108

Жыл бұрын

Have composted for years with a plain old compost pile. Lomi might make sense for people living in an apartment or in a city without a lot.

@_morgoth_

Жыл бұрын

So, does dehydrating and sterilizing help in the composting process?

@AndyChannelle

Жыл бұрын

It just dehydrates and grinds your stuff. Not composting. The process of composting still needs to happen elsewhere - ironically this will probably include rehydrating the goo to begin the process of breaking it down. Seems like it’s using power for the sake of it.

I'd be curious about the safety of the material. 4:59 mentions it's stable up to 250 C after which I would presume it breaks back down into magnesium and hydrogen which would likely catch fire and potentially perpetuate a combustion cycle in an aerated/oxygenated, enclosed space. See explode. Actually if water is all it takes to break it down then exhaust steam could be a major hazard.

1:33, thank you for mentioning that hydrogen, if released into the athomsphere (which happens all the time since hydrogen is so small it can albeit slowly just diffuse through steel tank walls etc.) Will just yeet itself out of our athmosphere and will be lost to us forever. I mean the mention could be a little more fleshed out since it was pretty short and easy to miss, but you are the first Person that talks about hydrogen tech and even mentions this as far as i'm aware

Factored into your equation of power paste versus lithium batteries should be that the batteries will be used up and need to be replaced in several years. Power paste cartridges as described however will simply be swapped out and refilled! Additionally it seems there would be much less mining involved to obtain the necessary materials. So if you factor in decrease in mining decrease in materials used for the mining, not having to throw out batteries but instead replace with the reusable cartridge that gets refilled, the very quick time it would take to switch out a cartridge, it sounds like a pretty good idea. Additionally if you understand actual climate science and that NASA has released a study that shows that the changes in climate of warmer time periods and colder time periods have completely been caused by the variation in the Earth's orbit around the sun and have nothing to do with carbon dioxide, which is plant food!

That's pretty cool, would love to see this gets more development.

Great vid! I do hope hydrogen power paste comes to fruition but there needs to be a way to harness and recover (or even reuse) the waste products without damaging the environment.

Interesting , Thank You . I hope it works

Great video! I hope that we see this come to consumer autos. I can envision a place in my garage for one to use for long trips, towing trailers, moving kids to college and such. The second car could be an EV that would be more efficient for those times when we don't need the big vehicle.

@rogerstarkey5390

Жыл бұрын

It's a waste of time money and energy.

My problem with hydrogen is that to even start using it you must spend a lot of power creating it. Power that could simply be used to charge batterys. You also need a separate infrastructure to support it. EVs and battery vehicles in general all need an upgraded power grid and charge stations. But its all added onto an already existing infrastructure. One big multipurpose system that allows for relatively easy creating of charging stations everywhere.

@kentaltobelli1840

Жыл бұрын

This is the issue with ANY renewable energy future. The issue is that we've become dependent on oil (millions of years of sunlight stored as chemical energy) so it's mind boggling how much energy we need to capture in real time vs stealing from the past. Vehicles use ridiculous amounts of energy and it needs to come from somewhere.

@rogerstarkey5390

Жыл бұрын

@@kentaltobelli1840 No it's not. If you take energy directly from the grid and "fill" the battery you don't have the inefficiency of essentially "changing the state" of that energy with a different storage medium. As the saying goes "energy cannot be created". But, every time you *change* it you lose efficiency. Just as with gasoline, or "conventional" Hydrogen, is requires too many phase changes, plus input of raw electrical energy.

@AnalystPrime

Жыл бұрын

Powering the hydrogen production would be easy if there was demand and an easier way to store it. We already have the gas stations everywhere, doesn't matter which gas they are selling. The only problem is that hydrogen tanks take room so they are bad for small cars, using just batteries for personal vehicles works better in most cases. Hydrogen should be used for transport vehicles, planes, ships and trains. Electric semi trucks need tons of batteries and keeping them running is a big business, you can't just plug it in at home overnight or stop for hour or few at a charger whenever. The extra-superchargers needed to charge a 1-2MWh battery also cost a lot and so does laying power lines rated for 100MW to a private company, but the trucks cannot line up to wait at limited chargers either when they need to be hauling cargo to make money. Every private car in a city going electric is not going to cause a blackout, no matter what the naysayers claim. But a private transport company needing to buy a lot of expensive electric semis and the chargers to keep them running is likely to put them in debt; buying hydrogen from suppliers and being able to refuel in minutes instead of hours would work better.

@AnalystPrime

Жыл бұрын

@@rogerstarkey5390 Batteries are pretty efficient, but charging the battery and then taking the electricity out is still going to lose you some 10-20% of it. With H2 the cost of producing it does not matter any, just how efficient your fuel cell is.

It seems to me that you’ve ignored the mass, cost, and efficiency of the fuel cell. You should compare the Lithium battery to the cartridge + fuel cell.

@rmichaelsm

Жыл бұрын

Then add in the cost of batteries, impact they have being made to the environment and disposed off. He missed a lot.

Alberta in Canada has been hit with the title Dirty Oil yet you have not mention the obtaining of lithion and cobalt with are both required to produce batteries. So really when one compares EVs to Gasoline the question arises, which one is cleaner for the world when fully completed. Hydrogen is the next answer and will surpass EVs.Vancouver in BC has been running Hydrgen vehicles under test by Toyota for the last 2-3 yrs with several options of using hydrogen and this paste adds to that number making it the definite winner in my book. Thank you for this piece of knowledge and product advancement. 👍

Everything that started from nothing, became something, and usually, it made a huge difference in what ever application it was designed for. I've never seen anyone suggest nuclear power for cars. Imagine, powering a car, for...ever. That would be something.

@WhiteWolfos

Жыл бұрын

While a nuclear powered car sounds like a cool concept straight from the 50s, the reason they don't exist is that we as humans still make lots of mistakes. Until we bring down car crashes to maybe less than 1% of what it is now, then we can think about nuclear. It is very risky right now for nuclear vehicles. It also generates radiative waste that would be a big issue to solve. I would say that full autonomy needs to develop first before we can move to fusion or fission in cars. We also have a breakthrough this year with more efficient and lighter solar panels that could be made cheaper and thus can help reduce electric usage.

It may be pretty useful on the rails as well, I wonder how it operates in cold temperatures?

@Duconi

Жыл бұрын

Rails can easily have cables to power the train. More than 50% of tracks have cables in Europe lead by Luxembourg with 91%. Also for trains batteries are a good option, as they are heavy anyway.

@stanweaver6116

Жыл бұрын

@@Duconi not in Canada or the US or Russia

@Duconi

Жыл бұрын

@@stanweaver6116 why are countries in Europe able to do that but not countries in America? 🤔

@stanweaver6116

Жыл бұрын

@@Duconi distance, population density , and development time. It not that it couldn’t have happened that way, it’s that it didn’t. Reality after all is reality.

@Duconi

Жыл бұрын

@@stanweaver6116 well, sure, it's not the status quo. The USA was once build with steam trains but instead of updating to electric trains the USA switched to cars. Which are much worse for the environment as well as for the economy. Many cities are close to bankruptcy because the maintenance costs for streets are too high. Well, that's not just because of cars, but also because of bad city design. Instead of fixing that, they just build more lines, which doesn't help. Anyway, thinking about the future using cables for trains is a good option.

Hydrogen in it's use is clean but unfortunately it has massive problems with it's creation or separation from natural gas or splitting from water. Separation from natural gas creates masses of climate gases as a byproduct Splitting from water uses masses of electricity, even if the electricity was created from renewable energy, the amount of electricity to separate is staggering and expensive even compared to fossil fuel energy, better to just put it into an EV, far more efficient. Hydrogen powered systems are extremely complex and needs lots of expensive maintenance, the air being inhaled by the fuel cell needs to be incredibly clean therefore needing a regular and frequent filter change. So Hydrogen doesnt really have a future

@stevehayward1854

Жыл бұрын

@@trp2413 Have you seen the environmental problems that extracting and shipping oil causes, the mining of minerals for batteries is nothing compared to the environmental disaster that oil causes. If think that Oil is clean you really are ignorant

Very good, hope this Technolgie progress keeps going, we need all options on the table

@kayoss11

Жыл бұрын

technology.

We need every shot in locker so keep going. I would like to see more work on synthetic diesel and jet fuels from sea water using nuclear and renewables

I think this hidrogen solution would beat electric in the long run, especially considering battery degradation/defect, and replacement costs. Of course its very important how would it be implemented, but i think it would even beat the li-ion technology enviromentaly too, at the mining phase allready. This technology would be nice to see slowly popping up, and of course if it would be possible to convert older engines too to accept this kind of fuel, even if at a lower efficiency. The possibilities are honestly endless at a first glance

@Thunderf00t LOL this needs to be busted especially because he thinks the Lomi can reduce the waste footprint

@markjohnson7887

Жыл бұрын

Thunderf00t has turned into a clown. All he does now is harp on about Elon Musk. All while outright lying about things relating to Musk and refusing to admit he's wrong when someone proves it to him.

Like many other channels promoting battery tech, it’s always overlook the Huge carbon footprint and ecological impact of mining the different minerals for battery production. But I think the biggest problem remaining is the the disposal and/or recycling the used batteries! Hydrogen tech is without all these problems and gives us no toxic residues

Always enjoy ur videos 2Bit, good info here but still a lot missing from the equation, like what happens to the waste? How much is the Goop? How much Coal fired power do we use to produce it? I have always liked the idea of using hydrogen and have played with it some myself, as an expensive hobby, to no avail. There are a lot of other issues around production and storage of Hydrogen based fuels, and mostly we are generally better of using the hydrogen creating power source in the first place. Hydrogen could be a good storage vessel for when there are peaks in the system due to solar input through the day. Great vid. Cheers

How much would a car cost that uses this stuff? I think that is gonna be a huge factor. An electric car includes the upfront cost of a massive battery. If this could really only cost twice what electricity costs, and you could buy cheap cars that run on it, I feel like that would be a huge deal.

@LokiScarletWasHere

Жыл бұрын

It wouldn't. The energy density is less than that of pure hydrogen at 1 bar, much less the 700 bar he's claiming, and it would take more power to retrieve the hydrogen by raising the temperature of the hydride than the fuel cell could put out.

@jameshughes3014

Жыл бұрын

@@LokiScarletWasHere I looked it up, it seems all you have to do is mix it with water and out comes hydrogen (some of the hydrogen actually comes from the water you mix it with). There's no mention of heat, so i'm guessing it's exothermic? But again, its still light on details and I'm no chemist. If that's true, that's honestly amazing. if you know where I can find more information I would appreciate it.

@LokiScarletWasHere

Жыл бұрын

@@jameshughes3014 That’s hydrolysis. It’s basically electrolysis but with a violent redox reaction instead of electricity. It splits water and eats the oxygen, releasing hydrogen from the water and leaving behind a hydroxide. Very inefficient, produces toxic, caustic waste, and, well, if I’m gonna be Rick, “That sounds like electrolysis with extra steps” With all that power consumption you’d might as well run an electric car on a hydrogen fuel cell and “charge” it by running electrolysis in the tank. Honestly, that’d probably be better because you need one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen that goes into the fuel cell and you need pressure. A fuel cell car with a hydrogen tank could throttle the fuel intake to match the air intake, but not hydrolysis. Nah, you’d be better off making a wet internal combustion engine out of that, because assuming you have enough surface area that it burns through before forming a protective hydroxide film, that shit will go BOOM.

@jameshughes3014

Жыл бұрын

@@LokiScarletWasHere do you have any idea where I can find info about this product other than Wikipedia? I'd love to be able to do some math and see the actual numbers for various efficiencies.

@LokiScarletWasHere

Жыл бұрын

@@jameshughes3014 My comment keeps getting deleted, so all I'm allowed to say (if I'm allowed to say it) is google and do the math. Apparently I'm not allowed to mention youtubers who busted this guy Nor am I apparently allowed to link sources Nor am I apparently allowed to give advice on finding and reading chemical formulas. The algorithm sucks.

EVs are only viable by the consumption of coal or natural gas as the charging source of the EV. That REAL FACTOR was not calculated into the figures presented.

@markjohnson7887

Жыл бұрын

Umm.. nuclear?

@crforfreedom7407

Жыл бұрын

@@markjohnson7887 Nuclear has been a great alternative, especially for shipping. But politically its own 'entity', and gives the user, especially shipping, "Independence" from political control. The whole point behind creating an 'electric monopoly' (and that's all they're doing, it's the ONLY PURPOSE behind "Climate/Green" politics) is that everyone is 100% reliant on one power source that can be easily manipulated and centrally controlled. That leaves nuclear out. Coal or gas electrical plants? FINE. As long as every end user is reliant on something that can be easily and centrally controlled.

My guess is the main byproducts of concern would be MgOH and heat. So you would have to dissipate the heat, not much of an issue and probably also change out the caustic filled reaction chamber along with the cartridge. The big unknown on waste products is from the ester. Alcohol and organic acid which would neutralize the caustic? Then lastly there’s the energy $$$ to make the paste?

Great for aircraft and ships! The energy density can make it work on today's aircraft. Can it be made into a fluid (blending?) to be more of a drop in replacement fuel with some added systems...?

@mnomadvfx

Жыл бұрын

More likely it would have to be used in a generator system for electric fans/ducted fans.

One thing that concerns me: you're combining one highly flammable material with another highly flammable material. What happens if the car catches on fire and the paste starts separating into its components again? I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near that.

This video is so dumb. Saying hydrogen is a fuel source is like saying CO2 is a source of oxygen for people to breathe.

@MrMichiel1983

Жыл бұрын

but.... 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O Please redo you chemistry class! They are not talking about water being a fuel.

@tycurtin7565

Жыл бұрын

@@MrMichiel1983 Read my message. I never said water was fuel and neither did he. He said HYDROGEN is a fuel source. No....it IS NOT A SOURCE. You have to MAKE hydrogen. It does not exist on earth as hydrogen in any quantities. Since you have to MAKE the hydrogen from OTHER STUFF.....it's the OTHER STUFF that's the source.

@MrMichiel1983

Жыл бұрын

@@tycurtin7565 Sure, if that's the point you want to make, I stand corrected. The way you say it though, and I did read the message again, apparently didn't convince me that the point you were trying to make was about hydrogen not being a "source". Especially the analog got to me, I think.. Too many flat Earthers on the net maybe. To me it is implicit that you can make hydrogen as a byproduct of processing coal, oil or gas, or by various means of splitting water. So can be counted both as a byproduct, as well as a product. The advantage of hydrogen over batteries is often said to be energy density. The video is about making hydrogen safer to handle in equipment by providing a magnesium (or aluminum) matrix. From hydrogen one can proceed to make said fuels. So technically it's a fuel source, but not a very abundant primary source. Maybe we both got caught up in technicalities.

Does sound like a brilliant possible solution to “range anxiety”, even for existing electric vehicles. Simply carry a small unit capable of poking out enough electricity to get you out of trouble. A power “spare” if you will. Something that small gas generators cannot quite do.

Even with challenges with power paste for cars, it would be best to continue -- as you said -- with planes and ships. Then they can use cranes and forklifts to remove the spent battery, replace it, and you're good to go. Added that in the event of an accident, probably less harmful to the environment because you don't need to worry about gasoline or diesel fuel. But if you could make biodiesel from say seaweed that's very cost effective -- and ban those things that prevents diesel engines from using biodiesel with a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole -- then we have to ask those questions. But I say we should still pursue it as every little bit helps

You got me again! I actually watched.

Many good points

Sounds like a cool idea. Cartridges would be a good problem to have/solve, but would need standardization. Do you think the pumps we have today were because everyone thought 1/2" diameter tubing was the perfect way to get gas into a car? No. Different size/weight vehicles need different amounts. Treating this like gas seems like the simpler solution (bad pun, I know). Cartridges really have the same problem as all packing waste. Recycling/reusing/disposal. Batteries have this and why the Isreali plan for battery swap on rental cars really didn't explode all over the world as was hoped for. So any time the delivery of an object has the built-in requirement (not just plan) for reusability of the container, the real solution speaks for itself.

This paste would work in a small generator to enhance electric trucks like an engine works for a refrigerated truck. This would extend the mileage and these truck operation centers could make their own cartridges by using the solar cells on the facility roof and on the roofs of the trailers.

The problem with hydrogen or hmo production is that there is a substance needed add to add to water called h h +. Which is apparently on the band list because it's an ingredient used by the military in some operation.. although adding h h + powder to water instantly generates hydrogen capable of running off your tap. Bob Lazar had a Corvette running in New Mexico and there is many other examples. It is so safe that it can be shot with an incendiary and nothing will happen and it's by-product is pure oxygen.🙌 Great show keep it Up

When the sun is blocked out by volcanic ash fall out, the sun power will be a problem This new past is a great alturnitive to lithium ion or petrol. As a past it is easier to manage transportation No pressure application in an expensive high pressure tank When exposed to atmosfear will it evoprate? If it is on fire and impacted will it explode like C4?

Explain to me how plugging that Lomi into the wall and using electricity to run it is lowering my carbon footprint - unless I'm running it off a solar / wind / water powered battery system?

I agree any way to accomplish our future use eliminating Gas! An making it a Home is the way today to go