Blue Hydrogen. The greatest fossil fuel scam in history?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Blue hydrogen is being enthusiastically promoted by natural gas producers as the simplest and cheapest answer to decarbonising our economies. But recent studies have shown that it's overall greenhouse gas emissions footprint is worse than natural gas. So, is this just the latest in a long series of diversions and deceptions from the fossil fuel industry?
Peer reviewed paper : "How Green is Blue Hydrogen?"
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos? Check out the FREE Dive Deeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Check out other RUclips Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research links
UK Hydrogen Strategy
assets.publishing.service.gov...
UN assessment of methane
www.unep.org/news-and-stories...
Chris Jackson resignation
www.independent.co.uk/climate...
Methane leaks
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
www.desmog.com/2021/08/25/met...
Blog piece by Paul Martin
/ distilled-thoughts-hyd...
IEA paper on CCUS
www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-c...
New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
news.bloomberglaw.com/environ...
www.newyorkbuildingenergy.com...
"The earth has enough for every man's need, but not for every mans greed." - Gandhi
The only problem with this idea is that we've not figured out a realistic en masse motivation system beyond greed and capitalist marketplace aggression. Greed, with the promise of wealth (however illusory and destructive) is still in the 21st century the default motivator. The only dent we've managed to put in this depressing fact of human behavior is that when we finally lifted the millions out of the lower- and into the middle-class in the post-WWII era, the Boomers were, by and large, idealistic-minded, i.e., a certain amount of what I call "shortage mentality" was retired. But of course my generation plimpered it all away like the feckless, facile clowns most of us were, and yet it was the first time we saw Gandhi (and other similar idealists, e.g., the Finnish eco-activist Penti Linkola) taken seriously by a large chunk of society. What we need is Gandhi's aphorism to be taken seriously. But it can't, won't be by people clamoring for more, more, more because they've been infected with a shortage mentality to panic levels.
Mahatma Gandhi is fully correct for his times.
Today I feel there is more than enough available for everyone's needs, everyone's comforts and also for everyone's luxury. All this is very much available and possible in a highly sustainable and environmentally responsible manner.
Problem and real hurdles are those who have power to take decisions, political leaders and bureaucracy do not have wise counsel.
They suck up to powerful influences of polluters and fail in long term vision despite availablity of best minds around.
They succeeded in healing the ozone hole.
I pray for success in global warming which is far more difficult than phasing out a few gases.
@@rajeshchheda456 I know what you're saying is true, but many do not. In the capitalist West, the rights of private property trump all other rights. This has been expanded to legally shelter polluters and "wrong-wayers" in general. How? By making literally sacred any and every person's right to own land and materials, and to make a living, no matter how detrimental and destructive it might actually be from those lands and materials. That is, if I devise some plan to get rich doing something environmentally bad, in many cases our courts (USA) have protected that activity as under the purveyance of private property -- even when the activity clearly violates existing environmental law. There was an infamous case in the Seattle area where an "entrepreneur" knowingly bought protected wetlands, then aggressively lobbied and sued the state to rescind the "development" restrictions. He eventually won on the private property argument. This is just the other side of the labor conflict coin where a factory/business owner can do what he pleases and can ignore workers' hardships. This, as well as our inability to "reassign" workforces when they're obviated by environmental laws and actions, makes environmental improvement very difficult. Think about this the next time the fossil fuel industry argues over all the jobs that will be lost if alternatives are "forced" on us.
There were fewer men in the world back then.
@@vylbird8014 That's the problem, isn't it? Without industry, much of the world would starve, and descend into continual war over resources that would be far more difficult to obtain. Industry went up because of entrepreneurship, aka, the self-interest of someone with enough means and talent to bring it to fruition. Ghandi might call that greed. I get that, but it doesn't change anything. We're here now. Lets solve the problems. Let's not make horribly worse ones by throwing out what works economically (such as the free enterprise).
Your presentation makes these videos fun, despite the depressing subject matter, which is no small feat!
@@recliningbuddha Finally! A video that tells it like it is. Really enjoyed this, thanks for posting the link.
@@rolliebca zw
People talking about 0 carbon, sounds like a good thing. Why? Because CO2 causes global warming? They say. That's what the media said, it is what the science says. The global is warming long before CO2 increase, and CO2 doesn't make it any faster. I am tired of this stupidity. Now, assume we have achieved 0 carbon, what would happen. CO2 has reached 280 ppm, before it increase to 380ppm. If CO2 gets below 250ppm, most vegetation on earth will die out. You want that to happen, stupid people?
He's VERY good isn't HE?
He is very cheeky, I love it.
Sir, you are just simply fabulous at deciphering and distilling for the rest of us the truths we all need to understand. Thank You.
That final point is a great one, the fact remains we need hydrogen for multiple vital processes, but we do not in any way shape or form need it to heat our homes or cook.
Hydrogen is storage for when we have excess solar and wind. More solar panels are cheaper than more battery capacity. Get to much solar for cloudy days. Sunny days make hydrogen.
The hydrogen for planes and heavy industry.
@@JD-cz5ci Couldn't have said it better myself!
I'm in my early 30s and I can remember saying to my dad that video can't work online. There isn't enough bandwidth. I feel like the solar energy issue will be similar. Not quite as fast the physical things are bigger to make but panels are getting real cheap. And actually don't have to get much cheaper. Make financial sense in grey Britain for a homeowner right now. Hydrogen means they make sense in the tropics big time.
Are any of you aware that hydrogen is the smallest molecule, which makes it extremely difficult to contain safely, and that if enough of it escapes, it might do serious damage to the Ozone layer? I only got told this by a guy recently.
I'm no expert on climate science but this guy is smarter than me, and it is a real concern to him. Many, many, things in life are about picking out the lesser evil, and I'm not sure Hydrogen is the wonder fuel it's been claimed to be...
We may honestly be better off with THORIUM for shipping and international travel! A new alloy has made it possible to contain the corrosive, radioactive substance.
Meanwhile nuclear fission is inarguably a lesser evil than fossil fuels, modern reactor designs are intrinsically safer than the badly-mismanged-by-commies Chernobyl and Terrible Location of Fukushima, and pollution harms more people than have ever been harmed in nuclear meltdowns!
@@michaelchildish
Ozone Layer is damaged.More ultra violet ; the sun is more radiant...Freon and other Factors..I think Ozone Generators should Build..High Pressure stainless steel Containers are being built for Hydrogen.
.A Few Random thoughts..
Not in Australia, we are still in the 1900's in relation to fossil fuels, therefore 2050 is around 150 years away at least...we've got plenty of time.
You mean the 1950's and going bacwards with these bought fossil fools..
Sadly your government is... something else.
We all know Australia is a myth
@@julianshepherd2038 Your father is a myth.
At least you’re way ahead of the US on water harvesting.
I always had my suspicions about hydrogen given how neatly it fits into the traditional supply chains for gas and oil. The trick was to convince the gullible that hydrogen is ‘clean’ and then trust that people wouldn’t look too closely at the means of supply.
I can agree but it can be green. The same could be said for EVs they only really makes sense if the primary energy source is renewable. Same goes for hydrogen.
Hi@@tommoise1747, Even if EVs only use electricity from coal fired plants, it is better results for the environment than using ICE vehicles. But ofcourse it's even better to use electricity made from renewables.
@@MichaelAlvanos I think his point was that Hydrogen can be just as green as a EV if the correct methods are used to create it. We shouldn't dismiss using hydrogen as an energy source/storage just because there are some bad ways to obtain it like the one mentioned in this video.
@@DBZM1k3 yes thanks for clarifying
The issue with only relying on electricity is countries like Canada where we dont get much sun during the winter we need an option to keep things running. During the winter we get like 4 hours of sun per day and only a few days where we would get enough wind. Hell even during the summer a lot of time its cloudy so the efficiency of the panels goes down. If we have a forest fire then the panels are basically useless. We are working on blue hydrogen with carbon capture. Methane isnt much of an issue either since they can capture that as well. Meanwhile they keep building hydro electric dams which produce a massive amount of methane that cant be captured since its spread out over a massive area. Either they need to use natural gas or hydrogen.
It's sad how well it's worked too. Politicians are completely on board which of course, they're on the corporate payroll, so there is effectively nobody standing in the way of this other than the scientists they've been ignoring for decades. These people are fine with trading human extinction for short term profits. That's the level of insanity that our system encourages.
Don't forget, BP is effectively the UK government....
human extinction, I doubt about that. The impact humans have on the planet besides greenhousegas emissions is so far the biggest contributor to extinction (Deforestation, industrial fishing, chemicelals in farming etc. The exploitation of our planet doesnt top when we are 100%renewable, we just shifted from an energy problem to a resource problem.
Green hydrogen solves problem of clean construction (cement, steel), renewable grid power variability, heavy transport, shipping, flight. We should be investing a lot more in developing green hydrogen. But it should be mainly powered by zero marginal cost renewable energy I.e. an adjunct of large investment and overcapacity in solar and wind.
If it were not so deadly serious, the wriggling and weaselling by the fossil fuel industry would be hilarious. However, it is deadly serious. Any H2 derived from fossil source, be they solid, liquid or gas are environmentally counter productive, particularly when you include thermodynamic losses. Any process that transforms energy from one form to another is NEVER 100% efficient. Therefore ALL forms of H2 energy use are inherently inefficient. H2 only makes sense when no other energy source works - for example one possibility being aircraft propulsion.
Unfortunately the fossil fuel industry is far to wealthy and far too short on honest evaluation and far too short on imaginative thinking to do anything but their current campaign. It's not disinformation. It's lies - to themselves and to the public
Well...from a technological point of view it's a bit difficult to use something that would make "1/4 the power" and burn at +2000°c.
Well said in a nutshell
Magnetohydrodynamic gives you both Hydrogen and can turn a Turbine to feed the Electrical Power Grid. How's that for efficiency...
@@steve-o6413 I searched for MHD electrolysis and found an ACS org article titled "Magnet doubles hydrogen yield from water splitting" which sounds great. The less efficient anode where O2 evolves, when made of magnetic material in the presence of a magnet doubles the current density. This doubles the O2 which correspondingly doubles the H2.
So doubling the H2 & O2 yields with double the current leaves the energy conversion efficiency the same??
My previous reply with links disappeared.
I am a welder and use Co2 as a shielding gas and over the last 5 years the price of Co2 has more then tripped because the amount in the air where they run the liquid air processes has dropped drastically so it is probably a good thing that they make 99 percent of the industrial Hydrogen from methane and produce cheep Co2 as a byproduct! The problem is the filling stations just vent the Co2 to the atmosphere!
Consistently the best climate channel on the interwebs.
Totally agree!!
Thanks Marc. I really appreciate that :-)
What the heck are "interwebs"?
Is this another unnecessarily made up word, when a shorter existing word would do, ie internet?
There is a good one from America with a less attractive slaphead.
@@AndrewBlucher it's just shorter than The World Wide Web, to which it usually refers.
I'm a chemical engineer so I find the hydrogen economy argument very interesting. I was so disappointed when I saw the UK government's hydrogen strategy and how much focus it places on blue hydrogen. I do think the scientific report makes some questionable assumptions, but even so it's obvious that a sustainable future should not remain reliant on fossil fuel extraction...
I glanced at a few hydrogen roadmaps, and they are appalling.
Scarcity of figures or references, images only for aesthetics, narrative like daydreaming.
I can look up what New Zealand's doing they actually have a vision for production.
Dude, the ocean will eat ALL surplus CO2 anyway, as it has done with the billion ton injected into the system by volcanos each year for billions of years. The ocean will regulate the CO2 concentration in the sea as it is chemically programmed to do, and there is nuffin we can do about it. And opposite, if ALL CO2 should disappear in the air, the ocean would soon release new CO2 (Henry's Law), and we would soon be back at the exact same concentration as today. We are dealing with a non existent problem here - it is pure hysteria and hyperventilating.
@@elbuggo what you are describing is called 'ocean acidification'. It's a well-known effect of the increase in atmospheric CO2. It's not a good thing, or even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
@@MichaelHeinrichs It is deceptive to use the term acidification in this context. It is used as pure fear porn. The ocean is clearly alkaline, and NOBODY is talking about the ocean will be turned into a acidic swamp. Maybe less alkaline, but no way any acid.
Where did all the CO2 injected into the system for billions of years by volcanos go? The ocean ate it mostly, and stored it on the seabed as another substance. The ocean can easily do it again - that is pure chemistry. Why this insane fear of CO2?
"So a new category has now been dreamt up, I mean developed".
Well done 👍🤣
:-)
@@JustHaveaThink You also forgot the dream of Turquoise H2 with pyrolysis, supposedly uses less electricity than Green H2, doesn't use our dwindling fresh H2O supplies. and the byproducts are an ultra pure form of carbon black which can be used for a variety of things (cheap graphene feed stock, lab diamonds, tires, carbon fiber, roads) depending on the temperature of the reaction and H2. If RNG from crop waste is used it's supposed to be carbon negative, might be worth a look into to see how valid it is! H2 for transport and heating is a bit of joke, but decarbonizing the H2 industry would be a nice thing to have.
@@JustHaveaThink How did the Earth recover from the higher temperatures and CO2 levels before humans even existed ? I read that most of the deserts had vegetation because of this is this happening now
This is great! (It exudes commonsense).
My grump is how most hydrogen stories seem to be carbon capture stories in disguise. Carbon capture is a real problem. My point being the notion of carbon capture has become one of the most lethal ruses used by politicians to avoid taking urgent action (avoiding hard decisions) and by fossil fuel industry as a way of sustaining oil demand. Carbon capture is just so unknown and unreliable we really should not let politicians set plans that depend on it.
But how?
Carbon capture is not unknown. It is totally a scam. Take a look at "The Juice Media" here ruclips.net/video/MSZgoFyuHC8/видео.html The australian government has been using it to scam their population for years and it doesn't work.
Don't get sidetracked!
@@phillip1115 brilliant. Cheers. I subbed.
How? Simple, solar wind plus batteries will make renewable energy so rediculously cheap, hydrogen will not get a chance.. The energy needed to knock off H2 from a H2O molecule is a given and makes it a very inefficient process, no matter the technology will get better over time.. hence H2 will ALWAYS remain more expensive to make, than using the energy directly (as electricity) and with solar and wind plus batteries getting 40% cheaper every 2 years, Hydrogen will not have a chance.
And it is already happening, like we see in the car industry, EV's clearly winning over hydrogen, and so this will happen in the utility as well...
All this lobbying is just delaying tactics to keep the fossil fuel industry alive a little it longer, they know Hydrogen is not the solution, the market and general public will decide in the end, and I think the market already has decided. Solar, wind and batteries for the win!
Carbon Capture needs to be done. The IPCC report states that it'll be fundamental to keep below 1.5C rises in temperature. However, that doesn't mean we get a free pass to continue to use Fossil Fuels, and natural gas. The correct strategy should be to practice reforestation in areas where we can, use DCC techniques along with a steep curve to renewables (with it only being wind, hydro and solar) for our energy consumption needs. The US and Europe have vast amounts of land where wind speeds are high. Places like Saudi Arabia have enough sunlight (with a daily average of 8 hours) where they can transition to Green Hydrogen and export that globally for transportation industries that require much more energy dense solutions like trucking and aviation (and possibly DC fast charging stations that may not have the available generation capacity on hand).
Five words:
CARBON CAPTURE DOES NOT WORK!
It reminds of when cigarette manufacturers put "filters" on their coffin nails.
How did that work out for us?
Carbon Capture does work. It has worked for eons in nature. Plants convert atmospheric CO2 into sugars to feed soil biology. The results are several tons of carbon build up per hectare every year in the soil where it stays unless farmers apply nitrogen fertilizer to burn it out and release the carbon into the atmosphere again. There are now thousands of farmers worldwide who have stopped plowing and using nitrogen fertilizers and are sequestering carbon. This carbon holds more water which reduces runoff and helps cool the earth with a more balanced water cycle.
@@donlourie769 Sadly, plants only convert CO2 in to sugars during the day. At night time plants respire (release carbon dioxide) just like animals. Further, the amount of respired CO2 increases as environmental temperatures increase which doesn't bode well in a warming climate. We will not be able to plant our way out of trouble.
@@donlourie769 "thousands of farmers worldwide who have stopped plowing and using nitrogen fertilizers and are sequestering carbon."
That is NEVER going to make a dent in 410 ppm CO2. Plus, unless you bury biomass and turn it into coal, the termites and fungi will turn it back into CO2. Weathering of rock is the only proven way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere for long periods of time.
And besides, sequestering carbon by farming is NOT what these energy giants are talking about.
I wish that someone would run a similar study on ethanol added to petrol, and actually crunch the numbers. I suspect that ethanol offers little or no CO2 saving because making it is energy intensive and because it has a considerably lower energy density than petrol. A car will consume more fuel to travel a kilometre and more fuel during acceleration. In addition E10 can damage many cars currently on the road by damaging seals in the engine and causing steel fuel tanks to rust from the inside (ethanol is hygroscopic). Leaking seals in the fuel system and rusting tanks could cause a fire risk.
I don't have any links to offer, but I think the analysis has been done, and the result is that Ethanol is a scam.
You have that on RUclips: Why Biofuels Are Terrible
@@incognitotorpedo42 Ethanol produced with Corn is a scam, but Ethanol produced with Sugar cane is not.
@@prasun6084 where can I see more on this?
its a subsidy to corn farmers .
every pound is a seedling, invest your
seedling to creat a tree,re-invest your
seedling to creat a forest. to become
rich you must value savings more than
spending
Successful people don't become that way
overnight. What most people see at a
glance wealth, a great career, purpose is
the result of hard work and hustle over
time. I pray that anyone who reads this
will be Successful in life
It's a pity that most people out there
struggling through intense hardship and
have ignored cryptocurrency investments, were as
it can uplift their financial status
Yeah Mrs Rebecca Moore is a Successful forex trader who has great experience in
emerging market currencies investment
origination and financial strategy.
If you trade crypto with a good strategy like Mrs Rebecca , building your account will be so easy imagine making
over $7,000 every single week
no doubt working under Mrs Rebecca Moore .
management setup has elevated my
Trading status to a pro
Another wonderful video!
These videos must take absolutely ages to make.
I often follow up youre videos by reading those links and papers to help build my understanding and knowledge too.
Thank you!
Many thanks Mr Nimbus. Glad you like them!
I was at the seaside with my grandchildren last week. It was near high tide and there was a distinct horizontal tide line on the rocks about half a metre above the water. Then I thought, where would that line be with a worst case sea level rises of perhaps 2m in 80 years. It is really frightening. Greedy old people really should care. Dave, you are a hero, along with all the other people exposing these greedy people for what they are doing and what they plan to do to our little planet.
Cheers Jon. I appreciate your feedback :-)
@@JustHaveaThink What they are doing is worse than genocide, it is PLANETCIDE, and they need to be called to account for their multi-species mass murder. They want to burn something? Let it be THEM, preferably at a stake.
@@YodaWhat Woa now. "Execute the office, not the man." Thomas Paine. : )
@@jlmur54 - perhaps this is a case of where the office and the man are one and the same.
You said, "Greedy old people really should care."
Well, greedy old people know they will not be here in 20 years, much less 100 years, so no they really do NOT care. They only care about themselves and their immediate friends and family. It's the same systemic thinking by those in power that led to the French Revolution (1789).
Green Hydrogen is not only the future for a lot of heavier unconnected industries but it's also the only way. Industries like the Trucking industry and Aviation industry have much higher power requirements compared to car transportation where EVs will do well. Blue hydrogen should not be tolerated. It does more damage than good.
From what I've read, hydrogen for home use is not a goer for a couple of reasons 1. with our current pipelines there will be loads of leaks through the joints due to hydrogen is a smaller molecule. 2. hydrogen is highly corrosive and will corrode the pipelines
Hydrogen also makes steel brittle - leads to catastrophic failures. Need special substances for hydrogen handling.
@@DLWELD Hydrogen embrittlement of metals is probably what the OP was referring to. It isn't really "corrosion", though.
Exactly why the space industry always tries to move away from the 'obvious' clean fuel of oxygen and hydrogen. And why Elon Musk has (ironically) chosen methane as the fuel for his insane plan to colonise Mars.
@@paulhaynes5029 I think the volume of the liquid hydrogen fuel makes it a non-starter for rockets - they just get too large. That's why Elon chooses methane - slightly less specific impulse but 1/8 the volume.
@@Selectronify most places have read about refer to it as a molecule (but it is a chemical element in the Periodic table) and embrittlement is a form of corrosion
The anticorporate burns were so good! Keep up your savage, informed style up!
Elon Musk sums it up pretty well: "the staying power of a bad idea is astonishing"
Is this the same Elon Musk who is using methane for his new rockets and doing his best to destroy the Boca Chica nature reserve?
@@paulhaynes5029 A good trade off for sure!
@@paulhaynes5029 Same Elon who wants to escape from earth because he knows our current systems and lifestyles are fundamentally incompatible with sustainability. Hopefully us poor people can start living more sustainable lifestyles and ditch the exploitative economic systems once the rich and greedy play colonial invaders on outer space lands.
@@chokeeweebee OK
Like planned obsolescence ? Like having a battery that will become the structure of your car, so you can just thrash it whole when the battery's dead, for a brilliantly poor carbon accounting, but great way to sell more units ? Astonishing indeed.
As usual, a very cogent explanation at a level that's much better than any UK newspaper or broadcast outlet - so thanks for that. You pitch your videos at just the right level, not dumbing down to the viewer, but guiding them very well through the meat of science - because you know anyone watching your videos is interested, informed, modestly intelligent and has some basic understanding of science and reality. It's just so depressing though, these companies (and our political masters) have had at least 20-30 years to get used to the idea of the fossil fuel industry being a sunset industry, in particular their investors should know, but greed is still humanity's primary driver at the moment. I think the likelihood of avoiding a 2 deg C global temperature increase (which is equivalent of a 4 deg C landmass rise in temperature in the northern hemisphere) is now something approaching zero. I say this because the man who knows more about global warming than any other individual is James Hansen, and he made it plain some years ago that any CO2 concentration above 350 ppm risks bringing an unstoppable tipping point in the planet's climate. I don't believe there's any science or scientist anywhere that could in any way prove he's wrong.
Thank you for your excellent coverage of energy issues. I appreciate your clear and thoughtful reporting and continue to be educated and enlightened. Bang on!
Hydrogen only makes sense for applications where high energy density is needed, like airplanes. For everything else just store electricity in a battery and you're good to go. It's much more efficient.
Maybe make ammonia or methanol out of the hydrogen to make it easier to store and transport. Hydrogen is a bit bulky, or very high pressure, or very very cold.
Problem is the low physical density of hydrogen (liquid or gas) requires huge tanks. That's why Space X uses methane in its rockets. A good trade off of slightly less specific impulse to being able to carry 6 times the fuel energy for a given volume. Applies to planes too of course. Don't want a big fat plane :+)
One more field that needs hydrogen to decarbonize is commercial shipping. You can't put a ton of heavy batteries on a modern ship, be it cargo or otherwise, because well, the ship needs to float and it needs a LOOOOT of energy to go across the sea.
But yep, outside of those two applications, hydrogen is not necessary, just using electricity directly is both cheaper and more efficient.
Blue hydrogen is the new clean coal.
The filter tipped cigarette of the Fossil fuel industry.
Excellent video, I have shared via twitter and it has been picked up by one of the authors of the report you cite. Hopefully it will get you some further publicity, subscribers and supporters for your excellent channel
Hi Mike. Thanks for your support. I really appreciate that :-)
There’s also Purple Hydrogen, generated through electrolysis from nuclear electricity
Really? Purple? Love it :-)
If it is for hydrogen usage in the steel or fertilizer industry, pretty good idea.
If it is to power H-cars... nope... use the electricity directly, way more efficient.
At least with that there wouldn't be any greenhouse emissions
You have to admit there is a lot if creativity in the fossil fuel industry. How to put it to work in a positive way ?
You'd have to find a way of financially benefiting them more than selling their product does rather than the current model of subsidized fossil fuels.
Nothing more creative than graphs, maps, diagrams and figures that tell a story that is utterly contradictory to the truth.
@@zopEnglandzip AND in a way that would not let newcomers take advantage.
The problem from the perspective of big- oil is that their capital is locked in to a lot of infrastructure that is not useful for a green H2 business. Any green H2 process can therefore be exploited more cheaply by green startups than by big-oil changing over. Anyone with a lifetime of experience in oil well drilling will lose out to a recently qualified renewable energy at the interviews for a post in a green energy company.
A just transition would be one that protects the livelihoods of people who currently benefit from big oil (employees, and the shops where the employees spend their wages, and others).
One of the problems that efficient market folk (Thatcher, Reagan, Friedman, Hayek, etc) have foisted on the planet is the dismantling of the "inefficiencies" whereby govts could historically subsidise such a transition.
@@trueriver1950 interesting response, it's important to recognise how the free market has given us solutions in the past, with cash incentives.
Right now there is every incentive for US petrochemical companies to pump more than ever because they receive billions from the government, take that away and people won't instantly be put out of work but wages won't go up and less people will enter the industry while those further down the chain will invest more seriously in alternatives, once things have settled start applying the carbon taxes, and slowly ramp them up to allow everyone from well driller to consumer to adjust, you are right it can't happen overnight but bit needs to happen.
The free market doesn't do well when you ask it to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet.
Similar techniques to oil and natural gas drilling can be used to make ground source heat pumps, and a lot of the techniques for the construction of offshore oil platforms translate really well into the construction of offshore wind.
Yes! Great piece. 90% of our hydrogen comes from fossil fuels here in the states. It is not green at all.
I'm glad you're doing these talks.
In my work with a handful of automotive industry leaders in the last 15 yrs, all with Hydrogen cars to market as investments, I've run headlong into the sticky conversation about how the hydrogen gas would stack up to current oil-based fuels. There always is this question about burning hydrogen that I think too many people are mistaken about. Hydrogen as a gas would not be used as a "burn" fuel to generate torque via powered pistons, but rather as a source for catalytic electron flow to generate electricity in a non-exothermic reaction, no burning necessary.
Regardless of how the gas is used to generate power for the end user, the gas itself has never made sense for anything other than the feel-goods of short sighted marketing.
Power generation that relies on using power to destroy bonds in order to create a new fuel to store energy is always less efficient and more costly than simply using power to directly "fuel" an operation or be directly captured in energy storage.
If harvesting hydrogen in its raw form from the atmosphere for use in space is the plan, then fine; but harvesting dead plants and poop to process into hydrogen makes no long term sense other than as a potential money thing for the owners of dead plants (fossil fuels) and poop (cattle industries).
Why might it cross the mind of *anyone* that oil or other hydrocarbon fuels should be replaced with hydrogen?
i was wondering why large companies were seemingly doing the right thing.
Fungible or tunable ethics.
Then you won't like this channel because this channel is optimistic and actually understands economics unlike doomers who think that capitalism is inherently evil and will fund fossil fuels to spite hippies.
All of the innovation and hope that comes from wind and solar comes from a profit incentive that is being chased by institutional investors and billionaires. I guarantee you that 9/10 billionaires and 99/100 companies you've ever heard of are investing heavily in genuinely green/carbon reducing/carbon neutral technologies.
Even Amazon, the boogeyman evil empire of the entire world is sinking billions into acquiring an electrically powered fleet of vehicles.
@@adamanderson3042 wow that's a lot of bullshit
@@meurtri9312 Go ahead and tell me which specific part is factually/empirically wrong.
@@adamanderson3042 I actually favor and support capitalism. However I detest those in power who use their position to “guard” their holdings through deception and manipulation just to perpetuate their businesses. Petroleum industry suppressed evidence of lead poisoning for years. Tobacco companies lied and suppressed evidence their products killed their customers. Fossil fuel industry is no different today. The problem is they cannot imagine an alternative to the way society runs today and so oppose alternatives, despite overwhelming evidence their industry is changing our climate.
I don’t oppose capitalism. I oppose deception denial and resistance to better solutions.
I actually did the math for a modern hydrogen FC vehicle (Toyota Mirai 2nd Generation) and a modern, similar-sized battery electric vehicle (Tesla Model 3). In order for each of these to travel 1 kilometer, the hydrogen vehicle will need about 3 times as much electricity to make green hydrogen than it would take to simply charge the battery electric vehicle.
Correct. At least 3x more renewable power is required. Some calculate 5x.
@@nordic5490 It averages out at around a factor 2,8: 90% EV efficiency vs ~32% for a green hydrogen powered car. At least, that's what I read in a scientific magazine.
What about the environmental impact of batteries vs fuel cells?
@@abeeceedee599 75% power plant to wheel for BEV
@@neur0transmitter Batteries use a lot of relatively abundant and relatively easily-mined materials, especially lithium or in the future sodium. Fuel cells use very little of quite rare metals like platinum or iridium which are pretty nasty to mine. Both can be recycled with 95%+ material retrieval. Don't forget fuel cell also needs pretty heavy & large (100kg tank per 6kg of hydrogen, 150 liters worth of capacity for 6kg of hydrogen at 700 bar) tanks from carbon fiber (very energy consuming) and polyurethane.
Plus you need an electrolyzer, which is similar to fuel cell in materials but has a lot lower lifespan.
I thank all Patreons for supporting this content.
This content is for betterment of Humanity.
I like Dave for his no nonsense, crisp presentation of facts and figures that a dumbo like me can easily understand.
Today's media and media houses do less of reporting and more of opinions, judgements and entertainment,
Dave keeps away from all three and presents the picture whether hopeful, dire, misleading or anything else without resorting to dramatics.
Keep up the great work Dave.
Cheers Rajesh :-)
A question from dumbo like me,
If carbon dioxide can hold great warming potential, why not flood the homes(in measured proportions) in winter with carbon dioxide during freezing winter so that heat generated by burning wood, electricity stays longer and keeps warm, and using lesser fuels.
Could have a gas monitor that releases CO2 from a tank to maintain balance.
What do people think about this?
Your videos always fill me with hope. You seem so upbeat compared to most of environmental youtubers. However you showing this shows me that you are fully researching your topics, which makes me feel better about the hope provided by your other videos.
'Your videos always fill me with hope.' You jest sir, the man does not have a single positive hair on his head; he makes Jeramiah sound cheerful (:-)
You channel is so underrated, your content hopefully will entice viewers to subscribe and spread the knowledge.
That golden age of consumerism is coming to an end.
One of my many problems with hydrogen use is that you can't use the current gas transportation infrastructure to move hydrogen. You need a whole new system to move and store hydrogen.
Yes, you can and has been used already extensively.
It is possible, however I like to see a thrust-worthy report on efficiency and leakages.
There is however a lot of infrastructure for transfering ammonia, which is not only a hydrogen carrier but a carbon-free fuel in its own right with a significantly better energy density (by volume) than H2.
Besides being denser, it is also easy to store and transport as a liquid, which solves the main problems with hydrogen.
It can be used for a lot of things including shipping and even jet engines, and with 55% the specific energy (by weight) of kerosene, this gives a pretty decent range.
Dave, thank you for another brilliant explainer. I had significant doubts about hydrogen but never saw such a comprehensive explanation. I’m sure there are certain applications where hydrogen is a logical fuel alternative (shipping?), but there is no logic in it for domestic use.
Thank you! You really do bring the content down to the layman kennel of understanding! Keep it up
Very thought inspiring as usual: the combination of research and super clear and easy explanation makes a great approach to the communication of this kind of data. We really need to increase the awareness and the capability of critical thinking in as big a crowd as possible. Keep it up please!
Green hydrogen should not be taxed so it will encourage more investors and R&D to focus on it.
Brilliant as always
Wow! Awesome video! Thanks for clarifying all this complicated hydrogen stuff for us Dave!
This was an incredibly eye-opening video, thank you very much for doing this. I am doing a PhD on green hydrogen production from biogas reforming (using chemical looping) and would love to hear a bit more detail about your opinions on green hydrogen. You touched upon it briefly in this video but would you perhaps be able to make a short video exploring it some more? I would be very interested in learning more about it and whether green hydrogen actually has a future or direct electrification is the only way forward to try and mitigate the possibility of global crop failures within the next decade.
Is there any hope that blue hydrogen production manages over the next few years to effectively prevent any methane leakage and store safely underground all the CO2 produced?
I know it sounds wishful thinking, but hydrogen is not a solution for the short term anyway.
In any case, we need to know that blue hydrogen is freaking dirty right now, and thanks to Dave for pointing this out.
The simple answer is no. You will always have leakage around valve stems and other moving parts in a pipeline. The leakage is a loss of income to the industry because then they can't sell you what leaked away. If they could have stopped the leakage completely they would have. The leakage is as small as they can make it though.
@@lestermarshall6501 I get your point, and it's reasonable enough, but still they might be on to something that solves the problem but that takes some time to develop (I have no idea, just asking)
Cheers Giancarlo :-)
@@JustHaveaThink cheers Dave 😊
In principle it would be possible to reduce leakage significantly. The amount of leakage assumed by the paper Dave drew from is halfway between the high and low estimates. No attention was paid to the reliability of those estimates. Was the high estimate from an anti-methane group? Was the low estimate from a pro-methane group? We don't know. If the low estimate is not an out and out lie, then perhaps if represents an attainable level. I have some experience with the handling of gases, and I can tell you that methane leaks are not required by any laws of physics. They represent engineering failures that could be corrected.
Props to Chris Jackson for speaking the truth
Thank you for including heat pumps as part of the solution. It is so often disregarded and deriving heat and cooling from a ground source is effective and efficient.
This is at once alarming, engaging and informative - thank you!
Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that man’s selfishness and greed will kill us all.
Hmm, well then... Bye!
Or at least a lot of us, I doubt you could kill off every human without engineering a powerful bioweapon or something similar.
@@garethbaus5471 carefull, somebody might actually do that...oops too late.
Roll up your sleeves 🙁
@@alihenderson5910 I don't know of any bioweapons that are quite that powerful yet, and no such bioweapons have been released to date.
I think it is worth mentioning that there is also "pink hydrogen" which is pyorilzing methane gas which means the by-product is carbon instead of CO2, which could actually be stored safely or being used.
Interesting. That would actually be clean. I suppose the problem is the energy efficiency of the process. Must be terrible. (*pyrolyzing)
You confuse with turquoise hydrogen. Pink one is the one produced by electrolysis of water using nuclear plant produced electricity
Excellent talk. Very informative. Please use more animations in your videos in future for laypersons to understand easily
Yet again, thank you for a very enlightening insight into a difficult scenario. I've read a lot of articles about this already and your explanation has really clarified a lot of what I've read, most of which sounded as if it was trying to sell something that wasn't that advantageous. And so it proves, thanks to your information!
Cheers John. I'm glad it was helpful :-)
I dislike the comments about green hydrogen. It should be used as a form of battery, with increase of renewable energy generation there will be more periods with large surplus that needs to go somewhere. And for the timescale we need to go, real batteries just aren't developing fast enough. To store that much. 60% is better than turning off turbines.
Thanks so much for the off beat humour, that's exactly what i needed from a video on blue hydrogen 😂
This was an eye opening video, I thought all hydrogen production was a green operation. Unfortunately the people that make the decisions are wine and dine by the petroleum companies. Enough said.
95% of current world production of Hydrogen is steam reformed from natural gas. It's fossil.
What you thought just proves how effective the smokescreen can be...
This is possibly the best episode of JHaT ever! A must-watch for everyone interested in energy and environment.
Fantastic video thanks... just a trivial comment, you said "gets burned off through operational practices like venting"..... the process of burning off excess methane is called "flaring", "venting" is when methane is emitted un-combusted to atmosphere, e.g. because of a safety pressure value release or during well completion of fracked sites where excess gasses need to be cleared out..... venting is deliberate in the sense that it happens for operational/design reasons.... "leakage", on the other hand, is unintended release of methane to atmosphere due to poor maintenance etc.... all the best, and thanks again for the great videos you share....
Our descendants (if we have any) : "They had a chance, and they Blue it".
As a species, we are so dumb.
Well, everyone is saying that co2 is making it warmer, still all papers on that have been proven wrong and we still but it.
And even co2 made the ice in the north to melt, it would also lead to some brutal cold years insted. since the water stream would change.
Tremendous presentation - thank you. We touch on some of these issues in our IOCS, Inter- Ocean-Climate School
This is such a brilliant tear-down, so eloquently put and detailed. Thanks so much for making this.
I first heard of blue hydrogen from a local news article about a Saskatchewan company, Proton Technologies, that extracts hydrogen from orphaned oil wells. I didn't think about the energy that would go into making the steam, even though the carbon-dioxide would be created and would stay underground. I thought that it ought to be environmentally sound. Thanks for the think.
Here in NZ, green hydrogen is the con. They are planning to close an AL smelter which is powered from hydro and use the access power to make green hydrogen. Sounds great, but then they will continue to run a coal-fired gen plant, which will keep the wholesale price of electricity higher resulting in more profits for the power generating companies, of which the NZ govt is a major shareholder
Correction, Green Hydrogen is Not the scam. It's the bastardization of the idea which is the scam. NZ has to come to grips (as all economies do) that Green Hydrogen is the only way we can decarbonize our fossil fuel world. Hold your governments to a higher standard.
Well we may as well use that electricity down here in Southland to make either Aluminium or Hydrogen close to the generation. Too inefficient to try sending it to Auckland.
Oh lordy. Thank you for another well-researched and presented vid. I was having quite a good day today. It was nice not having to have the heating on...Ah well.
I'm glad I watched this video to the end... I was getting impatient waiting for you to bring up the fact that direct use of renewables for heating is much more efficient than converting electricity to hydrogen and burning it... The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed.
We have to stop burning stuff. No ifs and no buts.
Carbon Capture is the new Fusion Power - I fear that it’s the current version of flying cars and moon cities fantasies from the atomic age.
First, thank you again for that wonderful video last week. I've watched it twice now, and it's just so amazing to see such optimism in what is often a very disturbing subject.
Secondly, thank you for the wonderful video this week! And it's very timely. As you said, one of those blue hydrogen plants is located right where I live, and the provincial government wants to massively expand blue hydrogen production. Really they're looking for any way to sell natural gas they can find. I wouldn't be surprised if they started using it instead of helium in party balloons.
So this is a real problem, because not just industry but also governments are sold on the idea of blue hydrogen. I guess the only thing we can really do is let our elected officials know that we don't want this scam. And if they don't listen, elect some officials who will.
The party balloon thing is interesting. The density of methane is about half that of air, so it would sort of work, if the balloon was light enough, which is unlikely.
It wouldn't mix well with birthdays, though. Too many candles.
Not to mention how much concrete ect is going to be used to build these power stations
Nice.color.selection for the tee when discussing 'blue' hydrogen. Good on ya!! :) I would not be surprised to hear that many boardroom presentations use this video and then end the presentation at the 2:20 mark.
Here in Iceland, we use geothermal for power generation and hot water/house heating. We use electricity for cooking.
The sad thing is that steel and others like the chemical industry need hydrogen. And it seems like a lot of countries try to cut the corner on that side. I doubt blue hydrogen is a good idea will be miss used and not properly watched on. Sad thing is that russia actually has natural methane sources too..
On the plus side, the first delivery of green hydrogen produced steel was made to Volvo last month.
Sadly not at mass production yet. But a great proof of concept.
@@markp8295 From where did they get the hydrogen for that endvour? From what i know the biggest pilot for a green electrolysis of hydrogen is currently by a steel company in Austria called Voest..
This video neatly links back to the rethinkX report. The primary policy objective is to go for SWB system and then the Superpower can be used to produce Hydrogen where needed. Anything that can be electric will be more efficient than using hydrogen. Any process that uses fossil fuel is a distraction and waste if time (which we don't have) and resources. I for one an going to ditch my gas boiler as soon as I can. Keep the videos coming . Thank you
So glad you are countering this scheme, excellent episode!
Cheers Ken
The production of hydrogen, by whichever means, is highly inefficient, and a total waste of resources. Meanwhile the continuing evolution of batteries sees increasing capacity, shorter charge times and, in the case of vehicles, greater travel distances. This leaves inefficient hydrogen (production, use, and development) being far outpaced by modern battery technology.
I just hope an improved battery technology comes along to replace Li-ion batteries with something that requires less rare metals and more importantly, demands less from countries with very dubiously ethical mining practices.
The immense increase in battery production has directly fuelled so many oppressive regimes and really hindered development in many poorer countries, because cheap raw materials is a direct profit incentive for further human rights violations. If we could find a way to create a substitute with comparable performance which does not require such materials, it would truly be a great thing.
@@xiphosura413 Checkout USGS on how unrare rare metals are, and the availability of lithium or the vast deposits of lithium & copper left behind in Afghanistan instead of mining them to rebuild & fund the country. Cobalt was the only dubious one which has since largely been dropped. USGS annual survey is highly informative. Avoid mainstream media talking heads. Remember the oil industry is fighting mining of EV metals that threaten its profits, while continuing to extract in the worst regimes you can imagine. Don’t get played by their paid for media, do your own primary research.
@Eric Wolff, the fossil fuel industry has brainwashed & bought politicians and citizens who have no science or numeracy background into swallowing their greenwashing of fossil hydrogen. Make 95% from fossil fuel as its the only cost effective way and have 5% via electrolysis to fool the idiots into thinking that’s where the other 95% comes from. Helped by the scientifically ignorant deluded idiots who want to believe. 1 ton of H2 produces 9tons of CO2. No getting out of that. Nor is the huge inefficiency of electrolysis which even at its throretical best, is appalling compared to battery.
How do you propose we make ammonia and other chemicals without first producing hydrogen?
How do you run a steel smelter on electricity?
There are uses for hydrogen. They are not as large as today's uses for methane, but they need to be planned for
@@ThomasBomb45 The unavoidable requirement for hydrogen could easily be covered by 100% renewable energy electrolysis processes, especially if we move away from hydrogen as a potential fuel or energy storage solution. Electrolysis is very energy expensive, but it is a no-brainier that when there is excess power being generated, we can use it to produce hydrogen for industrial purposes without having to involve fossil fuels.
Thank you very much for bringing this to us in a easy to understand way, love your "matter of fact" simple very British way of explaining a lot of important topics.
Sounds like only steel and concrete making, with no co2 require H2, and as long as it is made with 0 co2 electrolysis that would be ok, but the rest is just as you said a expensive and inefficient way of delivering a burnable gas. Do you think we need a transition from old gas boilers to heat pumps via green H2 or would it be better to have the government "buy" the old boilers if the customer buys a new heat pump one as a incentive to upgrade?
Great vid again. I was a really big fan of H2, but now I think besides some special application, it is not the right way forward
Excellent work. Really got the tone right.
Cheers Simon :-)
I have tried the blue hydrogen but for a really great experience, the white is incredible...
Only viable H2 production is using nuclear reactors to warm up water above 800 degC where it starts to fall apart to H2 and O2. Everything else is problematic at best. This nuclear option is interesting for small modular reactors, installed where H2 is needed, for example future airports.
Yes, SMRs are important. But we also need big nuclear plants. I think of huge nuclear refineries with maybe 50GW or more, providing enough power for producing big amounts of gases (methane for cooking and heating, propane for your gas grill, butane for camping), liquids (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, naphtha, white spirit, heavy oil, and all kinds of oils, solvents and chemical precursors) and solid hydrocarbons (e.g. plastics or charcoal lighter). We should also produce proteins and fatty acids via Power-to-X, to replace soybean and palm oil monocultures.
Of course, those big nuclear plants should also provide masses of electricity and heat for the entire region; for all homes, industries, and for vertical farming.
We need a mix of small (~100-300MW), big (~1-5GW) and huge (50GW and more) nuclear power plants + refineries / hydrogen production facilities.
SMRs are nice for in-situ production of electricity, district heating and fuel, for supplying airports, train depots, villages, towns/districts, and single factories. But we also need some bigger plants, because the need for power + heat + chemicals will be huge.
Bigger plants have the potential to be cheaper, thanks to economy of scale. Smaller plants are good if you want to avoid long transport routes, and if you need your heat/fuel just in place, or to provide power to remote locations.
Wonderful video. Learned a ton this morning !
Love the way you get to the root of the issue. Many thanks for another great video.
Next weeks video - "How to put your head between your legs and kiss your backside goodbye." If ever a channel needed 7.8 billion subscribers, it's this one! Thanks all!
:-) Thank you
I have seen no videos about Proton of Alberta, Canada scheme (other than those produced by Proton) to extract hydrogen from worn out oil fields and leaving carbon in the ground. First is this even viable? Next what color of hydrogen production would this be, it doesn't seem to fit. On it's face it seems to be an excellent solution but I need more information. I would really like to see JHAT or some other RUclips channel do a deep dive on the Proton process.
So clear. The world is sorely in need of good teachers like this.
Very good videos and insight, sorry I can' support, don't have that on my phone. - Best from Sweden.
A great explanation!! In Australia, I fear that we will end up doing nothing - or get worse- due to the reliance/addiction that our current government has to fossil fuels and the resulting income, but also their belief that our small contribution to global emissions is not worth changing unless everyone does. The sooner we all stand up and demand the change required - the slightly less the world will be damaged. I for one want to go off grin and am aiming that as I build my retirement home.
It's ridiculous that a country such as yours or Spain for that matter is not going all in on electrolysis powered by spare PV capacity. Especially considering that we can now use salty water in electrolysis.
If you go exclusively by geography Australia is in the perfect place to convert to renewables, it has a massive source of solar energy, lots of wind resources, a low population density, and lots of raw materials to build everything.
Gareth Baus - These points are so true, however common needs like more hospitals & upgrading of current ones are some of the first needs of all ages. Not a money Investment like football stadiums ringing in loot for the investors Snouts in the trough , Hospitals like roads should be properly upgraded through government as paid for by all those taxed not privatized . Once privatized - responsibility shirked , only Top End of town can afford such exuberant costs ( all tax reclaimable) rich get richer poor get the picture- time 4 change not based only on ones wealth.
@@pennyoflaherty1345 Doesn't Australia already have a fairly solid system of roads and hospitals making most of your comment an essentially moot point?
Thank you for highlighting this and helping to expose the joke that is blue hydrogen.
I get Turkish from Snatch vibes from you when you're mad, except nerdier 🤣 awesomee vid mate
Just great no-nonsense straight talking. Thank you 😊
The reason to leave the “energy hungry middle man” (and I agree the round trip efficiency is shit) is that the hydrogen infrastructure acts as built in energy storage, an aspect crucially missing from the direct renewables to electric appliances equation. Mining Africa for the necessary battery material feels tragically colonial.
Even using hydrogen as a energy storage, how much sense dose it make to use for home consumption vs keeping production and consumption at/near the same location and instead use electric solutions within homes and business? I don't actually know, but would expect it to make more sense from an infrastructural standpoint and better consumption of resources.
Always a great way to start my Sunday morning. Just have a think, or go to church to stop thinking 😀
Well I'm back from church and when I received a RUclips notification I thought let me watch 😂
@You Tube Religion is like statistics, it does not provide answers it suggests questions. If you are doing it properly.
If you go to church to stop thinking some would think you are going for the wrong reason.
@You Tube what is religion?
@You TubeI wanted to question that ask you for evidence, but that won't be necessary, since your answers show that you yourself don't think and ask questions but you conclude.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Keep up the good work.
Normally I give this channel a thumbs up on an upload BUT today its 10 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 At present I am trying to work out what central heating boiler to fit as in 8 years I could be changing it again in 8 years if not sooner as part of my contribution to reducing my carbon footprint I was going down the Geo Heat Pump Route. Then found the governments preference for Hydrogen but I am at the asking questions stage. Had no idea about four different types of hydrogen . When I thought only one hydrogen one thought was how are they going to empty and purge the pipes? Not a problem if using Blue Hydrogen New question now can one do the same with Green Hydrogen? and while on questions why is there not a ban on installing Gas boilers in new Build I thought the idea was to decrease emmissions not increase. Love the channel. Mike
Hi Mike. All very good questions. I can highly recommend the 6-part series over on the Fully Charged RUclips channel, looking at all current and potential future options for domestic home heating and electricity.
Cough, Physicsgirl pedaling Toyota's hydrogen solution while downplaying electric vehicles. Seems this industry relies more on marketing than it does on a compelling CO2 solution.
She has succumbed to the propaganda and has been dazzled by shiny toys. I hope she sees the light soon because she has many followers and only a few seem to realize they are being hoodwinked.
I saw that video series. My conclusion is that BEV and FCEV will be the future equivalent choices of gasoline and diesel fuel. Meaning that most, but not all, passenger vehicles will use BEV, while most long-haul trucks will use FCEV. It won't be BetaMax vs VHS. Yes, she should not bad-mouth Toyota while they are sponsoring her video series, but I thought that her examination was fair and balanced. That said, a Ford ad popped in while I was watching.
13:00 as for green hydrogen: couldn't it be used to store energy of solar/wind peaks? I bet the efficiency is lower than existing batteries, but in that case you should have mentioned the whole thing in my opinion.
The efficiency is about 30%, with theoretical limits around 50%. Meanwhile pumped hydro already exists and is 80-90% efficient, and batteries are 95% efficient
@@toby1248 conventional electrolysis is about 70% efficient, and it has a longer storage lifespan than pumped hydro or batteries. Batteries are most efficient for short term storage, pumped hydro is probably the best choice for mass storage, and hydrogen will probably see the most use in long-term, emergency uses.
@@luodeligesi7238 long term hydrogen containment is actually one of the toughest problems in engineering, you either need to cool it to the point of being a liquid which takes energy, or store it at high pressure which causes massive leakage. Plus although electrolysis can be roughly 70% efficient, the fuel cells used to turn that hydrogen back into useable electricity are also only about 70% efficient which brings the net efficiency down substantially making batteries and pumped hydro competitive long term options even when you factor in the evaporation and charge loss.
@@garethbaus5471 it may be a tough problem, but it's already been in use for several years. You also have to consider the cost of construction. Pumped hydro requires a lot of land with a large elevation difference, and you have to consider the environmental impacts and permitting time if you want to create an entirely new reservoir. It can be done, but only on on a massive scale.
Hydrogen is already being used in major data centers all around the country, where the odds of a power failure are low, but any interruption to the power can be catastrophic. In these cases, the combined 50% efficiency of current electrolysis and fuel cells means your initial cost could be higher, but if you don't need it for several years, you'll be saving a lot on all the cycles and battery replacements you would have needed during that time.
@@luodeligesi7238 the electrolysis itself is 70% efficient, then you lose another 10-15% in compressing the hydrogen to store, and another 40-50% in converting it back to electricity. That all adds up to about 35% efficient
Great video Dave. You seem to have a knack of finding good research which can all too easily get overlooked. It will be interesting to see how much "Blue Hydrogen" gets pushed around CoP26!!! (BTW - I'm sure all your subscribers could be relied on to lobby for your presence). One of the other concerning aspects you expose is how effectively any captured carbon can be sequestered, this seems to be difficult to do and the long term efficiency far from clear, at this stage almost just "out of sight, out of mind".
I am glad to see the use of hydrogen for home heating also getting called out as impractical, just use electricity directly wherever grid supply exists, starting from scratch no sane person would contemplate delivering energy to homes in different forms particularly when one form can do everything and the other can't (effectively). Focus green hydrogen (and therefore hydrogen) use on industrial requirements and energy storage/peaker plants, that way the majority of green electricity is utilised without further inefficient state changes. The Elon Musk 5 stage design principles would apply here. Basically starting with "Are the requirements good", if not "Delete", however we seem to have jumped over this and moved on to step 5. Mass production!!!
Thanks for giving us a clear, detailed explanation on things that some already knew (the overarching truth about hydrogen) without having yet delved into a breakdown of scientific elements bringing to conclusions.
"Cut out a very energy hungry middle-man!" YES! Well put. It's like hydrogen fuel cell cars - takes and awful lot of energy to get the hydrogen, only to turn it back into electricity again at 24% efficiency round trip compared to 87% for straight charging of EV's.
Other than the situations where BEVs flat out don't work.
@@orkin2525 If you check, you will find there are almost none.
@@Libertylute battery powered cargo airplanes, shipping, and long haul or heavy trucking.
@@Libertylute Here in cities like Delhi and Mumbai which are so densely populated where it is sometimes hard to find parking spots, where do we charge our cars. Should I throw a cable down from the 14th floor?
Wow. This is one of the most depressing JHAT videos! It's obviously impractical to have individual CCS systems on every home boiler but you can have a CCS system at a Blue Hydrogen plant then use the Hydrogen in people's homes. I had hoped this could be a useful option because having looked into getting a heat pump at my house I have found that they are very expensive to install and more expensive to run, (at least until some sort of carbon pricing pushes up the price of gas) and they also give a much worse performance for the end user than a gas boiler. With proper genuine CCS I thought Blue Hydrogen would be OK, but I had no idea that methane leaks were such a big problem. I wonder if they could be reduced enough to avoid this, given a sufficient financial penalty for releasing methane into the atmosphere? Green Hydrogen can play a useful role by utilising excess renewable electricity generation when supply exceeds demand (which will be a big problem with a mostly renewable grid) because it can be stored and used later, but its inefficiency means it's not worth using for your main heating system for most of the country. Without climate safe Blue Hydrogen there are no good answers, which is why this info is so depressing.
Seems you have been misled. Heat pumps cost 65% as much to heat your home in most cases. In some places where natural gas or oil is subsidised by YOUR Taxes it is not but that is rare. Heat pumps produce 12-22KW of heat for every KW of electricity put in for most of the year. When it is really cold they produce 5-7KW. That means as other heat sources need to cost 1/5th as much to break even with heat pumps. There is a lot of misinformation campaigns. Recently a UK oil/gas company was caught in a scandal lying to get people to vote against a tax credit that would pay for a large part of your heat pump.
Atomic hydrogen leaking is also an issue over time. It drifts to the top of the atmosphere and floats off into space. Over a long time span we would lose the earth's water.
Stop with the positivity Adrian. This is JHAT, doom & despondency must be expressed at all times! 🤔🤔
@@jimgraham6722 sorry but no gasses including hydrogen float off into space. Earths gravity continues to hold it down.
For now it is just better to have houses heated with natural gas than converting it to hydrogen because the conversion process is so inefficient. Better just send the gas straight to the houses.
Green Hydrogen created out of off peak extra solar and wind power sounds promising, but again the conversion process is so inefficient it would be way better to just send that electricity into bEVs or use a more efficient power storage medium.
Also green hydrogen made from surplus green power would have an unreliable supply, which the transportation and household heating industries would not be able to tolerate.
IMO: the only hope for hydrogen is if someone invents a much more efficient way to make it.
Very very good, keep digging.
Awesome work, bringing this paper t our knowledge. Excellent.