Having the waste heat from nuclear power plants also be used would increase the power plant's efficiency, making the price of the products (electricitfy and hidrogen) lower.

11:40 "Living in clean cities always costs more than living in dirty ones." west coast bros...

There's no real practical advantage of directly splitting water with sunlight, over producing electric power and use the part that you have use for directly, and only store excess, assuming a hydrogen economy, using electrolysis. Electrolysis is somewhat difficult, but that's not a big issue, we can already produce hydrogen from electrolysis at reasonable cost and at with decent efficiency, at least if we get to do it for long periods at a time and in large scale. There are other problems with the hydrogen economy that makes the electrolysis a nonissue. Direct solar hydrogen production would require distribution of water and collection of hydrogen, and somehow handle the oxygen over the entire collecting surface, that is unlikely possible to make less than 1000 times more expensive than solar PV and electrolysis, per unit of useful energy out, because of undeniable fundamental practical problems. And that besides the fact that producing hydrogen directly instead of electricity is, well, not logical. IF any type of synthetic fuel is going to be a part of the solution for grid balancing, then it should be produced from "relative excess" in the grid mix, regardless if it's mainly solar or wind or anything else, or a combination that causes the relative excess power. If the relatively simple process of electrolysis in a highly controlled environment where energy losses in the process can be used to produce the heat and pressure necessary to get good efficiency is a bit problematic, how do you get from there to the conclusion that direct photohydrolysis that actually is somewhat difficult even at laboratory scale is promising for general energy supply? If hydrogen i supposed to fill the gaps when power generation doesn't completely cover the demand it's kind of an emergency option, insurance if you prefer. With all the added costs, energy losses, practical problems, dangers, you do absolutely not want to take the detour over hydrogen unless you have to. We can actually distribute electric power over long distances, at reasonable cost and with reasonable losses, and we're still getting better at it. It's not extremely cheap or easy, but compared to transporting hydrogen the cost and energy loss using HVDC is negligible, at least in the long run. Sure, alternatives to fossil fuels get to be more expensive, but can't be after subsidies and regulations and other aspects, the cost before such factors can absolutely not be 1000 times higher, that doesn't work in reality. Most of us are connected to huge grids, connecting areas that actually never gets completely dark and windless at the same time, especially not when you include offshore wind power. Production obviously doesn't follow demand exactly, but we can control some production, like hydro power, and some of the demand, most charging of EVs can be delays days if needed without any real issues, or hardware. People are getting home batteries primarily to be able use their own solar power better, but also to buy power when it's cheap, and sell when it's expensive. If it turns out that we get periods with demand that is difficult to solve with improved transmission, generation, batteries and demand side management as we phase out fossil fuels, it wouldn't be a new scenario, we've experienced such problems all the time, and, hydrogen storage would still not be the answer, as hydrogen is among the worst possible fuels to store. We could produce some synthetic fuel that is easier to store than hydrogen, it's not really a "hydrogen economy" then, is it? But then again, just burning waste or biofuels for that small part of energy demand that won't easily be met with a combination of solutions would be much easier, and cheaper and could be done reasonably sustainably. When hydrogen is used as a fuel commercially, as in not some subsidized greenwash project it's never stored or transported more than necessary, because that would be stupid. It's produced when and where it's needed, because it's among the worst combustion fuels to store and and transport, that's a fundamental fact, how that would make it a great candidate for storing and transporting energy is beyond me. There are two main reasons for the big commercial intressent in hydrogen as a fuel, besides the billions in subsidies, the first is the fact that you can produce it from fossil fuels, which could save fossil fuels from becoming worthless. Produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, and say that working on a way to catch and store the carbon. The other reason is what Toyota et al find so attractive, they know hydrogen cars won't ever take off, unlike EVs, so they can continue to make profit on their fossil fuels cars, by pretending hydrogen cars will provide a viable alternative. About fuel cells, they can actually be more efficient than combustion engines, but only at very low power output for their size, and therefore cost. That shouldn't come as a big surprise as the individual molecules has to reach electrolyte at the molecular level, and react with each other from either side. If you use air, each oxygen molecule have to compete with space with about 3.8 other molecules, initially, as the oxygen gets used the number of other molecules from the air per oxygen molecule increases, but on top of that you get all that water that also gets in the way of the oxygen. Solid particles that get into the system decreases power output further, including truly microscopic dust particles, so you want to use extremely clean air. In essence, the higher the power requirement gets, the worse fuel cells gets. For combustion you just mix fuel and air, super simple, and scaling up gives advantages. Because of how fuel cells work, they are unsuitable for grid scale storage, storing energy in form of "green hydrogen", and then using fuel cells to extract the energy at scale relevant for grid is not going to happen, it's not realistic, there are a number of much better alternatives available, that requires much less subsidies/regulation to replace fossil fuels. About transport, hydrogen is very expensive to transport, as a liquid it needs to be kept at about or 20 K, or colder at atmospheric pressure, you can get away with slightly higher temperature if pressurized, but you really don't want to rely to heavily on high pressure at such low temperatures that still is required. So, either you bring equipment to keep that ridiculously low temperature, and fuel for that equipment, or you let the hydrogen boil off, and except the losses, which is the norm. These losses are significant when hydrogen is transported by ship. And still, at the extreme conditions, you can only fill the tank capacity with ~71 kg per cubic meter, which means you need ~4 times the volume for the same amount of energy as with say oil, or similar fuels. To start with, the loss during transport makes it worse. What is even worse than that is the requirements on the tank, with liquid fuels you can practically fill the ship, you can only get a fraction as mush usable tank volume when you transport hydrogen. Natural gas is also "difficult" to transport, but not so much i you compare it to hydrogen. Some fellow hydrogen economy "skeptics" like to point out the round trip efficiency, well it's not as great as with batteries, but if the round trip efficiency was among the bigger issues with long term energy storage in hydrogen we'd already be living in a hydrogen economy. The main problem with the hydrogen economy isn't the round trip efficiency, it's the fundamental fact that it's an extremely bad choice for the intended purpose, storing and transporting energy. The Hindenburg, also not relevant, that was uncompressed hydrogen, that just burned. Highly compressed hydrogen can cause very intense explosions, if that amount of hydrogen had been stored in a tank, at normal storage pressure, at ground level, and that tank had bursted, there would probably not been many surviving eye witnesses, if any. Rocket fuel, sure, transporting hydrogen and oxygen to space and use it use in fuel cells there and use the water, instead of transporting say batteries and the water, sure. As a process input, sure. As meaningful energy carrier for grid scale energy storage and transport, absolutely no way. If we start producing "green hydrogen" in large scale from "excess" power generation we could use that in much better ways than energy storage. One way would be producing nitrogen fertilizer, which currently is done with natural gas, on a huge scale. Solid fertilizer is much cheaper and easier to store than the hydrogen, and we need the fertilizer anyway. So there's no need to create an artificial demand for "green hydrogen". Another seamless route would be producing methane to start replacing natural gas in current systems. Yes there's a pesky carbon atom in the methane molecule, but you don't have to burn fossil fuels to produce that carbon. The fuel cell was invented 185 years ago, that is before the first rechargeable battery was invented. The idea of a hydrogen economy was seriously proposed, without using that exact term 100 years ago, would have made some sense then, instead of building electricity grids in some places, but couldn't compete with building electricity grids where there were none. For ground based vehicles even lead acid batteries have a much bigger niche that they are viable option for.

@sjswitzer1

5 ай бұрын

I was tempted to respond with something along these lines but you’ve done it much better than I could have. Thanks!

As a nuclear chemist, I haven't seen a video on this topic with a better and clearer explanation. Extremely well put. Thank you! :)

Great video Doc! Informative straightfoward, and entertaining at the same time. Keep it up!

@ThreeTwentysix

10 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Very well explained.

Hope you never stop making videos! Incredibly entertaining and educational in the best way. I wish i could attend one of your classes!!

Thank you for a very informative run down, well presented.

POWERFUL! MASTER PRESENTATION!!! GENIUS#AWSOME #❤️👍👍👍

Perfect video!!! 🤩

Your videos are excellent!

Also, would you mind discuss the options in terms of : 1) electrolysis of seawater (as perfected in China) and 2) Hydrogen stoprage as a Metal Hydride in powder form, safe at standard pressure and temperature (as perfected by Electrique Group).

We need to get around the issue of recycling Wind turbine blades and Solar panels. Do you happen to know the state of the Renewables markets from that angle?

berilah ilmu dari orang yang memahaminya dan sebarkan supaya masarakat menyadari apa yang terjadi dan apa yang seharusnya dilakukan . . .

thx

Good

Would like to hear your opinion on the documentary Planet of the Humans.

Hydrogen and Nuclear are more likely to play a significant role in densely populated wealthier nations that don't have abundant solar and wind energy resources, e.g., places where it snows. Cheaper solar is likely to be much more prevalent in places with lots of sunshine, e.g., places where it mostly doesn't snow. It is important to remember that the majority of people live in places where it mostly doesn't snow. Solar and batteries are also highly transportable. They can be carried in a pocket, a backpack, a car, a van, a truck, a train, a ship, an orbital satellite, or an interplanetary space.vehicle. A varied range of sustainable energy solutions will likely be developed in different parts of the world to suit different environmental, economic, industrial, social (e.g., degree of utility centralization, nomadic lifestyles, etc.), and political conditions.

@jeffholman2364

7 ай бұрын

In addition places that snow often have access to hydro power, onshore wind, and or offshore wind, some hills or mountains that facilitate pumped hydro, bio mass and some geothermal - which will all compete for market share of both replacement and new builds. I don't know why it's so often assumed the choices are only between solar or nuclear? HVDC connections and demand management will also be part of the evolving mix.

My employer, Hitachi Energy Sweden (formerly ABB Power Grid Sweden) has been building long range High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission lines for the past several decades. Back in 2010, we designed, built and commissioned the Shanghai-Xiangjiaba HVDC transmission line that can deliver up to 6400 MW over a distance of 2000 km long. The other major player in this niche market segment is Siemens AG of Germany and they have also delivered multiple HVDC projects all over the world. Given that, I am wondering why you claim (at around 3 minutes in this video) that long range direct transmission of electricity is very much on the border of science and engineering problem.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

I looked at articles detailing the problems with power transmission from the Sahara to Europe in other related research (I was actually very excited about it). These articles (I don't have them to hand now) seemed to suggest limits of several hundred kilometres. So, thank you for your comment, it seems that the development of long distance power is much better than I thought. That said, we've seen blocking high pressure systems stretch across the whole of western Europe for weeks. That means plenty of solar power in the daytime but nothing at night. Which, even with long distance power transmission, brings us back to the classic renewable problem: to get through two weeks of no night-time energy, we'd need to have far more than enough solar and storage than we'd need for 'normal' weather conditions. Hydrogen power is not a replacement for renewables or their distribution with HVDC lines, it's a complement to be added to the mix to reduce unnecessary redundancy.

@blade-OT

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen as an energy storage medium has the worst possible efficiency of any of the available choices, including compressed and liquid air storage, let alone battery storage. To store renewable--or any other electricity--in hydrogen means throwing 3/4 of it away. At low scale for very bespoke applications maybe not a deal breaker, but for massive GWh and TWh applications it's a non-starter. The end.

Waaaaaaaooooo m Great wisdom as here in Uganda we are soon starting to build a nuclear power station, and it can be used for Hydrogen Energy, and me as a researcher, this is very important Thank you so much

Very nice video! I just have one question. Why does fossil fuels-produced electricity can be spread to the electrical grid, but the electricity produced by solar or wind energy can only be used for local area?

@ThreeTwentysix

11 ай бұрын

By 'local', I mean over a distance of up to about 200 km. Fossil fuels are also local-only but they are reliable so you just dot power stations close to population centres. Renewables are generally unreliable near population centres so, on windless days, you'd need long distance energy transmission to get energy from wind turbines that are actually working. This problem is becoming more serious as global warming creates high pressure systems that can stop wind across areas the size of Europe.

@charlessao7523

9 ай бұрын

@@ThreeTwentysix Thank you for your explanation. Technology exists to transmit electric power from hydro-electric power stations over distances of several hundred kilometers through high voltage ac transmission lines. For example, back in my home province of British Columbia, the major load centers are Vancouver and Victoria. However, the largest hydro-electric power stations are in the Peace river area, which is 800 km or more away from these load centers. Given that, I am wondering why we cannot solar power from deserts (eg. the Australian outback) and relatively more reliable offshore wind power from places such as the North Sea cannot be transmitted to population centers.

Look at Copenhagen Atomics , they are developing a thorium molten salt reactor. This could be a very good solution for producing electricity and hydrogen for 2 cents per kWh , no investment needed for the reactor , could manufacture one 100 MW th reactor per day. This can be a fast track solution for the climate and resources problem.

This is very true. He said the reason why we don't have enough nuclear power stations is because of "the so called environmental groups that has an opposition to nuclear power"

Interesting, although I think you got a lot of things wrong. Clean energy doesn't need to stay local. Once generated and condutioned for the grid, it's electricity whether a coal plant or a solar farm generated it. The reason why most don't think it's a good idea is it drops the efficiency. California designed their green grid poorly, so most of their solar would burn out their local grid when its producing max wattage, so they've been getting other states to take it. I can see hyrdrogen production being okay as a means of energy storage when excess energy is being produced by green energy generation, but other than that its end to end efficiency is abysmal Sorry, but it's true. Maybe someday it will get better, but what your talking about is expending quite a lot of energy and respurces in the effort to build the infrastructure for something that that will give poor results. Right now, we need maximum bang for the buck to displace as much fossil fuels as quickly and cheaply as possible. Plus, if heat is a source of generaring hydrogen, why wasn't using solar heat to generate it part of the mix. Solar electric panels are about 18% efficient at oeak times, whereas solar heat capture is much higher. Plus, I'm not totally sure where you got that nuclear so environmentally friendly. The US Department of Energy currently uses a large portion of its yearly budget just in their attempt to clean up nuclear waste. That budget us needing to grow year after year just to keep up. What's more, while the current waste is being dealt with better, it's long term cost is hard to calculate, since much of it will need to be maintained for generations. While I do agree nuclear will likley need to be added to help with the transition away from fossil fuels, let's not pretend history doesn't exist. Also, to really beat climate change, we need to stop hoping for hopeful future discoveries and technology to be the cure. If the come, great. We don't need them in the least to already do some serious damage to fossil fuels and to global greenhouse gas emissions. Like I said before, solar heat is way more efficient that solar electric. If you look into it, generating heat is a big chunk of yearly emissions. The technology already exists and the resrources needed are abundant and cheap to fix this. Capture solar heat year round locally, and store it in sand heat batteries. Then, when the heat is needed, it can be drawn out of the batteries and used. Construction on these things could start as soon as plans are drawn up. Governments could invest by subsidising it and offering grants to homeowners and developers. Industry could even use it with heat pumps to increase the heat to industrial levels. Even in higher latitudes this could be very effective. The batteries could store a lot of heat over the hotter summer months quite far from the equator. What's more, solar heat could be used to reduce methane production in organic waste. It could be used to produce warm are to flow over organic waste. It would dry it out, warm it up, and provide abundant oxygen, which makes for perfect composting that drastically reduces methane production. What's more, these could be smaller operations all over the place in fields putside cities and towns. The warm humid outflow from these operations could go through greenhouses. Using metal rods or screens that are connected to the exterior, they can force some of the humid air to condensate and keep a water source for the plants. Rain conditions could be replicated. So the greenhouses could support the growing of more exotic plants that typically can only grow in more equtorial regions. The operations would generate a constant supply of rich compost to also help the plants grow. This type of system would require minimal outside power. It would help deal with our massive organic waste problem. It would help reduce a massive amount of methane from entering the atmosphere. It would help local farmers and also help with local food security. It would also reduce the demand for so much food to e shipped vast distances. There's nothing space aged about it and yet it can very quickly have a significant impact on climate change. I love tech and love all the various things being researched. We really need to get our heads out of the clouds and just find solutions that work now though too.

@ThreeTwentysix

8 ай бұрын

This is a great comment, even though I obviously disagree with some of the weighting of your conclusions. Thank you for taking the time.

What about Ammonia? Hopeful it will solve the storage and transport issues with hydrogen. Apparently Ammonia “can” be produced with renewable energy directly. Saw recent tech for Ammonia powered engines. What do you think of the possible future?

Good video

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Very important, informative, and we certainly appreciate your touching on the inevitability accurately. However, see our Facing Future podcast ‘taking fossil fuels out of the equation’ where we speak about the exclusive focus on trying to use the same fossil fuel paradigm as part of the problem…and that you don’t address. That change too is inevitable and it being largely missing (almost entirely in the U.S.) also why it seems to you and all to be transitioning ‘too slowly’. Many thanks for this all the same!

If water boils at 100c ? A solid oxide electrolyzers must operate at temperatures high enough for the solid oxide membranes to function properly (about 700°-800°C, compared to PEM electrolyzers, which operate at 70°-90°C, and commercial alkaline electrolyzers, which typically operate at less than 100°C). Other than constant power, Why would you need the heat from a nuclear power plant if the electrolyzer provides it? Just run the water through a radiator and using the waste exhaust heat to heat the water. The opposite of how are you cool ICE engine down.

To take on climate change, we need to produce massive amounts of H2 to make green NH3 and green steel. Using energy to compress H2 into liquid H2 for storage is not very efficient for other uses. For transportation, we need to use cable cars/trucks for most cities without hauling around batteries. Utilities need to gear up smart electrical grid three fold. They should use green energy or nuclear as much as they can. Electricity should be storage in cheap bulk storage batteries. The best way to storage energy is green (or nuclear) powered pumped hydro combined with desalination plants and irrigation systems. If breakthroughs in technology makes H2 cheap, like more efficient compressors, cheap fuel cell catalysts, more efficient desalination systems, more efficient H2 tank systems and nuclear fusion, we should start using liquid H2 for powering aircraft and H2 fuel cell vehicles.

I am normal person just. Think hidrogen only have one eletron to its orbit @ same time oxigen have many eletrons . The energy its concentrated on the opposite side and heat is the energy source for movement if its cold there it no eletrons movement and same thing applies .they say u loose energy through heat loss . The more oxigen its inject into engine the more power make . If u put lots hydrocarbon fuel will flood the engine and you don't go. But if u put carbon and igniter and add pure oxigen the fuel get really hot 🔥 cause oxigen so the fuel its the oxigen and carbon its the Midian condition to the energy be transferred. The hidrogen its cooling the heat of the thermoreaction and that's why water is resolt of the reaction cause u not use water using the energy in the molecules off . And the energy its the eletrons in movement because ever action its equal reaction if eletrons its push they move but if they are stable then it's no energy create And energy don't dessipear / Dessiped from hot to cold and if heat again comes back in the for of energy.

Most, if not all gasometers have been scrapped, another example of government forward thinking, There are other drawbacks to hydrogen, the energy costs of liquifying, pressurising are not insignificant, never mind the potential dangers of exploding cylinders in a road crash. I think it will be possible to develop efficient batteries not based on lithium (sodium?) for general storage with maybe li-ions for transport. Hydrogen may have a niche but in my opinion it's a dodo. Sorry to be so negative about hydrogen, I have nothing against the gas as such. Very good presentation.

Loll the credits bit 3 times 😂😂

The main reason to change to hydrogen economy it is we need something to replace the fiat currency and gold or silver isn´t big or flexible enough for that .

If we spent one tenth of the money currently going to "renewables", on molten salt reactors, then we would soon have fully controllable, and essentially unlimited cheap, safe nuclear energy. Your nuclear power looks like PWRs to me. It is not throttleable. It cannot be used to fill in the gaps left by renewables.

Thank you for putting the whole renewables/nuclear/Hydrogen storage picture together logically. I am sick of the false claims that solar power is cheap and that nuclear power is more expensive, when the reverse will be dramatically true once fossil fuels are not available for solar backup and following load variation. Solar or wind is completely incapable of load following. Only an immense amount of exorbitantly expensive batteries, Hydrogen powered generation or load following nuclear can serve that purpose on non-hydro systems. And it appears that only the latter two may be affordable, because batteries are many times more expensive than nuclear power plants - the favored comparison of solar advocates who have not contemplated the non-fossil fuel future. Simply making solar energy usable around the clock from eight hours of peak sun, comparable to continuously operating nuclear, requires solar capacity of three+ times the load and a minimum of 18 load-hours of battery storage, considering 10% storage loss. And that is just the bare minimum storage that must be charged when the sun sets; much more will be required to randomly absorb unpredictable excess and supply deficiencies during sunlight hours. However to simply provide, for instance, 300 MW for the 16 hours lacking peak sun would require 1800 of Tesla's 3 MWh megapacks, costing 1 to 1.5 million dollars each, for a total of 1.8 - 2.7 billion dollars. Contrast that with the current quote of roughly $1 billion for a GE-Hitachi 300 MW SMR, being planned by TVA, Ontario Power Generation and Poland. Factor in solar's need to store energy long term for sunless days and and the cost of solar battery storage can easily makes it ten times as expensive as nuclear. That's a lot of room for nuclear cost overruns or for use of stored Hydrogen to eliminate some of those exorbitant battery costs. Hydrogen production by both excess solar or nuclear also offers a means of increasing system load in lieu of curtailing renewables or maintaining so much battery storage. And using H2 for infrequent multi-day loss of renewables clearly replaces long term battery storage. In the long run the even cheaper Gen IV load-following nuclear will obsolete solar, wind and batteries where it is allowed. But H2 will still be needed for fertilizer and thousand degree industrial processes, so remaining renewables can still have a use making H2 full time w/o requiring batteries.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

That's a very informative comment. Thank you.

Why do you have to transport Hydrogen? Why not just create the Hydrogen at the source? Turn on the water tap and use electrolysis at the point at which is needed, job done.

@ThreeTwentysix

Ай бұрын

Nice thinking but the point is that some parts of the globe have reliable, intense sunlight/windpower/tidal power, while most other parts don't. So you generate the hydrogen where it's most efficient and factor transportation costs into your calculations of whether it's worth it or not.

@AlleyKatPr0

Ай бұрын

@@ThreeTwentysix Ok, so, please name these locations. I'm not kidding, name me a location where you cannot generate hydrogen via electrolysis, and, where there are no other forms of free energy, like Solar or Tidal or Wind. Looking forward to your reply.

This is the best, most informative, yet simple explanation of the issues with hydrogen that I've ever seen. Amazing!

Hydrogen economy isn't going to takeover the world. Mark my words. It's the cost issue.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

I don't think it'll take over the world but I am convinced it'll be an important part of the mix.

Shipping hydrogen is insane hence, nobody wants to invest in it local production is the key

12:38 You are wrong.. The Efficiency is 90%, you lost 10%, when you mention Solar to direct hydrogen, without using a solar cell, then in that case the new record is 20% efficiency, which is not bad, taking into account that solar farms has a 22% efficiency and they still need an electrolyzer to transform that electricity to hydrogen. 10:39 currently half wrong and full wrong (if we wait 7 more years). Solar and wind are the current cheapest ways to produce electricity and in few years hydrogen would reach 1usd by kg which at that point would be cheaper than natural gas (that value is already possible depending the place and the technology used). 16:23 No is not.. First, I would not call Chernobyl and Fukushima just an issue for "green goups lacking knowledge". No when each one of those accidents are still the most expensive accidents in human history (with a government cost higher than any natural disasters), Chernobyl total cost was 700 billions and Fukushima would be close to 600 Billions in few years. With less capital than that you can remplace all nuclear plants in the world with a mix of solar, wind and hydrogen that would work much better to follow the demand than Nuclear. New nuclear real cost is at 130 usd/MWh without subsidies, when you see prices below that, is just because they had low discount rates or because they are just pointing the operation cost without including the capital cost. When the discount rate is low, investors are not paying for the capital, citizens are, mostly the future generations. I also can mention 10 more killing points against nuclear, but I guess the cost is just enough. Current Solar is at 35 usd/MWh with some record farms reaching 16usd/MWh. The rest of the video is well made, so congrats for that.

Not all engineering problems where there science is understood are solvable. Or at least it's dangerous to make that assumption. Take a space elevator, the science is completely understood, does that mean the engineering issue is just a matter of time? Well, you're a chemist so I don't need to explain the material issue. Carbon nanotubes may never be practical over hundreds of km. Take the jackhammer, if you've ever been woken up in the morning or dragged one around on site then you'll see it has some pretty big negatives. If you sent one back 150 years they'd struggle to tell the difference with the ones they have. It's essentially unchanged. Sometimes engineering just doesn't improve even in the face of commercial pressures, manufacturing revolutions, computer design and material technology.

Something that's not mentioned that's a big potential for hydrogen with Nuclear that's been in research and testing by Japan for a decade is a new type of reactor that operates in very high temperatures which is a part of the upcoming Gen4 nuclear plants. Japan's test reactor called HTTR, a type of a high temperature gas reactor that's been operating since the 1990s produces waste heat at around 950C which is much higher than current plants (300-450C). This allows it to do another way of splitting water using purely heat via thermochemical cycles (a variant of thermolysis), it bypasses the efficiency roundtrip issue of electricity as you skip electric input on generation and use high waste heat directly which is a form cheaper energy. The other chemicals are recycled so only h2 and oxygen is the output of the process. The sulfur-iodine cycle which Japan is focusing on has a touted 50% thermal efficiency and has been tested at both bench and lab scale in Japan already. The govt has contracted Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build a large H2 plant next door to the reactor to utilize the waste heat to test industrial scale generation and allow cogeneration of both electricity and hydrogen at the same time. It's touted to finish building the H2 plant around 2027-2030s. The Jp govt also estimated this method to be even cheaper than steam methane reforming with current gas prices even without subsidies. It's a potential game changer as Japan has been building their H2 infrastructure for a while now and we can quickly switch to clean hydrogen from those reactors once they come online in commercial operation.

Long Live Nikola ❤

Mr. Fusion?

nuclear wont change anything, because there aren't enough materials... the plants are already nearly uneconomical... let alone when the materials hit unobtanium prices. nuclear isn't an option. even if the materials could be refined and commissioned for FREE, the supply still isn't enough to satisfy *current* demand

Until the third act of this video, I was wondering: What about using 4th-generation nuclear (fission) technology--currently available--to produce hydrogen? OK. You got there. I was somewhat put off, however, by your blaming fear-mongers for fission power's bad rep. Horrible things have occurred because of poor fission-technology engineering. What's more, effing up a nuclear plant (and the long-lived waste they create) creates a problem that outlasts many generations of humans. So the great safety rate for nuclear is canceled by the longevity of the problems encountered so far. Have the fission power engineers solved these problems? A video, please.

Combustible hydrogen in the ICEngine of a plug-in hybrid PHEV+H drivetrain stores at much lower pressure in smaller/safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the MPG equivalent possible with fuel cell EV tech. PHEV tech distributes battery resources much more equitably than all-battery BEV tech. PHEV tech addresses the main problem with vehicle travel and transport: we drive too much and transport essential commodities too far. The only real solution is to drive less, truck and ship goods less, ship air freight and fly for recreation less. Relatively small battery packs of PHEV tech (rather than much larger BEV packs) are the better match to consequently small 'rooftop' solar arrays and neighborhood mini-grid systems. Vast solar field arrays require long-distance transmission lines connected to vast regional utility grids. both of which remain vulnerable to power outage. The relatively short range PHEVs offer on their small packs are an incentive to drive less which supports the growth of local economies whereby more trips eventually become possible without having to drive, whereby walking, bicycling and community transit systems may serve more travel needs.

@artlewellan2294

3 ай бұрын

PHEV tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks. Huge BEV freight truck battery packs (500+kwh) burn out in 150k - 200k miles and replaced in less than 2 years. Modest PHEV battery packs (100kwh) also last 150k-200k miles collectively delivering 1 Million miles of goods transport, each pack far less expensive to replace AND still usable for years as low-power household or commercial backup power systems. Suck on that, EV expert wannabees.

I agree that ammonium is a better bet than hydrogen.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

Well ammonia has its advantages but I don't think it's a final answer. I expect there will be a mix of solutions, at least initially. The final answer will ultimately depend on how soon the storage problem can be ironed out.

The cost of new nuclear plants is insane though. You will rarely find a project that isn't billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. There needs to be a global push for a standardised design to bring cost down or it's not going to happen.

@ThreeTwentysix

10 ай бұрын

Yes, the cost is indeed a serious problem of nuclear power. But it's one that investment in nuclear research will mitigate and we're decades behind where we could have been.

@mrstevecox7

9 ай бұрын

You are talking about LWRs. The trajectory is now towards MSRs and the Thorium economy. These are smaller, and all round cheaper than coal. They also don't need a complete revamping of the infrastructure..

@wilfriedhahn5053

9 ай бұрын

Copenhagen Atomics is developing a thorium molten salt reactor with planed cost of electricity of 2 cents per kWh , no investment needed for the reactor because it plans to sell the electricity generated and not the reactor. The manufacturing is so effective that it could manufacture 1 reactor of 100 MW thermal energy per day. Ideal for production of hydrogen or ammonia locally where it is needed. This would be a fast track solution for our climate and resources problem. Commercially available in 2028 if politics and licensing are supporting and if NGOs start understanding about the benefits of nuclear technology This w

@berndf0

7 ай бұрын

​@@ThreeTwentysixWe have had 70 years of serious r&d in nuclear power plants. This argument isn't serious any more. And the biggest problem with fission power plants is the waste. And this problem will haunt us for a long time. Nuclear fission can only be a transition technology to fill the gaps until other non-fossil power sources can reliably provide all the required power 24/7.

You missed two big costs. Battery electric cars are cheaper then hydrogen cars to own and operate. Car and Driver reported last fall that electric cars where slightly cheaper then petrol cars over three years. That was last fall before all the recent price drops. The expectation is there will be BEVs cars from Tesla cheaper then the VW Golf and Toyota Corolla. The transformation to BEVs is inevitable. It will be driven by cost. For Hydrogen cars to succeed, they will have to replace BEVs. Hydrogen cars will only succeed if they are cheaper to own and operate then BEVs. Costs killed the nuclear power industry in the US, not environmentalists. Nobody could pencil in a profit building nuclear power plants. Cost is why I'm pessimistic about fusion. ITER and it's successor look very expensive. An electrified economy is the first time I saw a real hope that we could solve global warming. Nothing else I have seen looks like it will work. Go read Tesla's "Master Plan Part 3", it lays out how an electrified economy will work. This sentence from the report sums it up best "This paper finds a sustainable energy economy is technically feasible and requires less investment and less material extraction than continuing today’s unsustainable energy economy." The cheaper part means that the switch to an electrified economy has already started and it is inevitable.

@ThreeTwentysix

11 ай бұрын

"Battery electric cars are cheaper then hydrogen cars to own and operate." This is true, but they don't have the range of hydrogen cars. Even so, I don't think hydrogen v battery cars is where the debate lies, as I said in the video, it's the scale that's the difference. "Costs killed the nuclear power industry in the US, not environmentalists." Costs are one thing when it's nuclear v. fossil fuels, but it's very different when it's nuclear v. climate catastrophe. "Tesla's "Master Plan Part 3, it lays out how an electrified economy will work" I'll check it out, thanks. But in the mean time, anything that relies on local renwable energy combined with long distance energy transmission is waiting on the 'long distance transmission' bottle neck and that's currently no better than hydrogen.

@k34561

11 ай бұрын

@@ThreeTwentysix Talk about "Costs are one thing when it's nuclear v. fossil fuels, but it's very different when it's nuclear v. climate catastrophe." The problem with a more expensive solution to climate change is convincing people to spend the money. I remember seeing a survey a long time ago. If a greener product cost more, only 5% of the people would buy. If the greener product cost the same, only 50% of the people would buy. But if the greener product was cheaper, 95% of the people would buy. Cost drives many peoples choices. Convincing people to spend money on a more expensive solution will have limited success. Green project size. Big projects are very difficult to fund and build. Small projects are easy. A household can install solar panels are buy an electric car. We have done both. A $1-2 million wind turbine can be purchased out of regular funds by a power company. No financing needed. On the other hand a power plant needs expensive financing and approval, even worse for a nuclear. My last thought about cost, is all things equal, the cheaper product is greener. The more expensive product likely used more resource, hence more pollution. When looking for solutions to global warming, people need to put cost front and center. Not only will the cheaper solution be likely more green, it will be easier to convince people to buy it.

@ThreeTwentysix

11 ай бұрын

@@k34561 Sure, but a bicycle is cheaper than a car and a car is cheaper than a plane. At the end of the day, we pay what it takes to get the right thing for the job. The population in general, but particularly the people with the power to do something about it, are simply not yet worried enough about global heating. But that will change. And when it does, the money will come too. The only question is whether or not it comes soon enough.

@jayandwise

11 ай бұрын

Hydrogen energy is not just the substitute of EV but it is a medium of net zero energy including generating, storing and distributing. There could be some spill over needs from EV industry but it can’t be limited only to transportational use.

@angellestat2730

11 ай бұрын

​@@ThreeTwentysix battery fanatics only see the world as if they needs are the world needs. They dont need an utilitarian vehicle, they also have a house with garage where they can charge their car at nights, the rest of all the energy sectors does not matter either.

Two good news: 1. There is no climate crisis. 2. China is now producing the fourth generation nuclerar plant COMERCIAL.😊

@ThreeTwentysix

4 ай бұрын

Also, world is flat.

@osopolarmovies

4 ай бұрын

Don´t worry, the temperature increase after the little ice age is over now. The temperature increase from the oceans releases CO2. CO2 always increase delays after every ice age. Our Sun will bring a colder climate för 30 years.@@ThreeTwentysix

But it IS NOT happening. Anybody can "burn" hydrogen. Toyota, for instance. All right, we should maybe call it recombining in a fuel-cell. But it is a bugger to store. There is no clever technical trick to overcome this. That is in the nature of hydrogen. Batteries, on the other hand, are becoming more and more practical. And there is already a very convenient distribution system.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

There are always tricks. That's what chemists and materials scientists do. It can be stored, and it is being stored. That's why I have pictures of storage tanks in the video.

@HablaCarnage63

9 ай бұрын

@@ThreeTwentysixI believe that although hydrogen is transportable, static applications will happen first. Excess power will be stored locally as hydrogen where the weight of the container and fuel cell is not an issue. Always wanted a hydrogen-powered airship though.

@ThreeTwentysix

9 ай бұрын

@@HablaCarnage63 Yes, we still have methane tanks scattered about towns in Japan. And I think that hydrogen-bouyed airships must also be possible these days since their flammability is something that likely can be accommodated. The Hindenburg, is of course, the poster boy, but there are surely ways, using modern materials to mitigate the risk of fires to start with, and then minimise the consequences in the event of a fire. After all, as destructive as the Hindenburg was, most people escaped alive because it happened relatively slowly. Compare that with a plane falling from a similar height.

@netional5154

8 ай бұрын

Electricity is indeed superior in distribution. It can distribute with the speed of light. Hauling an explosive fuel around the world with boat speed is a bit old school. And there are so many electricity storage solutions that don't require expensive materials, like pumped hydro or the sand battery etc.

The fundamental error of this lecture is that the doc compare sources of energy (oil, gas, solar, nuclear) with hydrogen who is not a source, is only a carrier and storage media. H2 must be compared with batteries, flywheel, hydro-pumping, etc. Among the storage alternatives H2 is the more expensive and less efficient Hydrogen

eh

You would be a lot more credible if you would comb your hair doc...

@ThreeTwentysix

11 ай бұрын

Hey! This is a _style_. (Fun fact: I had a broken arm while recording this video, hence my personal grooming was somewhat off and why you never see my left hand).

lol dating app 30+

The 1920-1945 rise was just as rapid as recent change and the IPCC says that CO2 emissions only became significant after 1960. So clearly it is NOT "accelerating" and neither is it only caused by CO2. You do not have the SLIGHTEST clue about this subject. Stick to chemistry !! Stop playing politics.

Another green zealot.

Sticking your face closely into the camera while insisting that the hydrogen economy is inevitable but just happening too slowly doesn't make any of your fact-free statements truer. Long distance transmission of electricity is what again? You mean a fact for over one hundred years the world over? And I'm sure you haven't heard of HVDC either. In comparison, transporting hydrogen in any of its forms is highly lossy, complex and expensive. And seriously, nuclear energy isn't being implemented more just because of environmental activists in evil yellow suits? How about because it's the most expensive form of energy today by a factor of four, with current new generation construction costs exceeding $10B per GW of capacity? It's not yellow men fighting it, it's economics. Maybe do some of your own research and crunch some of your own numbers and you won't be falling for this incumbent energy industry BS quite so easily.

PLANTS LOVE CO2!

the future of energy will be the same - just a little more spread out