I was a consultant in the low carbon sector for 20 years, doing my best to be objective and evidence based with all clients. I sat in rooms with Oil and Gas companies, so I know what motivated them. There is nothing for them in an electric future. They understand and have investments in pipes, not wires. For them hydrogen is a strategic procrastination technology - they pretend they are taking climate change seriously while moving public funding away from the investments that would make a positive impact. I observed (one in particular, and its not BP btw) who argued for regulatory support that would be hard to remove, so that EU would be committed to this donkey for the forseeable. We are in this mess because they have massive lobbying power amongst regulators and lawmakers - that cannot be overestimated.
One of the capitalist mysteries is why in the 1940s railroad giants did not invest in airlines -- by Pennsylvania railroad did not buy Douglas Aircraft or something. You'd think the biggest investors in atomic fusion would now be oil companies. I guess the rule is, you do what you know -- in the case of oil companies -- just dig holes in the ground, hoping $$$ pop to the surface.
This is something I noticed 15 years ago. However, hydrogen remains a marginal clean tech to this day, unlike EVs, solar, grid battery storage, etc. So, they're losing, even in the West. China, of course, is rapidly burying the hydrogen industry in an avalanche of goods being sold at cost all over the world.
You really articulated this well in fact reading the comments on here are blowing my mine. Finally some truth thank you. You need to write a book. No one gets the money just third person that distribute. Veterans such things like this are looted. Union the same HMOs same all same.if the government dose it business followed people followed. No one pays bills no one cares that they are the cause of it all. So they reap the whirlwind. I testify that with honesty and truth there is life, otherwise death. Keep up the truth it shall set some free.
Lol y do u say that ?! Here in India and in the world at large , Germans r known for being smart and super efficient ppl. Is the German govt an exception ??
Yeah, if shorting were as simple as "this will probably fail eventually," then too many people would be doing it. It's the fact that you're gambling that the failure will occur _soon_ that makes it risky.
@@ChristopherCurtis I was about to comment that John Maynard Keynes said it, but I checked. The “longer than you can stay solvent” quote has been attributed to Keynes (d. 1946) since 1999, but it seems it was first said by A. Gary Shilling in 1986. Keynes apparently said “There is nothing so disastrous as a rational investment policy in an irrational world” in 1931.
I just came here to Thank you Sabine for your channel. There's a saying in life "Cherish what you have well you have it" and I can always count on your channel to provide accurate information from an Intelligible person.
Personally I think the Hydrogen bubble is a direct product of how startups work. It's probably the ideal technology for a venture-backed startup, because it has so many problems. You can earnestly put forward a plan to make progress on one or two of those problems and get your valuation and government grants, then cash out before everyone realizes that you haven't actually solved enough problems to make it practical.
Thing is, even dullards like me without a degree who simply happen to work in the industry know the basics about hydrogen use. Embrittlement, leak issues, this is beginner stuff. Politicians that have all day to get informed on such things should know to spend taxpayer money on things with a better usability perspective.
Same scam as the startup "fusion reactor" companies: take other people's money, pay yourself really well, and crank out optimistic progress reports. At the end of the day you've made good money even though your project "just didn't work out."
@@jpdemer5 Fusion reactors can work, but there are so many scandalous start ups, it's hard to want to do it. But if someone actually makes it work, it's a gold mine. Speaking of gold mine, it's also a gold mine if you could convert lead into gold. No one has done it, but man, if you could, it would be a gold mine. haha.
As an engineer who used large amounts of hydrogen for many years, I can attest that the practical difficulties are not very severe. As long as one knows what one is doing. The metal embrittlement stuff is bogus. One just has to use the right materials, just like in many other fields of engineering. We should bear in mind that hydrogen is being used in industry on a vast scale, close to 100 Mt per year. The financial arguments about using hydrogen for energy storage are OK. It is inefficient and should be avoided, if possible.
@@velisvideos6208 Agree. The main argument stays, if something isn’t financially viable it won’t succeed. It does not make any sense when you can directly convert sunlight into electricity and store it in batteries.
@@MrSunrise- Sure :just use the right materials". Problem is some plans included simply replacing methane with hydrogen in existing pipes. It might be OK to add someH2 into methane into existing pipes
Exactly right: touting "green hydrogen" was a ruse to get governments to buy in. (Let the taxpayers create the "hydrogen economy", then cash in on it.)
This was the green up of old fossil fuels. Yet it had way too many problems to actually work. Hence the long hold out on this tech, which will never happen realistically. The shut down of H2 fueling stations is the writing on the wall. It has too many hurdles. We might as well adopt hybrid cars. haha.
@MarksEscalona well... the video didn't talk about changing carbuerated engines to run on natural gas. Runs a lot cleaner, still releases co2, but no methane. Uncle Tonys garage played with it a bit, had an old boss who modified his truck to run on nat gas. Could idle all day and still not gunk up the inside.
The hype around hydrogen was almost certainly pushed by the fossil fuel industry, since most current hydrogen production is based on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies know they’ll make tons of money before green hydrogen represents even as little as 5% of the overall production.
makes no sense. They would push the BEV hype instead, so people stick with fossil fuel gas guzzlers instead of switching to biofuels, synfuels or hydrogen from which they would not profit.
Also because it's a gas, and they know how to distribute and sell gas - just like LPG?, and you can run a regular car engine on gas (LPG) - Hydrogen is just another gas - right.....
@SabineHossenfelder says these things, but she never checked the lifetime costs of batteries and compare. Low efficiency of synth fuels (you need hydrogen to make them), is still cheaper than "efficient" battery farms.
Luk, if hydrogen made financial or environmental sense then we’d be buying hydrogen cars instead of EVs and ICE. I actually saw a hydrogen car. Once. Years ago. In San Francisco. I took a picture. The market has spoken. Hydrogen ain’t it!
There has been lots and lots of lobby work as Sabine hinted. I can only speak from a German perspective, but over the years I have met numerous people, usually from academia, who strongly advertised it. When challenged on the details none of them understood the challenges (engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges). I just can't tell it this was a self amplifying cycle of if there was support with outside money. I personally think it was a bit of both. There was a good reason for many people to believe in the concept. I don't wan to bash on the "evil fossil fuel industry" because many there acted (initially) in good intent. Why not support hydrogen as an automotive maker back in the days when batteries were not yet good enough (like 20-30 years back). Now batteries are not perfect and not magic but they pushed hydrogen into a smaller and smaller niche, making it economically unattractive.
Hydrogen: requires electricity to produce, permeates a lot of materials and changes their mechanical properties, doesn't liquefy under normal temperatures, is highly flammable. What could possibly go wrong with it's mass adoption as a "green" fuel? The world is really full of wonders and surprises for those, who preferred to party hard instead of studying at school, and then became politicians.
I was interested in the "ammonia economy" not so long ago, but it seems it hasn't taken off either. It was supposed to solve most of the problems that hydrogren has, carrying a lot of energy per molecule, won't deteriorate pipes, doesn't need high compression, higher efficiency conversion, etc.
I guess methanol would be more feasible than ammonia. It could even be used as a fuel in current internal combustion engines without too much adjusting or special tanks or transportation infrastructure.
it is not „extremely dangerous“… efficiency and subsequent economics of these efuels are terrible, but there will be a few niches where they are needed
You first build the nuclear power plants only then switch to a hydrogen economy unless you're from Germany, then you can keep on burning natural gas and coal and begging neighboring countries for energy.
Thank you for this!!! I’ve been waiting for this video for 5 years. Basically since I’ve been saying the same thing as you. This was all too evident soooo long ago.
Like Sabina said: wishful thinking! We have political, bureaucratic, academic and cultural classes with no practical experience of life, zero common sense, and very little interest in matters of truth. Among those who know better there is a reluctance to call it out because it is likely to have a bad effect on their career. In short: The problem is degeneracy, stupidity and cowardice.
Clearly, there is a gap in the selection process. Governments should employ independent consultants to undertake techno-economical assessments before funding projects.
My country, India, is balls-deep in hydrogen things. Not only do they heavily bet on hydrogen cars, but also on hydrogen trains. They spend billions on the infrastructure; it inevitably fails. Inflation hits the country. Everyone has Pikachu face reactions.
In the UK's current government an "Independent" eco report was generated by a group of "Experts" formed by a company majorly owned by the Minster of the Crown responsible for allocating the 20 billion pounds which the report favoured, there has been no enquiry, there is undoubtedly a major conflict of interest but the Government says it "all above board", as the scheme is carbon capture and burying the problem the majority of people in the UK would strongly disagree with that, it's a ludicrous plan, amongst a load of costly others that's making the green energy transition a farce with the notion that it's a scam project for vested individuals and it's losing the traction of the majority!?!
@@horst4439 Not just wrong, but the opposite of reality. Regulation has been used to sabotage nuclear power in the West. China builds a nuclear power plant in less than 5 years, and the only things that can compete, are their hydro electric plants. In the West, a nuclear plant takes as much as 15 years from planning to operation. France being somewhat an exception to this.
@@cbboegh fair enough. According wikipedia, there were no direct subsidies. Overall nuclear power of course needs subsiedies, because the nuclear waste also creates costs, which only partially are covered by the amount of money payed by the companies to the state. It's difficult to calculate this accurately though. About regulation to sabotage this technology it needs somewhat clarifcation. In fact virtually all regulation is a nuisance for enterpreneurs, regardless if these are reasonable or not.
There are other uses for hydrogen than energy production or storage. Greening up the production of fertilizer and blasting compounds might be worthwhile.
I had an big argument about the Hydrogen strategy of Germany with a friend of mine. His argument was that one day we maybe find a way to overcome those problems. My counter argument to that was that we should build plains out of lead because one day we maybe find a way to revers gravity.
But gravity is the only thing keeping us here so even as a joke it makes little sense… and just out of curiosity how this supposed to help with reversing gravity anyway?Yeah I know I must be fun at parties…. Moving on.
Hydrogen has been boondoggle since the 90s with Ballard Power. There was a lot of promise, except for the one big problem: storage. You simply can't get the energy density down to a useable volume. Every time the hydrogen hype machine starts up, everybody assumes that storage is a technical challenge that will be solved by the time their next fancy idea will be ready. Every. Time. I'm thinking this is a problem that will never be solved, at least not in this century.
Ballard and Plug, until the very early 2000s -- quite a bubble! Amazing those companies are still around. There was an idea you could add a "reformer" to allow you to to fuel up with methanol or ammonia even gasoline, which would be "reformed" as needed into H2. That would certainly solve the storage problem although possibly not the efficiency problem. To me, this is an illustration of the ancient principle "that last step is a doozy!" Lots of tech that is (or is claimed to be) 90% close to commercialization never becomes practical or real.
Nice video! On another note, as a chemist, I am honestly flabbergasted how hilariously wrong the Steam Reforming reaction render at 4:44 is. Planar methane :(, non-linear CO2 :(, the Carbon atom just says goodbye in the reaction process, hydrogen atoms become carbon atoms, and the products are just plain wrong. What the heck is happening at BP??
We still need ways to store generated renewable energy and extreme energy density batteries. My biggest worry is the continued expansion of passenger aviation, the lack of meaningful carbon controls on aviation and the very long term amortization of aviation infrastructure.
You mean like gravity storage, battery storage, or centrifugal storage? Yeah, we already have that. We have like 6gwh of battery storage in California right now to absorb surplus green energy. Works great, and they’re expanding things at the rate of around doubling capacity every 2-3 years.
@@charlesblithfield6182 I think aviation had a phase but people will return to cruises. Just had a transatlantic passage, seven days in luxury, no jet lag, cheaper than flying, free gym, interesting classes, game rooms, no TSA, erc
@@erichtisnado1536 the capacity is way to low. You need TWh to compensate more that dayly iregularities in renewables. You also need fuel for avaiation, it will not go away. And you need fuel for metallurgy that needs a chemical reduction material. Not everything is working on the electrical grid.
Using green hydrogen for energy storage is one, and possibly not a very clever, thing. Using green hydrogen as an input for the production of chemicals (e.g. ammonia) is another thing. It is, at least, possible that this would be sensible. Another question is whether it might not be better to produce hydrogen from natural gas by a process that simultaneously collects the carbon, making the process climate neutral...
Carbon capture has plenty of problems though. For one, what do you do with the carbon? There are a few options that are so expensive it has no chance of happening. The only thing you can do with it is pump it back down into oil fields in order to force more precious oil out of them, and that can only dispose of a fraction of the carbon dioxide that would be produced.
It was all a ruse and a diversionary tactic. Analysis I did on my own, including technical publication concluded a H2 economy could never work for all reasons and more that are noted in this video. I believe, as an insider, this was intentional by oil & gas companies buying more time to sell more product.
There has been lots and lots of lobby work as Sabine hinted. I can only speak from a German perspective, but over the years I have met numerous people, usually from academia, who strongly advertised it. When challenged on the details none of them understood the challenges (engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges). I just can't tell it this was a self amplifying cycle of if there was support with outside money. I personally think it was a bit of both. There was a good reason for many people to believe in the concept. I don't wan to bash on the "evil fossil fuel industry" because many there acted (initially) in good intent. Why not support hydrogen as an automotive maker back in the days when batteries were not yet good enough (like 20-30 years back). Now batteries are not perfect and not magic but they pushed hydrogen into a smaller and smaller niche, making it economically unattractive.
Yes, Edison faced same challenge. "engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges". Few thousand trials later... voila, light bulb was born.
Same as the story of ethanol from corn. Takes two to three gallons of diesel to make a gallon of ethanol which has fuel milage of 3/4 gallon of diesel. Yet BILLIONS have been spent in USA alone because of lobbyists and virtue signalling. AMD this doesn't even touch on cost of foodstuff raised and farming land taken out of food production.
Ethanol from corn requires well under 1 unit of energy to produce 1 unit of energy in the form of ethanol. There are good arguments against the ethanol industry. Lies are not good arguments.
@@svr5423 There is diesel used in farming the corn feedstock, transportation and processing of the corn. The figures I have seen calculating the diesel required vary widely - two to three gallons per gallon of ethanol seems to be at the very high end of calculations and I highly doubt that it is this high but there is no doubt that ethanol production from corn is highly dubious economically and environmentally.
I'm glad folks are figuring this out. Hydrogen is great if you can figure out a way to move and carry it around that doesn't make the net energy density unatractive. It's that whole pressure and embrittlement issue that Sabina mentioned that made me realize it was a non starter about 35 years ago as an undergrad.
Over 20 years ago the USA had a proposal to build a hydrogen economy using nuclear power plants as then the hydrogen plant could be base loaded to a steady power (or steam) supply. It actually made sense although it would not have produced cheaper H2 than breaking apart natural gas - It would have been about the same cost as breaking apart natural gas. That assumed that the US could build nuclear power plants on time and on budget... which the US and Western Europe could not do because we had forgottenb how to build nuclear power plants (its a lot different than building a commercial building or plant).
@@audiodead7302 Not true. Unlike EVs, hydrogen (particularly hydrogen fuel cells, which stores and handles hydrogen far easier than trying to handle molecular hydrogen) is suitable for remote use where you can't rely on pulling over and spending an hour to "refuel". This also allows hydrogen powered vehicles to function as 1:1 replacements in roles over current fossil fuel powered vehicles, and is especially useful for vehicles designed for long range, heavy use, or operation in austere conditions, and without the major range penalties when operating an EV in severe temperature extremes (IOW, everything outside the "urban commuter in a temperate climate" role that EVs are very well suited for). Nor would it require massive upgrades to the current electrical grids all the way from production to individual end users (as would be required for massive EV adoption).
Paradoxically, nuclear is the cheapest way to produce H2. You can use the waste heat to heat up the water so that less energy is needed to for the electrolysis.. But let's not kid ourselves, Germany is looking at H2 only because they refuse Nuclear. It's a forced idea.
@@audiodead7302 Hydrogen is used in many industrial processes; and may be far more useful as a fuel in places without a robust electrical infrastructure.
Nobody forgot how to build nuclear plants. The environmental whackjobs screamed bloody murder and fearmongered to the naive public every time a nuclear plant was proposed.
The hydrogen economy was a terrible idea, but you overstate the problems of hydrogen embrittlement of pipes and tanks. I worked in a chemical plant that used large amounts of hydrogen for decades, and hydrogen embrittlement was not a major problem. Oil refineries have also been using massive amounts of hydrogen in oil refineries without any big piping problems. Yes, hydrogen does leak more easily than any other gas, but we know how to handle the problem. All that said, hydrogen is much to expensive and valuable to use for heat. It makes as much sense as burning mahogany wood for green energy.
Can you clarify how they are "dealt with"? My assumption is that itll end up being large amounts if maintenance which doesnt really change the fact that embrittlement is an issue, but im likely wrong..
I assume that your company properly maintained and fixed any issues that arise, in a timely manner. I would be more concerned about an ignorant end-user not properly dealing with these issues than a company that is heavily regulated/monitored. We can barely get people to fix leaking valve-covers or oil pans on their vehicles.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR): This is the most common method for producing hydrogen from natural gas. In SMR, high-temperature steam (700°C to 1000°C) reacts with methane in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide is then reacted with water to produce more hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This process is efficient but produces greenhouse gases.
@@johnlodge8546 Yes. There are no processes that could give more output energy than input energy. The ratio of output to input is efficiency, where 0 < efficiency < 1. To say a process is efficient is to say its efficiency is greater than most competing processes. To decide which process is most profitable, you multiply efficiency times the ratio of selling price of output energy to cost of input energy, minus depreciation of the equipment and other expenses.
@@johnlodge8546 It takes the energy available in the natural gas and locks it up in the hydrogen instead. It is fairly efficient by that measure. The kicker is that it also produces CO2, which the oil companies rarely mention in their promotional efforts.
@jpdemer5 Pure unadulterated Poppycock. Most commercially produced Hydrogen comes from Steam Methane Reformating (SMR). In this process immense amounts of Methane is burned to heat purified water into high pressure Steam. The steam is then combined with a catalyst bombarding MORE Methane to separate the Hydrogen molecules from the Methane (CH4). You certainly DON'T get more energy from the process just because you added the energy to break the bonds holding the elements together in Methane chemical structure. In the end, you need nearly double the input energy from the Methane used to create the steam and the Methane you intend to breakup to get the H2. The other thing you aren't counting is the sheer amount of carbon emissions in this process. It is far, FAR more efficient to use the high pressure steam to just generate electricity.
Acetylene is pressurized by dissolving it in a matrix filled with acetone, which somehow obviates its tendency to spontaneously explode if compressed above ca 15psi. With material science going ahead apace, something similar may be discovered for hydrogen storage. This would change things...
So, hydrogen is not feasible for energy storage (or for domestic heating) - I'm on the same boat here. But it is still something we'll need for processes like iron oxide reduction and in chemistry (if we want to replace coal and other fossil fuels). So it will be needed - or are there other non-fossil alternatives?
In technological terms, from what I understand hydrogen would be needed to make these things carbon-free, the big problem here is economics. Steel and chemical industries in Europe are already uncompetitive with China and the US partly because of energy cost. If you force them into hydrogen, then some of these companies will close down and the rest will move production from Europe. This is different from say the electric grid, where you can enforce things without the fear that people will start buying Chinese electricity because it is cheaper.
There are no carbon neutral replacements in the industries you mentioned. And that's exactly the reason why this video isn't even close to an objective evaluation.
@@traumflug No it's objective - Sabine just doesn't mention H2's use in industry. There is continual confusion over H2's industrial use and its use in energy. It is not economic to substitute renewable energy for natural gas in industrial processes, but at least it's less crazy than using it for energy storage.
@@traumflug we weren't arguing about fossil fuels but about whether the presentation by Sabine was fair. Obviously it was and, as you made no counter-argument, I can only conclude that you agree. Anyway, leave it with you.
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
Re: reason for the bubble - I think most of it is people (including politicians) inclination to believe what they want to believe, until the evidence against the belief becomes strong enough to break it.
The problem, in the end, is that it's far easier to fool someone, than to convince them they've been fooled. All the grifter has to do, is get there first, most of the time.
I always figured that it would be okay if it was made and used on site at a power plant or something like that. Make hydrogen when demand is low and run it through an fuel cell when demand is high. The hydrogen economy dying doesn't mean batteries win it just means we will keep using fossil fuels.
There is a great video out there about a guy who rents a hydrogen car and tried to drive from SF to LA in the US. He interviews the few other hydrogen car owners he meets on the way. The video winds up feeling a bit dystopian, and all of the owners are in on the fact that they’ve fallen for a con, and that hydrogen cars will never replace EVs or ICE, or even reliability get hydrogen car owners to work and back.
The biggest problem is the electrolysis part. But Hysata an Australina company supposedly has discovered a new 95 % efficient way of producing hydrogen. If true that would be a game changer.
So, 80% of hydrogen storage schemes are going ahead. In the meantime The Port of Rotterdam and Gasunie are aiming to start the first phase of making the entire port powered by hydrogen, commencing 2025. Gasunie's share price has risen in the last 12 months.
As long as you can use it at “normal” temperatures and pressures, you’re ok. All the facilities at Eurosport are using existing pipelines, only in that way you can avoid hydrogen problems.
Hallo Sabine, was ist denn deine Alternative, damit Flugzeuge und Schiffe die Ozeane überqueren können? Als Energieträger kommt in diesen Anwendungen nur der Wasserstoff in Frage. Und wenn die Wasserstoffwirtschaft erst einmal aufgebaut ist, kann man damit auch gleich LKWs für den Fernverkehr betanken. Der Wasserstoff wird in diesen Anwendungen auf jeden Fall kommen!
I think Tesla shorts will be proven correct, in time. Buying a Teslas was a badge of liberal pride: see? I'm part of the future! Now it's a badge of supporting a would-be Martian, and that has already affected sales. And for EVs, the one with the best batteries wins. There are many batteries that are supposed to enter the market -- with many different form factors, and different chemistries. If (say) flat-pack lithium-sulfur wins (potentially 3x or more dense and half the price) Tesla will need to buy them, or be doomed. And it may be doomed anyway. Tesla's current batteries are structural and heavy and need cooling unique to them; using a new better battery may require a total design. The probablem with shorting is you only win if you can guess WHEN the crash will come, and Tesla illustrates just how difficult that is.
@@charleskramer6189 Thank you for this detailed note - all your facts are organised in their row. Not being as you - in this field - I must just say - I do not like this man and will not (as far as possible) have him and his like - play puppet master with me and my like. Have a good solution worked out
@@charleskramer6189You'll be wrong, autonomy, manufacturing and energy will prove this. Elon seems incompetent on the surface but he usually always wins
Sabina, I usually like your content, but this video is quite uninformed. There is already a pretty large H2 market that services mostly the refining, ammonia and chemical production sectors. This is currently dominated by grey H2 (high CO2 emissions) from steam methane reforming (SMR). To decarbonize this sector, any clean H2 technology that can't make a customer economic value proposition (either with or without the context of an established CO2 emissions cost) is doomed to fail. The only real H2 production that can currently produce decarbonized H2 at or better than the current price of grey H2 is turquoise H2, where methane (NG) is split into H2 and solid carbon, and the solid carbon is used in industrial applications such as tire or asphalt manufacture. Once the production costs and the co-product revenue is factored in, the net cost to the customer can be even less than what they pay for SMR grey H2 - a great incentive to adopt this technology. To decarbonize chemical fuels in the energy sector, clean H2 must compete with all other alternatives, including clean electrification. If it can't compete, it will not be commercialized. Currently, there is a start to the H2 fuel for vehicles economy where fuel cells and H2 replace lead acid batteries and electricity in lift trucks for 24/7 material handling applications in large distribution centres. In this case, there is a productivity gain as the fuel cell lift truck moves more pallets of goods per hour giving the customer a good IRR over their conventional battery power even while using the higher cost power (H2) and fuel cells. This H2 can be produced at a central site where it can be decarbonized by CO2 sequestration from SMR production (blue) and/or turquoise production again. Both production methods could still potentially preserve the customer IRR depending on the H2 transportation costs. The larger transportation sector requires H2 infrastructure that does not yet exist except in certain areas and will probably be used by applications where H2's higher energy/mass ratio or high energy content refuelling will give them a competitive advantage in the decarbonization game. The largest and arguable the most pressing decarbonization requirement is for chemical fuels used for producing industrial power and heat. There is no solution that can provide as low cost as just using natural gas, and hydrogen's role in these markets will depend on the settled cost of CO2 emissions. In the end, it will be the technology that offers the lowest cost of a tonne of "sequestered" CO2 that will win but turquoise H2 is one of the lowest cost alternatives. You will notice that no where in here do I even mention green H2. It is the most expensive way to produce H2 and it's economic role will be greatly limited to niche applications that make economic sense such as where there is an abundance of low cost clean electricity.
I gave up 15 years of my life as a drastically underpaid engineer thinking I was investing in my life as well as the future. We actually came to this conclusion through detailed research and wrote a paper on how emerging battery technology would overshadow H2 tech and probably end the need except for renewable industrial hydrogen in ~2008. If I can give it up after putting my last good working life into it so can H2 fans. It's time to move on. Get behind new battery technology. This is the future and there is a lot to do.
As soon as I've got batteries that can be charged in 5min and offer 500km range, I consider switching over. For the forseeable future, this is vaporware. We have biofuels available though, hydrogen and synfuels. But we are using fossil fuels because of political reasons and because people are afraid of change. For me, this is not an issue, I have factored in potential climate change issues into my choice of residence.
Where can I find batteries of 1-2MWh to store my solar overproduction from the summer for the winter? A combination of batteries and hydrogen for home energy storage would be useful. What cannot be put into the batteries could be converted to hydrogen for long term storage and even if it's only 40% it's still much more than doing nothing with it or injecting into the grid where I get next to nothing for it.
@@ppdan I have a 5kW Solar and 5kW Lithium/Iron battery. It would be nice to be able to store the excess instead of just getting 12 cents and the power company sells it for 33.14 cents per kW hour. But I look on it as an investment. If I compare what interest I could get on a 6 monthly investment re-invested, I just come out ahead with the Solar. Because I don't pay tax on the Solar 'income', I just edge ahead of the investment. And that's taking off a weekly payment, I put aside, to pay off the system after 15 years. And I have piece of mind when the nest power outage comes along. I flick the mains board switch over to solar and my fridge and freezer keep running. I have lights, internet and phone. You can't get that from a savings account 😉
What I'm baffled buy is the rapidity at which government entities embraced this concept knowing everything you just said 8 years ago? Is this simply a way to pay off and get kicked backs from energy companies 😞
Michael Liebrich came up with the 'Hydrogen Ladder'. It turns out that some uses of green hydrogen are inevitable (like making ammonia for fertilizer), and some (like fuelling cars) are more or less economically impossible and some are in between (long distance trucking). His ladder puts things in a hierarchy. One of the more plausible ones is back-up power for the grid, it's pretty inefficient but rarely runs, so is likely to work as an emergency backup if there's no wind and no sun. But all of them need lots of renewables, and there aren't enough yet.
Even the inevitable uses are not strong enough as drivers. E.g. ammonia production from methane could continue with very low CO2 output because the CO2 can be sequestered with relative ease in an industrial process. And at much much lower cost than switching to hydrogen. And the long distance trucking is a false flag. Once we remove CO2 from short distance transportation, the remaining fossil fuel usage in this domain is of little significance. In other words, their are other fossil fuel usages we can address more cheaply. What people often forget is: we don't need to get to zero fossil fuel usage. Going down to 20% of current usage is enough to slow down global warming. After that its diminishing returns.
@@michaelrenper796 Carbon capture is not nearly as easy as you think, and in practice a lot of it is never captured, and the cost and energy needed to do it is very high. There's basically no truly successful carbon capture projects in the entire world.
The biggest problem is the electrolysis part. But Hysata an Australina company supposedly has discovered a new 95 % efficient way of producing hydrogen. If true that would be a game changer.
@ gambles fallacy isn't always a fallacy. For example, the famous coin flip. True enough each individual flip had a 50% chance; and if you have a run of 10 "heads" the odds of the next flip being heads is 50%; however, if you step back and consider that the next bet is no longer on the individual flip, but rather the series as a whole, then you'd realize the odds of getting 11 heads in a row are .04%; or 1 in 2500. So a change in perspective on what the bet represents--the individual throw or a the results of a series of throws--changes everything. Of course that has nothing to do with what you're actually saying. 😂 So I apologize for the derail. The truth is that while Sabine is probably correct, and at least near term a complete hydrogen economy is not in the cards, I believe hydrogen will play a key role in some industries and as fuel in some pretty important cases. Therefore the well situated hydrogen production companies, particularly in the U.S. where rules on production were just relaxed, will remain possible. That said, I'd dispense with all my money and investments to live in a world without capitalism.
@@SabineHossenfelder Do you even know about Hysata who developed a new 95 % efficient electrolysis method? At least that is what they are claiming. If true that would change everything since the electrolysis part is the one who wastes the most energy.
Working with hydrogen myself, I'm confident the addressed technical challenges can be managed. But I wonder wich alternative we have for seasonal storage of renewable energy?
I have a friend who did a phd in hydrogen tech... as of last year they were still convinced that it was somehow energy efficient and could be run off waste heat or waste natural gas or something
Well, look on the bright side. The helium industry is still going strong, thanks in great part to the birthday balloon industry. And because of this, we have plenty of balloons that can be repurposed to allow us all to temporarily enjoy having annoyingly high pitched squeaky voices.
Aha! You must work for the Helium-industrial complex! Considering how useful helium is (for MRIs, for example) amazing any of it is allowed to be wasted on balloons. And squeaky voices.
I did my undergrad thesis on green hydrogen and I agree it was almost entirely hype. It always felt strange how the entire thing was being pushed by oil & gas companies and I recon it was because they want to have a use for their infrastructure once most forms of energy consumption are electrified, plus they have the know-how advantage of the fuels industry. It became even more obvious when they tried to change the focus from "green" hydrogen, i.e. from renewables, to "low carbon" hydrogen which allows them to continue to use natural gas if they use some sort of carbon capture.
I am currently working in the hydrogen economy. I agree that currently its just way too expensive compared to fossil fuels. And the lack of economy of scale makes the problem worse. My old professor for energy systems did a great simulation on this topic and his conclusion was that below 80 % renewables in the grid, there is no apparent necessity for hydrogen energy storage
Would there be any advantage to taking the green hydrogen and immediately adding carbon dioxide (from air or exhaust gasses) to produce methane ("e-methane")? We've been using methane in large quantities for decades, so the infrastructure is already there.
"It's like trying to run a marathon in flip flops." This lady hasn't heard about the Taraumara girls from Mexico who run further than any Olympic athlete in literal flip flops or barefoot...
They'd be far better off using alcohol (methanol as I don't want to anger alcoholics with price increases lol) as a "renewable fuel" (in my opinion) How much more polution does E.V.s lithium batteries create for their production and destruction (or recycle ability). That's one very strong reason not to use them, plus we don't have the electric infrastructure or energy density to cope with the switch fully electric vehicles! We seem to be forgetting about (or not mentioning them) some very key issues when it comes to the whole E.V. topic.
@scottbishop7899 "less toxic?" I find it hard to believe such a statement can be made, because that implies that it's less toxic in every way, or that there's an universally agreeable way to weigh different kinds of toxicity against each other.
@@majorgnu the lithium and rare earth metals etc, putting out a lithium fire is also very difficult. So yes, far more toxic and potentially far more hazardous also!
When I was in college, I was part of a green community research project. I was in charge of creating the hydrogen generator. That was 47 years ago. It was a bad idea then, its a worse idea now.
I want to know if you think this would work. A zirconium dioxide hollow shell… just a small quantity of hydrogen gas inside of the hollow shell. Microwaves that turned the gas to plasma. As the plasma expands, magnetic mirroring, reflects the plasma back toward the center of the shell. At the same time sound as introduced from all directions on the outside of the shell, that penetrate the shell, and enter the plasma that is converging in the center by a pressure wave Assisted by this sound wave. Sound travels 1/3 the speed of light and a plasma, so, the succeeding soundwave added to the first one, creates resonance. The amplitude of the sound waves increase exponentially within picoseconds, and the pressure waves which all converge in the center of the hollow sphere induce a fusion reaction. The reaction sends a pressure wave out from the center, and toward the shell with exponentially more power, and the process is repeated, possibly creating heavier, and heavier, elements on the periodic timetable from hydrogen. If you see any potential in this approach, please let me know that you would like to investigate my other designs for even more transcendent technologies. I would like to present to you what I call a gravity wave pulse generator that would create a warp bubble around a craft. I think your opinion matters to me more than even Einstein’s would. Thank you.
Furthermore, the markets don't work on natural scientific principles. A company that can make money on false promises is just as valuable as one that actually delivers, and it is reflected in the stock price. If some hydrogen company is successful getting a lot of tax money for instance, the stock will go up, screwing every short seller, the value of the company is in getting tax money. Who cares if the tech doesn't work, they can always switch to the next hype cycle to keep making money, and if they are able to do that successfully, the value will increase even more, as they have shown they are really good at extracting money from governments.
Better not do that, even if you're right you can still lose money. Things which don't make sense can last longer than you stay solvent and at best your gain is 100% if something immediately goes to zero while losses are potentially infinite, or you can get margin call with elevated volatility. Just ignore bubbles, buy many cheap stocks and hold them for long time. It's best method to relatively safely compound capital.
I think the h2 is being put aside because of the battery cars. Car companies have pulled out their fuel cell projects to focus on battery vehicles. Nowadays the socalled PEM fuel cell has a substitute, the Anion Exchange Membrane fuel cell that has triple power density and a much higher energy efficiency, both for energy production and electrolysis.
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
I can't believe anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the absurd thermodynamics of using hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel is still pursuing that dead end.
@@avsystem3142 Nope. I meant exactly what I said. Fuel cells are still subject to the major problems of using hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel: 1) Where does the hydrogen come from? 2) It's difficult to store. 3) It's a compressed flammable gas proposed to be driven around on the roads. 4) It embrittles many things, including many metals. If you wanna get a feel for the risks of hydrogen, just consider that there are many natural gas and propane appliances (I myself have 4 water heaters, 4 kitchen ranges, 1 outdoor barbecue, and 2 clothes dryers running on natural gas or propane) but NO hydrogen fueled household appliances.
This is hilarious. BEV's don't work for company vehicles that run around the clock, construction machinery, long distance trains,etc, which could use hydrogen. They only work for personal vehicles that run low daily mileages which could be replaced by electric trains and trams anyway.
Absolutely interesting! In 1995 I was invited for a short ride in a hydrogen driven BMW as a youth member of "Jugend forscht". Would have never expected that it would took such a turn. People were so optimistic 30 years ago...
In my paper which is under review I have shown even the 1$ per kg is achievable if the cost projection fall in line. We would need subsidies in the initial stages.
Now please don't throw the baby away with the dirty water, we still need green hydrogen to replace the gray one used for fertilizers and the coal in steelmaking.
The modelling I've seen eg with PLEXOS, shows that H2 storage in the electricity system does just become economic once renewables exceed 75-85% of total energy supply, but I would question the assumptions made in that modeling wrt your point about the cost/complexities of storage. For certain our power systems will need more mid term storage (weeks to months duration) in the near future, so what are the alternatives? Perhaps you can cover that topic.
As a child i had a nice book with German fairy tales. On the inside cover you could read the striking sentence: 'Aus der Zeit, als das Wünschen noch geholfen hat' - 'from the days when wishes still came true '!😂
Sabine, love your content and regular well thought out criticisms of present global topics in science and energy, etc. One question (admittedly maybe critique or rhetorical), in efforts to confront climate change by transitioning from status quo “big energy”, how do you weigh value or acceptable risk from Nuclear versus renewables such as hydrogen, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, et al.? For my 2 cents, I tend to think nuclear is great except when we consider human element, ie errors, war, terrorism, etc; and the non-zero chance of Chernobyl events (multi-generational destruction of life and large geographical areas) as a risk that I personally do not feel comfortable with. Coming from a person with multiple family member who work at Hanford in Washington State where active clean up has been occurring my entire life. Thank you for your time!
I'll be honest, as someone who has merely followed rocket launches for the last 10 years, and been interested in the physics, engineering, and economics of them, I could start smelling the bullshit about the hydrogen economy from far away. Rockets are probably the best use case for hydrogen and at this point thats debateable, really only good for expendable upper stages on expendable rockets that are starting to go out of fashion. Its tiny size, resulting leakiness/embrittlement, resulting difficulty to contain and handle, and lack of density just crushes it for use cases in most circumstances. I'm kind of shocked this all got taken seriously.
Too many people who nod their heads without critical thinking and "trust the science". Also the inherent lie that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
@@anthonylosego I was trying to also make the point that the issues with handleability and storage density for rockets would also translate down into other applications of hydrogen. That probably wasn't clear enough in my original comment.
I think other than battery storage, if we want to store energy in fuels, we should concentrate research into efficient production of hydrocarbons from CO2 and water using green energy sources. We could then also develop hydrocarbon-burning fuel cells which are efficient, durable, and power-dense for automotive applications. Such technologies would allow re-use of fossil fuel infrastructure.
Hydrogen is not meant to be finacially sensible, it is meant to be the solution for carbon emissions we cannot easily circumvent otherwise. Steel, cement, aviation, etc.
How exactly is aviation going carbon free without Hydrogen? Are you telling me I will be able to fly 17 1/2 hours from San Francisco to Singapore nonstop on batteries? I don't think so. It is actually possible to fuel large gas turbines with vaporized liquid hydrogen. Batteries are not the future of transportation especially aviation. You can make carbon free Hydrogen with nuclear power using electrolysis. Building many many new nuclear power plants will drive the cost of electricity and making hydrogen down. This video sounds like it is coming from the Golf Cart Cult, with the Asperger's obsession with efficiency. Build enough nuclear power plants, and efficiency does not matter.
Why is it so important to you that batteries fail? Obviously, batteries aren't the future of long distance aviation. But, there's no reason that every other mode of transportation has to use the same technology as long distance aviation.
"Efficiency does not matter", well, let me illustrate you why it matters with a simple exercise and some context. First, there is not enough natural isolated hydrogen in the world, and the hydrogen obtained as by-product from gas industry that is obtained in a year is barely enough for the needs of 1 week for the aviation industry. So, forcefully, we need a turbine to split hydrogen from H2O. The cost to this split is of around $4/kg, ok, not that bad, let's say even that "magic science" shows up and somehow we can make those turbines 4 times more efficient, and reduce cost to $1/kg. Now, do you know how much fuel would an airplane need of hydrogen? About 1 ton per hour, or 1000kg. So a single travel of 4 hours would cost 4k + cost of electricity, batteries and electric motor shenanigans = 6k + operational margins and misc costs and maintenance = 6.5k. At this price tag, nobody can pay it except governments and businessman. And keep in mind, I am already assuming "magic science" + "economies of scale" + "no taxes" + other shenanigans, in reality the travel right now could cost $22.5k. It is simply not viable, and the reason is that it is inefficient. You cannot simply ignore efficiency when the difference is too wide, you can just ignore it when it is in the realms of maybe up to 100% more inefficient, not when it is 20000% more inefficient. As for air travel, this simply means we will be using gasoline for it for a very long time. Just 3% of emissions comes from air traveling, so we can decarbon the rest of the economy and keep using oil for air traveling for the foreseeable future. We can also land and sea travel like in the past, as it is needed, a lot of current airplane uses are just a luxury and not a necessity whatsoever.
@@MsNyara So any mode of transportation that batteries can't support, get a pass from the green squad eh, because batteries are the future eh? Too damn funny. Also you think airliners run on Gasoline? Seriously? The Aspergers basket cases obsess on efficiency so hard that can't see the forest through the trees. So I will say it again, large scale nuclear power production would drive the cost of electrolytically produced hydrogen way down. Get it? Cheap carbon free electrolytically produced hydrogen, powering everything. Think of it as external nuclear power for vehicles. Put another way, using nuclear reactors to produce a high energy density carbon free renewable fuel for transportation, from water and electricity. But but but efficiency...Elon says BEV's are the most efficient...but but Elon says...uh huh.
In Japan, many households have a fuel cell. Tell THEM it's not feasible, Sabine 😂😂😂 but of course, you know better than them, having been working in energy economics for ... HOW LONG? 😂😂😂
Sabine, You are 100% correct, hydrogen is both uneconomical and impractical, if not impossible to practically use as an energy technology. I did my first experiments with hydrogen when I was still in grade school. When I found out how inefficient it was to produce using simple electrolysis I proceeded to experiment with several ways to enhance that process, naturally they all failed. Years later I looked at what real(?) companies were proposing and learned all the engineering reasons that all of the technologies were, simply put, ridiculous! I still cant believe that investors put real money in any hydrogen scheme! Now I did have fun when I was a kid making loud booms with "bang gas"!!!
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
Please don’t learn about shorting. What we should be doing is banning it (along with high frequency trading and a bunch of other Wall Street bullshit that isn’t doing anything to help us move forward). The basic concept of taking a chance on a good idea and then making a profit if it succeeds - that kind of seems like it could be useful in a society - the rest, not so much.
@@DaraParsavand Shorting of stocks has a vital function since it provides an incentive for market participants to uncover inefficiency or outright fraud. Wirecard, Nikola and Theranos are all prominent examples of companies where regulators and investors all failed to uncover fraudulant practices that then came to light because of research done by short sellers.
Shorting is essential for functioning markets and helps keep them balanced. The hatred against shorting is only emotionally driven and misplaced, as it overlooks the role short sellers play in enhancing market efficiency
I fully agree. Not only has “motivated reasoning” played a role in the hydrogen economy hype but “confirmation bias” has served to gather cherry picked evidence to back up that reasoning. It seems, to me, related to the increase in our immersion in a culture drowning in misinformation.
Going to the moon, installing space stations that orbit the Earth and the whole internet were also not economically profitable. But we made it happen with tax money. So sorry, but the excuse "but it's not profitable" is not very convincing to me that it is a bad idea.
*ENGINEER HERE and you are 100% right* *I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them.* HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to *SHUT UP.* We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but *BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK* and over the next 20-30 years *WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER.* And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to *SHUT UP.* Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she *DOES NOT KNOW* is we know how to engineer around those issues. The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. *HOWEVER* for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible. As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf *AND THEY WORK.* As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy. If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that *WORKS.*
@@kreek22 Why should the goal be to be profitable? So that the richest 1% can leech off of it, like it's doing with the internet? What type of brain disease do you need to think that the selling off of the internet to wealthy investors was anything more than fcking over tax payers with something their tax money created in the first place. Same thing happened during the economic crisis of 2008; companies were nationalized when it was doing bad, so that tax payer money could be injected into it to make it profitable again, but once it got profitable, they couldn't have its profit going into the state treasury so that we can do something nice with it for tax payers, no, it had to be privatized immediately so that a select group of lazy leechers can profit off of it. Space exploration is good, because it expands our scientific knowledge. Period.
@@tonywilson4713 Yeah, I personally think she can better shut up about any topic that isn't theoretical physics. Sure, you can do personal research, but it will never make you qualified enough to present your results to the internet as an authority on the subject. It's smth that's a big problem on RUclips, with history RUclipsrs for instance. The goal of this hydrogen-bashing is of course, because they want to push their nuclear energy agenda, which of course has never gone through a period where it was very unprofitable and had many issues that had to be worked around /s Why this agenda I don't know for sure, but it feels like it works as a nice distraction from actual green and sustainable energy (one of which nuclear energy isn't), and gullible people fall for it because it seems like a good "middle ground" to keep energy profitable during the green transition, while nuclear has also been disinvested from in history because of a lack of profitability. We should just accept that green and profitable don't go hand in hand. As you can see in her graph China is planning to build a lot of hydrogen related projects, and at this point when it's green energy related and China does it, you can kinda assume that it's a good idea. And it's probably just the religion of the free market and privatization in the west that explains this mass disinvestment in hydrogen, because it doesn't allow you to plan ahead more than what seems profitable to the biggest companies. And at this point it should already be clear that this economic model is outdated, and the west is only shooting itself in its foot by clinging onto it.
@@tonywilson4713 This whole "efficiency doesn't matter, only feasibility matters" gives me Soviet history flashbacks. The Soviets, of course, were both inefficient and environmentally indifferent. And that's what happens when you centralize power and focus on a single objective (in their case military competition)--every other priority is ignored. The price system of a capitalist economy is, as Hayek clearly showed 90 years ago, the original artificial intelligence. Overthrow it, and you are sure to lose more than you gain. Also, just how much *below* 57% efficiency is currently possible under ideal conditions (like almost no storage time, meaning minimal leakage)?
I wrote a paper in college about the non-feasibility of hydrogen over 20 years ago.
Somehow this doesn't surprise me...
It's 20 years obsolete. Care to update your knowledge?
@LuisAldamiz Has a new hydrogen update dropped?
@@LuisAldamizhave you read it? It seems to me that the arguments are rooted in basic physics.
@@SabineHossenfelder hydrogen looks terrible till you compare it to battery full cost( including cycles). Then it becomes cheaper.
I was a consultant in the low carbon sector for 20 years, doing my best to be objective and evidence based with all clients. I sat in rooms with Oil and Gas companies, so I know what motivated them. There is nothing for them in an electric future. They understand and have investments in pipes, not wires. For them hydrogen is a strategic procrastination technology - they pretend they are taking climate change seriously while moving public funding away from the investments that would make a positive impact. I observed (one in particular, and its not BP btw) who argued for regulatory support that would be hard to remove, so that EU would be committed to this donkey for the forseeable. We are in this mess because they have massive lobbying power amongst regulators and lawmakers - that cannot be overestimated.
One of the capitalist mysteries is why in the 1940s railroad giants did not invest in airlines -- by Pennsylvania railroad did not buy Douglas Aircraft or something. You'd think the biggest investors in atomic fusion would now be oil companies. I guess the rule is, you do what you know -- in the case of oil companies -- just dig holes in the ground, hoping $$$ pop to the surface.
Such schemes are way harder to swing without a single regulatory body.
Why I don't think EU was good for Europe.
This is something I noticed 15 years ago. However, hydrogen remains a marginal clean tech to this day, unlike EVs, solar, grid battery storage, etc. So, they're losing, even in the West. China, of course, is rapidly burying the hydrogen industry in an avalanche of goods being sold at cost all over the world.
Time is money… When coal pétrole and Gas gone to miss electrity and Hydrogene gone to replace it… not wet unfortunately…
You really articulated this well in fact reading the comments on here are blowing my mine. Finally some truth thank you. You need to write a book. No one gets the money just third person that distribute. Veterans such things like this are looted. Union the same HMOs same all same.if the government dose it business followed people followed. No one pays bills no one cares that they are the cause of it all. So they reap the whirlwind. I testify that with honesty and truth there is life, otherwise death. Keep up the truth it shall set some free.
The best indicator that something is a complete crackpot idea is when the German government pushes it. 😂
Greetings from Germany
Sad but true. 😂
Well, you have to do crazing things like this to appear innovative.
Probably, they tore down their nuke plants.
100% procent russian bribery
Lol y do u say that ?! Here in India and in the world at large , Germans r known for being smart and super efficient ppl. Is the German govt an exception ??
5:20 regarding selling stocks short, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Be careful out there.
yep, everything you need to know about shorting can be learned in bankruptcy court.
Yepp. The big players will push trough until they have found a way out to leave others with the losses. Just like what happened to Michael Burry.
Yeah, if shorting were as simple as "this will probably fail eventually," then too many people would be doing it. It's the fact that you're gambling that the failure will occur _soon_ that makes it risky.
I think that was supposed to be a joke . . . then again, somebody who doesn't have the required insider information might take it seriously.
@@ChristopherCurtis I was about to comment that John Maynard Keynes said it, but I checked. The “longer than you can stay solvent” quote has been attributed to Keynes (d. 1946) since 1999, but it seems it was first said by A. Gary Shilling in 1986. Keynes apparently said “There is nothing so disastrous as a rational investment policy in an irrational world” in 1931.
I just came here to Thank you Sabine for your channel. There's a saying in life "Cherish what you have well you have it" and I can always count on your channel to provide accurate information from an Intelligible person.
Personally I think the Hydrogen bubble is a direct product of how startups work. It's probably the ideal technology for a venture-backed startup, because it has so many problems. You can earnestly put forward a plan to make progress on one or two of those problems and get your valuation and government grants, then cash out before everyone realizes that you haven't actually solved enough problems to make it practical.
The current system values and rewards making money over any other result. Rinse and repeat every 20 years.
Fusion is a more ideal technology as you can keep the scam going for a lot longer.
Thing is, even dullards like me without a degree who simply happen to work in the industry know the basics about hydrogen use. Embrittlement, leak issues, this is beginner stuff. Politicians that have all day to get informed on such things should know to spend taxpayer money on things with a better usability perspective.
Same scam as the startup "fusion reactor" companies: take other people's money, pay yourself really well, and crank out optimistic progress reports. At the end of the day you've made good money even though your project "just didn't work out."
@@jpdemer5 Fusion reactors can work, but there are so many scandalous start ups, it's hard to want to do it. But if someone actually makes it work, it's a gold mine. Speaking of gold mine, it's also a gold mine if you could convert lead into gold. No one has done it, but man, if you could, it would be a gold mine. haha.
Isn't it a good thing, that they've only actually done such a low percentage of announced projects ? Means less wasted money & resources !
Now that you say it! Glas half full!
Money is irrelevant, sustainability is!
Pity those contracts are for 30 years at least 😢
When will we learn 🤷
Yet it remains a source of delay and a drag on meaningful action.
As an engineer who used large amounts of hydrogen for many years, I can attest that the practical difficulties are not very severe. As long as one knows what one is doing.
The metal embrittlement stuff is bogus. One just has to use the right materials, just like in many other fields of engineering.
We should bear in mind that hydrogen is being used in industry on a vast scale, close to 100 Mt per year.
The financial arguments about using hydrogen for energy storage are OK. It is inefficient and should be avoided, if possible.
What materials and how much more expensive?
@@velisvideos6208 Agree. The main argument stays, if something isn’t financially viable it won’t succeed. It does not make any sense when you can directly convert sunlight into electricity and store it in batteries.
@@MrSunrise- Sure :just use the right materials". Problem is some plans included simply replacing methane with hydrogen in existing pipes. It might be OK to add someH2 into methane into existing pipes
There are currently 159 kilotonnes of green hydrogen being produced per year, with another 1416 kt/year under construction. The learning curve is profound:
2005
- CAPEX (USD/tonne H₂/year): $10,000-15,000
- Operating Cost (USD/tonne H₂ produced): $3,000-5,500
2010
- CAPEX (USD/tonne H₂/year): $7,500-12,000
- Operating Cost (USD/tonne H₂ produced): $2,500-4,500
2015
- CAPEX (USD/tonne H₂/year): $5,500-9,000
- Operating Cost (USD/tonne H₂ produced): $2,000-3,500
2020
- CAPEX (USD/tonne H₂/year): $3,500-6,000
- Operating Cost (USD/tonne H₂ produced): $1,500-2,800
2023
- CAPEX (USD/tonne H₂/year): $3,000-5,000
- Operating Cost (USD/tonne H₂ produced): $1,200-2,500
@@MarksEscalona No, that also doesnt make sense.
Hydrogen was pushed hard by the fossil fuel industry and pretty much all hydrogen we used comes from natural gas. It has been infamous for that.
Exactly right: touting "green hydrogen" was a ruse to get governments to buy in. (Let the taxpayers create the "hydrogen economy", then cash in on it.)
And EVs are pushed hard by the mining industry and pretty much all precious metals used in batteries comes from child labour.
@@jpdemer5 Which is what they've done with wind and solar too.
I wonder how long before we see through "The Fusion Economy". 2100?
This was the green up of old fossil fuels. Yet it had way too many problems to actually work. Hence the long hold out on this tech, which will never happen realistically. The shut down of H2 fueling stations is the writing on the wall. It has too many hurdles. We might as well adopt hybrid cars. haha.
Thank goodness. Reason should prevail over hype and idiocy.
The best I've heard of is stripping a hydrogen off a natural gas molecule at the pump... but then why not just use natural gas?
The best I've heard is Japan's plans for red hydrogen, where they produce it at a nuclear plant and counterintuitively make everything safer
What did you miss from the video?
You could do the H2 extraction from ethanol, but EU isn't even trying.
@MarksEscalona well... the video didn't talk about changing carbuerated engines to run on natural gas. Runs a lot cleaner, still releases co2, but no methane.
Uncle Tonys garage played with it a bit, had an old boss who modified his truck to run on nat gas. Could idle all day and still not gunk up the inside.
@@Feolips Then you could just use the ethanol for fuel...
The hype around hydrogen was almost certainly pushed by the fossil fuel industry, since most current hydrogen production is based on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies know they’ll make tons of money before green hydrogen represents even as little as 5% of the overall production.
And if you add that oil companies do not benefit from electric stuff, more reasons to "invest" in the H2 hype.
makes no sense. They would push the BEV hype instead, so people stick with fossil fuel gas guzzlers instead of switching to biofuels, synfuels or hydrogen from which they would not profit.
Also because it's a gas, and they know how to distribute and sell gas - just like LPG?, and you can run a regular car engine on gas (LPG) - Hydrogen is just another gas - right.....
"overturning or sidestepping scientific advice"
The start of half of all disaster movies
Gets Democrats voted into office.
@SabineHossenfelder says these things, but she never checked the lifetime costs of batteries and compare. Low efficiency of synth fuels (you need hydrogen to make them), is still cheaper than "efficient" battery farms.
Luk, if hydrogen made financial or environmental sense then we’d be buying hydrogen cars instead of EVs and ICE. I actually saw a hydrogen car. Once. Years ago. In San Francisco. I took a picture.
The market has spoken. Hydrogen ain’t it!
@@freeheeler09 Doesn´t necessarily count. What lobbies (not markets) decide to support or boycott is the main reason of what we use or don´t.
There has been lots and lots of lobby work as Sabine hinted. I can only speak from a German perspective, but over the years I have met numerous people, usually from academia, who strongly advertised it. When challenged on the details none of them understood the challenges (engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges).
I just can't tell it this was a self amplifying cycle of if there was support with outside money. I personally think it was a bit of both. There was a good reason for many people to believe in the concept. I don't wan to bash on the "evil fossil fuel industry" because many there acted (initially) in good intent. Why not support hydrogen as an automotive maker back in the days when batteries were not yet good enough (like 20-30 years back).
Now batteries are not perfect and not magic but they pushed hydrogen into a smaller and smaller niche, making it economically unattractive.
Hydrogen: requires electricity to produce, permeates a lot of materials and changes their mechanical properties, doesn't liquefy under normal temperatures, is highly flammable. What could possibly go wrong with it's mass adoption as a "green" fuel? The world is really full of wonders and surprises for those, who preferred to party hard instead of studying at school, and then became politicians.
Gentleman's B = paid tuition.
Ever heard of lpg? Has all the same problems and is in wide spread use. They use polymers to seal it.
Voluntarism is the word when "we want to believe". If you question something, then you are a party pooper.
I was interested in the "ammonia economy" not so long ago, but it seems it hasn't taken off either. It was supposed to solve most of the problems that hydrogren has, carrying a lot of energy per molecule, won't deteriorate pipes, doesn't need high compression, higher efficiency conversion, etc.
Yes, ammonia has some advantages, I read it's being considered for tanker ships.
I guess methanol would be more feasible than ammonia. It could even be used as a fuel in current internal combustion engines without too much adjusting or special tanks or transportation infrastructure.
It's extremely dangerous at concentrations needed for combustion or fuel cells.
the issue with ammonia is why not go one step further and just create synth fuels, and run our economy on good old diesel/petrol. Its just safer.
it is not „extremely dangerous“… efficiency and subsequent economics of these efuels are terrible, but there will be a few niches where they are needed
You first build the nuclear power plants only then switch to a hydrogen economy unless you're from Germany, then you can keep on burning natural gas and coal and begging neighboring countries for energy.
Stop wagnering your finger at other people
Every few decades we revisit old tech. Wonder if we might revisit alchemy soon enough.
Don't knock it , plenty of unfinished business with that one.....😂
As a current Alchemist lobbyist I concur completely
Phlogiston is the future!
Thank you for this!!! I’ve been waiting for this video for 5 years. Basically since I’ve been saying the same thing as you. This was all too evident soooo long ago.
One wonders where Govts. get their information from to spend so much taxpayer money without much care for fiscal responsibility.
Lobbyists. With PowerPoint presentations.
Like Sabina said: wishful thinking!
We have political, bureaucratic, academic and cultural classes with no practical experience of life, zero common sense, and very little interest in matters of truth. Among those who know better there is a reluctance to call it out because it is likely to have a bad effect on their career.
In short: The problem is degeneracy, stupidity and cowardice.
Clearly, there is a gap in the selection process. Governments should employ independent consultants to undertake techno-economical assessments before funding projects.
My country, India, is balls-deep in hydrogen things.
Not only do they heavily bet on hydrogen cars, but also on hydrogen trains.
They spend billions on the infrastructure; it inevitably fails.
Inflation hits the country.
Everyone has Pikachu face reactions.
In the UK's current government an "Independent" eco report was generated by a group of "Experts" formed by a company majorly owned by the Minster of the Crown responsible for allocating the 20 billion pounds which the report favoured, there has been no enquiry, there is undoubtedly a major conflict of interest but the Government says it "all above board", as the scheme is carbon capture and burying the problem the majority of people in the UK would strongly disagree with that, it's a ludicrous plan, amongst a load of costly others that's making the green energy transition a farce with the notion that it's a scam project for vested individuals and it's losing the traction of the majority!?!
You can "force" a hydrogen economy if you throw enough cash at it and regulate competitive energy out of existence.
About the same strategy which was used to favour nuclear power plants above others in the past?
For a few years, probably. Then your economy will go bankrupt.
@@horst4439 Not just wrong, but the opposite of reality.
Regulation has been used to sabotage nuclear power in the West.
China builds a nuclear power plant in less than 5 years, and the only things that can compete, are their hydro electric plants.
In the West, a nuclear plant takes as much as 15 years from planning to operation. France being somewhat an exception to this.
You can never operate at an energy deficit beyond the capital required to fuel it.
@@cbboegh fair enough. According wikipedia, there were no direct subsidies. Overall nuclear power of course needs subsiedies, because the nuclear waste also creates costs, which only partially are covered by the amount of money payed by the companies to the state. It's difficult to calculate this accurately though. About regulation to sabotage this technology it needs somewhat clarifcation. In fact virtually all regulation is a nuisance for enterpreneurs, regardless if these are reasonable or not.
Disagree that the hype is dying, at least in the US. Recent news of easier tax credits for clean hydrogen production has revitalized that..
There are other uses for hydrogen than energy production or storage. Greening up the production of fertilizer and blasting compounds might be worthwhile.
I had an big argument about the Hydrogen strategy of Germany with a friend of mine. His argument was that one day we maybe find a way to overcome those problems. My counter argument to that was that we should build plains out of lead because one day we maybe find a way to revers gravity.
Ha ha good one!
Planes, not plains. Educate, educate.
Unfortunately, that's the exact argument for every other non-efficient technology. I hate it so muchhhh
@@Rounder-One Tolerance, tolerance. 1.85 subscribers here, many of whom speak/write English as a second or third language.
But gravity is the only thing keeping us here so even as a joke it makes little sense… and just out of curiosity how this supposed to help with reversing gravity anyway?Yeah I know I must be fun at parties…. Moving on.
I like your new shirt. Happy New Year! Sabine
Hydrogen has been boondoggle since the 90s with Ballard Power. There was a lot of promise, except for the one big problem: storage. You simply can't get the energy density down to a useable volume. Every time the hydrogen hype machine starts up, everybody assumes that storage is a technical challenge that will be solved by the time their next fancy idea will be ready. Every. Time. I'm thinking this is a problem that will never be solved, at least not in this century.
Ballard and Plug, until the very early 2000s -- quite a bubble! Amazing those companies are still around. There was an idea you could add a "reformer" to allow you to to fuel up with methanol or ammonia even gasoline, which would be "reformed" as needed into H2. That would certainly solve the storage problem although possibly not the efficiency problem. To me, this is an illustration of the ancient principle "that last step is a doozy!" Lots of tech that is (or is claimed to be) 90% close to commercialization never becomes practical or real.
Just like battery storage.
Nice video! On another note, as a chemist, I am honestly flabbergasted how hilariously wrong the Steam Reforming reaction render at 4:44 is. Planar methane :(, non-linear CO2 :(, the Carbon atom just says goodbye in the reaction process, hydrogen atoms become carbon atoms, and the products are just plain wrong. What the heck is happening at BP??
Only an AI generated video could depict methane being square planar
We still need ways to store generated renewable energy and extreme energy density batteries. My biggest worry is the continued expansion of passenger aviation, the lack of meaningful carbon controls on aviation and the very long term amortization of aviation infrastructure.
Just fund research into nuclear isomer batteries, which could have energy densities ~100,000,000x higher than Li-ion
You mean like gravity storage, battery storage, or centrifugal storage? Yeah, we already have that. We have like 6gwh of battery storage in California right now to absorb surplus green energy. Works great, and they’re expanding things at the rate of around doubling capacity every 2-3 years.
@@charlesblithfield6182 I think aviation had a phase but people will return to cruises. Just had a transatlantic passage, seven days in luxury, no jet lag, cheaper than flying, free gym, interesting classes, game rooms, no TSA, erc
@@smallpeople172 Hahahahaahahaha. Hahahaha. Uh no.
@@erichtisnado1536 the capacity is way to low.
You need TWh to compensate more that dayly iregularities in renewables.
You also need fuel for avaiation, it will not go away.
And you need fuel for metallurgy that needs a chemical reduction material.
Not everything is working on the electrical grid.
Using green hydrogen for energy storage is one, and possibly not a very clever, thing.
Using green hydrogen as an input for the production of chemicals (e.g. ammonia) is another thing. It is, at least, possible that this would be sensible.
Another question is whether it might not be better to produce hydrogen from natural gas by a process that simultaneously collects the carbon, making the process climate neutral...
Carbon capture has plenty of problems though. For one, what do you do with the carbon? There are a few options that are so expensive it has no chance of happening. The only thing you can do with it is pump it back down into oil fields in order to force more precious oil out of them, and that can only dispose of a fraction of the carbon dioxide that would be produced.
I have expressed my doubts for long time! It sounded great untl the low tide comes and you start to see the rocks!
It was all a ruse and a diversionary tactic. Analysis I did on my own, including technical publication concluded a H2 economy could never work for all reasons and more that are noted in this video. I believe, as an insider, this was intentional by oil & gas companies buying more time to sell more product.
There has been lots and lots of lobby work as Sabine hinted. I can only speak from a German perspective, but over the years I have met numerous people, usually from academia, who strongly advertised it. When challenged on the details none of them understood the challenges (engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges).
I just can't tell it this was a self amplifying cycle of if there was support with outside money. I personally think it was a bit of both. There was a good reason for many people to believe in the concept. I don't wan to bash on the "evil fossil fuel industry" because many there acted (initially) in good intent. Why not support hydrogen as an automotive maker back in the days when batteries were not yet good enough (like 20-30 years back).
Now batteries are not perfect and not magic but they pushed hydrogen into a smaller and smaller niche, making it economically unattractive.
Neither is a good solution. Gasoline is the solution, chemically synthesized if you want to be green...
Compressing it puts the energy in. And there is no fossil fuel.
Yes, Edison faced same challenge. "engineers not knowing about physics, physicists not knowing about the material science challenges". Few thousand trials later... voila, light bulb was born.
@robertbloch1063 a great discovery from Edison - a competitor Swan had perfected the technology and was willing to license it to Edison
@@robertbloch1063 thousands of trials reminds me of insects hitting the lightbulb 🪰
Same as the story of ethanol from corn. Takes two to three gallons of diesel to make a gallon of ethanol which has fuel milage of 3/4 gallon of diesel. Yet BILLIONS have been spent in USA alone because of lobbyists and virtue signalling. AMD this doesn't even touch on cost of foodstuff raised and farming land taken out of food production.
Ethanol from corn requires well under 1 unit of energy to produce 1 unit of energy in the form of ethanol. There are good arguments against the ethanol industry. Lies are not good arguments.
that is to remove lead that kills people. adding ethanol is an expensive solution to adding lead but we have no better choice.
it's corruption of politicians by the farm lobby.
you don't need diesel to make corn
@@svr5423 There is diesel used in farming the corn feedstock, transportation and processing of the corn. The figures I have seen calculating the diesel required vary widely - two to three gallons per gallon of ethanol seems to be at the very high end of calculations and I highly doubt that it is this high but there is no doubt that ethanol production from corn is highly dubious economically and environmentally.
I'm glad folks are figuring this out. Hydrogen is great if you can figure out a way to move and carry it around that doesn't make the net energy density unatractive. It's that whole pressure and embrittlement issue that Sabina mentioned that made me realize it was a non starter about 35 years ago as an undergrad.
It has been figured out. It is just very complicated and expensive.
Don't worry. Shorting irrational bubbles is extremely expensive (margin calls) unless your timing is perfect.
Sabine, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one! Well done! I wish to say it because I have also bitterly criticized you on other topics!
Over 20 years ago the USA had a proposal to build a hydrogen economy using nuclear power plants as then the hydrogen plant could be base loaded to a steady power (or steam) supply. It actually made sense although it would not have produced cheaper H2 than breaking apart natural gas - It would have been about the same cost as breaking apart natural gas.
That assumed that the US could build nuclear power plants on time and on budget... which the US and Western Europe could not do because we had forgottenb how to build nuclear power plants (its a lot different than building a commercial building or plant).
But what would be the point? If you go nuclear, you don't need hydrogen storage in the first place.
@@audiodead7302 Not true.
Unlike EVs, hydrogen (particularly hydrogen fuel cells, which stores and handles hydrogen far easier than trying to handle molecular hydrogen) is suitable for remote use where you can't rely on pulling over and spending an hour to "refuel". This also allows hydrogen powered vehicles to function as 1:1 replacements in roles over current fossil fuel powered vehicles, and is especially useful for vehicles designed for long range, heavy use, or operation in austere conditions, and without the major range penalties when operating an EV in severe temperature extremes (IOW, everything outside the "urban commuter in a temperate climate" role that EVs are very well suited for).
Nor would it require massive upgrades to the current electrical grids all the way from production to individual end users (as would be required for massive EV adoption).
Paradoxically, nuclear is the cheapest way to produce H2. You can use the waste heat to heat up the water so that less energy is needed to for the electrolysis.. But let's not kid ourselves, Germany is looking at H2 only because they refuse Nuclear. It's a forced idea.
@@audiodead7302 Hydrogen is used in many industrial processes; and may be far more useful as a fuel in places without a robust electrical infrastructure.
Nobody forgot how to build nuclear plants. The environmental whackjobs screamed bloody murder and fearmongered to the naive public every time a nuclear plant was proposed.
The hydrogen economy was a terrible idea, but you overstate the problems of hydrogen embrittlement of pipes and tanks. I worked in a chemical plant that used large amounts of hydrogen for decades, and hydrogen embrittlement was not a major problem. Oil refineries have also been using massive amounts of hydrogen in oil refineries without any big piping problems. Yes, hydrogen does leak more easily than any other gas, but we know how to handle the problem. All that said, hydrogen is much to expensive and valuable to use for heat. It makes as much sense as burning mahogany wood for green energy.
forgive me but i'm not entirely sure what your, clearly enformed, conclusion is there ... on balance, use it or not?
@@DougallWinship-w1w
Don't use it, it's too valuable to waste in trying to make up for wind and solar's deficiencies.
@@DougallWinship-w1w The trouble is there are much easier and more efficient and cheaper ways to run an energy economy.
Can you clarify how they are "dealt with"? My assumption is that itll end up being large amounts if maintenance which doesnt really change the fact that embrittlement is an issue, but im likely wrong..
I assume that your company properly maintained and fixed any issues that arise, in a timely manner. I would be more concerned about an ignorant end-user not properly dealing with these issues than a company that is heavily regulated/monitored. We can barely get people to fix leaking valve-covers or oil pans on their vehicles.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR): This is the most common method for producing hydrogen from natural gas. In SMR, high-temperature steam (700°C to 1000°C) reacts with methane in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide is then reacted with water to produce more hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This process is efficient but produces greenhouse gases.
Is it "Efficient" when it takes more input energy than the resultant energy of the hydrogen???
@@johnlodge8546 Yes. There are no processes that could give more output energy than input energy. The ratio of output to input is efficiency, where
0 < efficiency < 1. To say a process is efficient is to say its efficiency is greater than most competing processes. To decide which process is most profitable, you multiply efficiency times the ratio of selling price of output energy to cost of input energy, minus depreciation of the equipment and other expenses.
@@johnlodge8546 It takes the energy available in the natural gas and locks it up in the hydrogen instead. It is fairly efficient by that measure. The kicker is that it also produces CO2, which the oil companies rarely mention in their promotional efforts.
@jpdemer5 Pure unadulterated Poppycock.
Most commercially produced Hydrogen comes from Steam Methane Reformating (SMR).
In this process immense amounts of Methane is burned to heat purified water into high pressure Steam. The steam is then combined with a catalyst bombarding MORE Methane to separate the Hydrogen molecules from the Methane (CH4). You certainly DON'T get more energy from the process just because you added the energy to break the bonds holding the elements together in Methane chemical structure.
In the end, you need nearly double the input energy from the Methane used to create the steam and the Methane you intend to breakup to get the H2.
The other thing you aren't counting is the sheer amount of carbon emissions in this process.
It is far, FAR more efficient to use the high pressure steam to just generate electricity.
5:22 In this case the verb is "to short" nor "to shorten" 😉
Acetylene is pressurized by dissolving it in a matrix filled with acetone, which somehow obviates its tendency to spontaneously explode if compressed above ca 15psi. With material science going ahead apace, something similar may be discovered for hydrogen storage. This would change things...
So, hydrogen is not feasible for energy storage (or for domestic heating) - I'm on the same boat here. But it is still something we'll need for processes like iron oxide reduction and in chemistry (if we want to replace coal and other fossil fuels). So it will be needed - or are there other non-fossil alternatives?
In technological terms, from what I understand hydrogen would be needed to make these things carbon-free, the big problem here is economics. Steel and chemical industries in Europe are already uncompetitive with China and the US partly because of energy cost. If you force them into hydrogen, then some of these companies will close down and the rest will move production from Europe. This is different from say the electric grid, where you can enforce things without the fear that people will start buying Chinese electricity because it is cheaper.
There are no carbon neutral replacements in the industries you mentioned. And that's exactly the reason why this video isn't even close to an objective evaluation.
@@traumflug No it's objective - Sabine just doesn't mention H2's use in industry. There is continual confusion over H2's industrial use and its use in energy. It is not economic to substitute renewable energy for natural gas in industrial processes, but at least it's less crazy than using it for energy storage.
@@Prettyhorrible Please arrive in the 21st century. Fossil fuel of any kind is a no-go. It's not carbon neutral.
@@traumflug we weren't arguing about fossil fuels but about whether the presentation by Sabine was fair. Obviously it was and, as you made no counter-argument, I can only conclude that you agree. Anyway, leave it with you.
Darn,I wanted to buy the new H2 car, called the Hindenburg.
btw, Toyota is ending the production of its H2 car, but I assume you can get a used one for cheap ;-)
Why not get the car named Tesla, as many times those Teslas have caught fires and burned to ashes.
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
Re: reason for the bubble - I think most of it is people (including politicians) inclination to believe what they want to believe, until the evidence against the belief becomes strong enough to break it.
The problem, in the end, is that it's far easier to fool someone, than to convince them they've been fooled.
All the grifter has to do, is get there first, most of the time.
I always figured that it would be okay if it was made and used on site at a power plant or something like that. Make hydrogen when demand is low and run it through an fuel cell when demand is high.
The hydrogen economy dying doesn't mean batteries win it just means we will keep using fossil fuels.
I recently read several articles about natural hydrogen and would love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
It was never meant to be anything other than a great excuse to waste £Billions of tax payer money...stuffing the pockets of corporations...Again.
Someone please tell Toyota and other vehicle manufactures.
The problem is infrastructure bro
The Ch1nes invest in the sector and lead the market to BV
There is a great video out there about a guy who rents a hydrogen car and tried to drive from SF to LA in the US. He interviews the few other hydrogen car owners he meets on the way. The video winds up feeling a bit dystopian, and all of the owners are in on the fact that they’ve fallen for a con, and that hydrogen cars will never replace EVs or ICE, or even reliability get hydrogen car owners to work and back.
Someone needs to tell the governments to get their fingers out with charging infrastructure…
The biggest problem is the electrolysis part. But Hysata an Australina company supposedly has discovered a new 95 % efficient way of producing hydrogen. If true that would be a game changer.
So, 80% of hydrogen storage schemes are going ahead. In the meantime The Port of Rotterdam and Gasunie are aiming to start the first phase of making the entire port powered by hydrogen, commencing 2025. Gasunie's share price has risen in the last 12 months.
As long as you can use it at “normal” temperatures and pressures, you’re ok.
All the facilities at Eurosport are using existing pipelines, only in that way you can avoid hydrogen problems.
Hallo Sabine, was ist denn deine Alternative, damit Flugzeuge und Schiffe die Ozeane überqueren können? Als Energieträger kommt in diesen Anwendungen nur der Wasserstoff in Frage. Und wenn die Wasserstoffwirtschaft erst einmal aufgebaut ist, kann man damit auch gleich LKWs für den Fernverkehr betanken. Der Wasserstoff wird in diesen Anwendungen auf jeden Fall kommen!
Synthetic fuel?
As usual you are brilliant.😊
Lots of people shorted Tesla, lost billions.
Do we all have such funds ?
I think Tesla shorts will be proven correct, in time. Buying a Teslas was a badge of liberal pride: see? I'm part of the future! Now it's a badge of supporting a would-be Martian, and that has already affected sales. And for EVs, the one with the best batteries wins. There are many batteries that are supposed to enter the market -- with many different form factors, and different chemistries. If (say) flat-pack lithium-sulfur wins (potentially 3x or more dense and half the price) Tesla will need to buy them, or be doomed. And it may be doomed anyway. Tesla's current batteries are structural and heavy and need cooling unique to them; using a new better battery may require a total design. The probablem with shorting is you only win if you can guess WHEN the crash will come, and Tesla illustrates just how difficult that is.
@@charleskramer6189 Thank you for this detailed note - all your facts are organised in their row. Not being as you - in this field - I must just say - I do not like this man and will not (as far as possible) have him and his like - play puppet master with me and my like. Have a good solution worked out
@@charleskramer6189You'll be wrong, autonomy, manufacturing and energy will prove this. Elon seems incompetent on the surface but he usually always wins
Sabina, I usually like your content, but this video is quite uninformed. There is already a pretty large H2 market that services mostly the refining, ammonia and chemical production sectors. This is currently dominated by grey H2 (high CO2 emissions) from steam methane reforming (SMR). To decarbonize this sector, any clean H2 technology that can't make a customer economic value proposition (either with or without the context of an established CO2 emissions cost) is doomed to fail. The only real H2 production that can currently produce decarbonized H2 at or better than the current price of grey H2 is turquoise H2, where methane (NG) is split into H2 and solid carbon, and the solid carbon is used in industrial applications such as tire or asphalt manufacture. Once the production costs and the co-product revenue is factored in, the net cost to the customer can be even less than what they pay for SMR grey H2 - a great incentive to adopt this technology. To decarbonize chemical fuels in the energy sector, clean H2 must compete with all other alternatives, including clean electrification. If it can't compete, it will not be commercialized. Currently, there is a start to the H2 fuel for vehicles economy where fuel cells and H2 replace lead acid batteries and electricity in lift trucks for 24/7 material handling applications in large distribution centres. In this case, there is a productivity gain as the fuel cell lift truck moves more pallets of goods per hour giving the customer a good IRR over their conventional battery power even while using the higher cost power (H2) and fuel cells. This H2 can be produced at a central site where it can be decarbonized by CO2 sequestration from SMR production (blue) and/or turquoise production again. Both production methods could still potentially preserve the customer IRR depending on the H2 transportation costs. The larger transportation sector requires H2 infrastructure that does not yet exist except in certain areas and will probably be used by applications where H2's higher energy/mass ratio or high energy content refuelling will give them a competitive advantage in the decarbonization game. The largest and arguable the most pressing decarbonization requirement is for chemical fuels used for producing industrial power and heat. There is no solution that can provide as low cost as just using natural gas, and hydrogen's role in these markets will depend on the settled cost of CO2 emissions. In the end, it will be the technology that offers the lowest cost of a tonne of "sequestered" CO2 that will win but turquoise H2 is one of the lowest cost alternatives. You will notice that no where in here do I even mention green H2. It is the most expensive way to produce H2 and it's economic role will be greatly limited to niche applications that make economic sense such as where there is an abundance of low cost clean electricity.
I gave up 15 years of my life as a drastically underpaid engineer thinking I was investing in my life as well as the future. We actually came to this conclusion through detailed research and wrote a paper on how emerging battery technology would overshadow H2 tech and probably end the need except for renewable industrial hydrogen in ~2008. If I can give it up after putting my last good working life into it so can H2 fans. It's time to move on. Get behind new battery technology. This is the future and there is a lot to do.
Flow batteries
As soon as I've got batteries that can be charged in 5min and offer 500km range, I consider switching over.
For the forseeable future, this is vaporware.
We have biofuels available though, hydrogen and synfuels. But we are using fossil fuels because of political reasons and because people are afraid of change.
For me, this is not an issue, I have factored in potential climate change issues into my choice of residence.
could you provide a name of your paper or DOI ?
Where can I find batteries of 1-2MWh to store my solar overproduction from the summer for the winter?
A combination of batteries and hydrogen for home energy storage would be useful. What cannot be put into the batteries could be converted to hydrogen for long term storage and even if it's only 40% it's still much more than doing nothing with it or injecting into the grid where I get next to nothing for it.
@@ppdan I have a 5kW Solar and 5kW Lithium/Iron battery. It would be nice to be able to store the excess instead of just getting 12 cents and the power company sells it for 33.14 cents per kW hour. But I look on it as an investment. If I compare what interest I could get on a 6 monthly investment re-invested, I just come out ahead with the Solar. Because I don't pay tax on the Solar 'income', I just edge ahead of the investment. And that's taking off a weekly payment, I put aside, to pay off the system after 15 years. And I have piece of mind when the nest power outage comes along. I flick the mains board switch over to solar and my fridge and freezer keep running. I have lights, internet and phone. You can't get that from a savings account 😉
What I'm baffled buy is the rapidity at which government entities embraced this concept knowing everything you just said 8 years ago? Is this simply a way to pay off and get kicked backs from energy companies 😞
Excellent summary of risks associated with hydrogen use. Thanks!
Michael Liebrich came up with the 'Hydrogen Ladder'. It turns out that some uses of green hydrogen are inevitable (like making ammonia for fertilizer), and some (like fuelling cars) are more or less economically impossible and some are in between (long distance trucking). His ladder puts things in a hierarchy. One of the more plausible ones is back-up power for the grid, it's pretty inefficient but rarely runs, so is likely to work as an emergency backup if there's no wind and no sun. But all of them need lots of renewables, and there aren't enough yet.
So one of the most plausible uses is propping a scam.Not a great idea.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 The real scam is fossil fuels. Millions dead from air pollution, and more expensive.
Even the inevitable uses are not strong enough as drivers. E.g. ammonia production from methane could continue with very low CO2 output because the CO2 can be sequestered with relative ease in an industrial process. And at much much lower cost than switching to hydrogen.
And the long distance trucking is a false flag. Once we remove CO2 from short distance transportation, the remaining fossil fuel usage in this domain is of little significance. In other words, their are other fossil fuel usages we can address more cheaply.
What people often forget is: we don't need to get to zero fossil fuel usage. Going down to 20% of current usage is enough to slow down global warming. After that its diminishing returns.
@@michaelrenper796 Carbon capture is not nearly as easy as you think, and in practice a lot of it is never captured, and the cost and energy needed to do it is very high. There's basically no truly successful carbon capture projects in the entire world.
@@michaelrenper796 Methane is a terrible source of hydrogen due to the huge leakage in supply pipelines.
I am glad the hydrogen stocks I own, primarily Plug Power, seem to be performing very well over the last few months. Even better over the last week.
The biggest problem is the electrolysis part. But Hysata an Australina company supposedly has discovered a new 95 % efficient way of producing hydrogen. If true that would be a game changer.
Makes note to short H2 stocks, especially Plug Power.
Gambler's Fallacy is brutal.
@ gambles fallacy isn't always a fallacy. For example, the famous coin flip. True enough each individual flip had a 50% chance; and if you have a run of 10 "heads" the odds of the next flip being heads is 50%; however, if you step back and consider that the next bet is no longer on the individual flip, but rather the series as a whole, then you'd realize the odds of getting 11 heads in a row are .04%; or 1 in 2500.
So a change in perspective on what the bet represents--the individual throw or a the results of a series of throws--changes everything.
Of course that has nothing to do with what you're actually saying. 😂 So I apologize for the derail.
The truth is that while Sabine is probably correct, and at least near term a complete hydrogen economy is not in the cards, I believe hydrogen will play a key role in some industries and as fuel in some pretty important cases.
Therefore the well situated hydrogen production companies, particularly in the U.S. where rules on production were just relaxed, will remain possible.
That said, I'd dispense with all my money and investments to live in a world without capitalism.
Dr. Hossenfelder, if you start an investment group, I’ll join. I’m completely serious.
I´m on board too😉
Interesting thought indeed.
@@SabineHossenfelder Do you even know about Hysata who developed a new 95 % efficient electrolysis method? At least that is what they are claiming. If true that would change everything since the electrolysis part is the one who wastes the most energy.
Joining Isaac Newton's investment group might have also sounded tempting at the time.
@@EbonyPope Doesn´t sound very credible, but let´s see. Maybe Sabine makes a video about it.
Working with hydrogen myself, I'm confident the addressed technical challenges can be managed. But I wonder wich alternative we have for seasonal storage of renewable energy?
I have a friend who did a phd in hydrogen tech... as of last year they were still convinced that it was somehow energy efficient and could be run off waste heat or waste natural gas or something
Danish pension fund is loosing billions on a Hydrogen project in Sweden
You should have lost it in Finland, we have lots of projects of H but no funds.
If it sounds green, it sells... Till someone finds put how much it actually costs. Change my mind.
Well, look on the bright side. The helium industry is still going strong, thanks in great part to the birthday balloon industry. And because of this, we have plenty of balloons that can be repurposed to allow us all to temporarily enjoy having annoyingly high pitched squeaky voices.
🤣
Aha! You must work for the Helium-industrial complex! Considering how useful helium is (for MRIs, for example) amazing any of it is allowed to be wasted on balloons. And squeaky voices.
I did my undergrad thesis on green hydrogen and I agree it was almost entirely hype. It always felt strange how the entire thing was being pushed by oil & gas companies and I recon it was because they want to have a use for their infrastructure once most forms of energy consumption are electrified, plus they have the know-how advantage of the fuels industry. It became even more obvious when they tried to change the focus from "green" hydrogen, i.e. from renewables, to "low carbon" hydrogen which allows them to continue to use natural gas if they use some sort of carbon capture.
I am currently working in the hydrogen economy. I agree that currently its just way too expensive compared to fossil fuels. And the lack of economy of scale makes the problem worse.
My old professor for energy systems did a great simulation on this topic and his conclusion was that below 80 % renewables in the grid, there is no apparent necessity for hydrogen energy storage
I like that new shirt, nice colors.
Oh reality and its nasty bite! We need to capture the suns energy and store it in a better way.
If only we could have low -cost,-size, -weight and high energy density batteries 😮
Turn into a plant till it bears fruit.
I'm all ears for the alternatives! - oh there were none in the video :O
@@rpgenious the “solution” is to create waaaay better batteries and switch to electric
H2 energy storage sounds like an idea from the same people trying to collect CO2 from the atmosphere.
Thank you for this, it needs to be said.
Would there be any advantage to taking the green hydrogen and immediately adding carbon dioxide (from air or exhaust gasses) to produce methane ("e-methane")? We've been using methane in large quantities for decades, so the infrastructure is already there.
"It's like trying to run a marathon in flip flops." This lady hasn't heard about the Taraumara girls from Mexico who run further than any Olympic athlete in literal flip flops or barefoot...
😅
They'd be far better off using alcohol (methanol as I don't want to anger alcoholics with price increases lol) as a "renewable fuel" (in my opinion)
How much more polution does E.V.s lithium batteries create for their production and destruction (or recycle ability).
That's one very strong reason not to use them, plus we don't have the electric infrastructure or energy density to cope with the switch fully electric vehicles!
We seem to be forgetting about (or not mentioning them) some very key issues when it comes to the whole E.V. topic.
Methanol has potential, been seeing more buzz around it lately. We shall see
How much more pollution do ICE cars create for their production and destruction (or recycle ability), and their operation?
@@ikocheratcr they are far less toxic for the environment than E.V.s per unit!
@scottbishop7899 "less toxic?" I find it hard to believe such a statement can be made, because that implies that it's less toxic in every way, or that there's an universally agreeable way to weigh different kinds of toxicity against each other.
@@majorgnu the lithium and rare earth metals etc, putting out a lithium fire is also very difficult. So yes, far more toxic and potentially far more hazardous also!
When I was in college, I was part of a green community research project. I was in charge of creating the hydrogen generator. That was 47 years ago. It was a bad idea then, its a worse idea now.
Hydrocarbon decomposition based, or inefficient and toxic electrolysis?
@@lbochtler Since it was to create a green community, it was the inefficient electrolysis.
I want to know if you think this would work. A zirconium dioxide hollow shell… just a small quantity of hydrogen gas inside of the hollow shell. Microwaves that turned the gas to plasma. As the plasma expands, magnetic mirroring, reflects the plasma back toward the center of the shell. At the same time sound as introduced from all directions on the outside of the shell, that penetrate the shell, and enter the plasma that is converging in the center by a pressure wave Assisted by this sound wave.
Sound travels 1/3 the speed of light and a plasma, so, the succeeding soundwave added to the first one, creates resonance. The amplitude of the sound waves increase exponentially within picoseconds, and the pressure waves which all converge in the center of the hollow sphere induce a fusion reaction. The reaction sends a pressure wave out from the center, and toward the shell with exponentially more power, and the process is repeated, possibly creating heavier, and heavier, elements on the periodic timetable from hydrogen.
If you see any potential in this approach, please let me know that you would like to investigate my other designs for even more transcendent technologies. I would like to present to you what I call a gravity wave pulse generator that would create a warp bubble around a craft. I think your opinion matters to me more than even Einstein’s would. Thank you.
Shorting can be very-very expensive if it goes wrong.
Please do a video on it. It would be fun, with the animations and video clips.
Furthermore, the markets don't work on natural scientific principles. A company that can make money on false promises is just as valuable as one that actually delivers, and it is reflected in the stock price. If some hydrogen company is successful getting a lot of tax money for instance, the stock will go up, screwing every short seller, the value of the company is in getting tax money. Who cares if the tech doesn't work, they can always switch to the next hype cycle to keep making money, and if they are able to do that successfully, the value will increase even more, as they have shown they are really good at extracting money from governments.
Better not do that, even if you're right you can still lose money. Things which don't make sense can last longer than you stay solvent and at best your gain is 100% if something immediately goes to zero while losses are potentially infinite, or you can get margin call with elevated volatility. Just ignore bubbles, buy many cheap stocks and hold them for long time. It's best method to relatively safely compound capital.
I think the h2 is being put aside because of the battery cars. Car companies have pulled out their fuel cell projects to focus on battery vehicles. Nowadays the socalled PEM fuel cell has a substitute, the Anion Exchange Membrane fuel cell that has triple power density and a much higher energy efficiency, both for energy production and electrolysis.
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
I can't believe anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the absurd thermodynamics of using hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel is still pursuing that dead end.
I believe you mean using hydrogen in an ICE vehicle. Hydrogen fuel cells could absolutely be a possible future EV "fuel".
@@avsystem3142no, not really
They don't, that's the problem. They just _think_ they have understanding.
@@avsystem3142 Nope. I meant exactly what I said. Fuel cells are still subject to the major problems of using hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel: 1) Where does the hydrogen come from? 2) It's difficult to store. 3) It's a compressed flammable gas proposed to be driven around on the roads. 4) It embrittles many things, including many metals. If you wanna get a feel for the risks of hydrogen, just consider that there are many natural gas and propane appliances (I myself have 4 water heaters, 4 kitchen ranges, 1 outdoor barbecue, and 2 clothes dryers running on natural gas or propane) but NO hydrogen fueled household appliances.
This is hilarious. BEV's don't work for company vehicles that run around the clock, construction machinery, long distance trains,etc, which could use hydrogen. They only work for personal vehicles that run low daily mileages which could be replaced by electric trains and trams anyway.
Absolutely interesting! In 1995 I was invited for a short ride in a hydrogen driven BMW as a youth member of "Jugend forscht". Would have never expected that it would took such a turn. People were so optimistic 30 years ago...
In my paper which is under review I have shown even the 1$ per kg is achievable if the cost projection fall in line. We would need subsidies in the initial stages.
P.S.: happy new year
Oh 🥺 yah 2025!!!
Well i bet for the moon landing in the next few years
Now please don't throw the baby away with the dirty water, we still need green hydrogen to replace the gray one used for fertilizers and the coal in steelmaking.
We do.. but.. we need to get fossil fuels out of the way first.
Yes, and she would not deny that, she mentioned it in an earlier video already.
@@Thomas-gk42 Yes yes I wasn't calling out Sabine in particular. Just an appeal to wise politicians and doers.
@@markotrieste 👍
@@paulgoffin8054 getting rid of fossil fuels is not a priority.
Otherwise we would have been using biofuels, hydrogen or synfuels for years now.
The Queens “Under Pressure” joke got me chuckling! 😅
The modelling I've seen eg with PLEXOS, shows that H2 storage in the electricity system does just become economic once renewables exceed 75-85% of total energy supply, but I would question the assumptions made in that modeling wrt your point about the cost/complexities of storage. For certain our power systems will need more mid term storage (weeks to months duration) in the near future, so what are the alternatives? Perhaps you can cover that topic.
As a child i had a nice book with German fairy tales. On the inside cover you could read the striking sentence: 'Aus der Zeit, als das Wünschen noch geholfen hat' - 'from the days when wishes still came true '!😂
There's an $11 billion investment in my neighborhood. I wonder if they'll ever see a return on that
Sabine, love your content and regular well thought out criticisms of present global topics in science and energy, etc.
One question (admittedly maybe critique or rhetorical), in efforts to confront climate change by transitioning from status quo “big energy”, how do you weigh value or acceptable risk from Nuclear versus renewables such as hydrogen, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, et al.?
For my 2 cents, I tend to think nuclear is great except when we consider human element, ie errors, war, terrorism, etc; and the non-zero chance of Chernobyl events (multi-generational destruction of life and large geographical areas) as a risk that I personally do not feel comfortable with. Coming from a person with multiple family member who work at Hanford in Washington State where active clean up has been occurring my entire life.
Thank you for your time!
I'll be honest, as someone who has merely followed rocket launches for the last 10 years, and been interested in the physics, engineering, and economics of them, I could start smelling the bullshit about the hydrogen economy from far away.
Rockets are probably the best use case for hydrogen and at this point thats debateable, really only good for expendable upper stages on expendable rockets that are starting to go out of fashion.
Its tiny size, resulting leakiness/embrittlement, resulting difficulty to contain and handle, and lack of density just crushes it for use cases in most circumstances. I'm kind of shocked this all got taken seriously.
All rocket fuel is only 0.0001% of the emissions. Even in our current mass to orbit situation. It's not a low hanging fruit.
Too many people who nod their heads without critical thinking and "trust the science".
Also the inherent lie that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
@@anthonylosego I was trying to also make the point that the issues with handleability and storage density for rockets would also translate down into other applications of hydrogen. That probably wasn't clear enough in my original comment.
I think other than battery storage, if we want to store energy in fuels, we should concentrate research into efficient production of hydrocarbons from CO2 and water using green energy sources. We could then also develop hydrocarbon-burning fuel cells which are efficient, durable, and power-dense for automotive applications. Such technologies would allow re-use of fossil fuel infrastructure.
I can't wait for Sabine's video about the Death of Hype Itself!!! 😁
Hydrogen is not meant to be finacially sensible, it is meant to be the solution for carbon emissions we cannot easily circumvent otherwise. Steel, cement, aviation, etc.
How exactly is aviation going carbon free without Hydrogen? Are you telling me I will be able to fly 17 1/2 hours from San Francisco to Singapore nonstop on batteries? I don't think so. It is actually possible to fuel large gas turbines with vaporized liquid hydrogen. Batteries are not the future of transportation especially aviation. You can make carbon free Hydrogen with nuclear power using electrolysis. Building many many new nuclear power plants will drive the cost of electricity and making hydrogen down. This video sounds like it is coming from the Golf Cart Cult, with the Asperger's obsession with efficiency. Build enough nuclear power plants, and efficiency does not matter.
Why is it so important to you that batteries fail? Obviously, batteries aren't the future of long distance aviation. But, there's no reason that every other mode of transportation has to use the same technology as long distance aviation.
"Efficiency does not matter", well, let me illustrate you why it matters with a simple exercise and some context.
First, there is not enough natural isolated hydrogen in the world, and the hydrogen obtained as by-product from gas industry that is obtained in a year is barely enough for the needs of 1 week for the aviation industry. So, forcefully, we need a turbine to split hydrogen from H2O.
The cost to this split is of around $4/kg, ok, not that bad, let's say even that "magic science" shows up and somehow we can make those turbines 4 times more efficient, and reduce cost to $1/kg. Now, do you know how much fuel would an airplane need of hydrogen? About 1 ton per hour, or 1000kg. So a single travel of 4 hours would cost 4k + cost of electricity, batteries and electric motor shenanigans = 6k + operational margins and misc costs and maintenance = 6.5k. At this price tag, nobody can pay it except governments and businessman.
And keep in mind, I am already assuming "magic science" + "economies of scale" + "no taxes" + other shenanigans, in reality the travel right now could cost $22.5k.
It is simply not viable, and the reason is that it is inefficient. You cannot simply ignore efficiency when the difference is too wide, you can just ignore it when it is in the realms of maybe up to 100% more inefficient, not when it is 20000% more inefficient.
As for air travel, this simply means we will be using gasoline for it for a very long time. Just 3% of emissions comes from air traveling, so we can decarbon the rest of the economy and keep using oil for air traveling for the foreseeable future. We can also land and sea travel like in the past, as it is needed, a lot of current airplane uses are just a luxury and not a necessity whatsoever.
@@MsNyara So any mode of transportation that batteries can't support, get a pass from the green squad eh, because batteries are the future eh? Too damn funny. Also you think airliners run on Gasoline? Seriously? The Aspergers basket cases obsess on efficiency so hard that can't see the forest through the trees. So I will say it again, large scale nuclear power production would drive the cost of electrolytically produced hydrogen way down. Get it? Cheap carbon free electrolytically produced hydrogen, powering everything. Think of it as external nuclear power for vehicles. Put another way, using nuclear reactors to produce a high energy density carbon free renewable fuel for transportation, from water and electricity. But but but efficiency...Elon says BEV's are the most efficient...but but Elon says...uh huh.
Efficiency does not matter? Did you really write that?
synfuels or biofuels.
synfuels are mostly made from hydrogen though.
So basically we use biofuels because they claim to be more efficient then.
In Japan, many households have a fuel cell. Tell THEM it's not feasible, Sabine 😂😂😂 but of course, you know better than them, having been working in energy economics for ... HOW LONG? 😂😂😂
I was just about to do some research on Japan's progress regarding Hydrogen. They have invested heavily.
Are the latest developments in H2 tech incorporated in this analysis?
no, not at all.
this analysis IGNORES/OMITS CHINA entirely
Sabine, Izzit? For real? Oh my god.😊
Sabine, You are 100% correct, hydrogen is both uneconomical and impractical, if not impossible to practically use as an energy technology. I did my first experiments with hydrogen when I was still in grade school. When I found out how inefficient it was to produce using simple electrolysis I proceeded to experiment with several ways to enhance that process, naturally they all failed. Years later I looked at what real(?) companies were proposing and learned all the engineering reasons that all of the technologies were, simply put, ridiculous! I still cant believe that investors put real money in any hydrogen scheme! Now I did have fun when I was a kid making loud booms with "bang gas"!!!
lithium is a very toxic element metal, unlike gold or silver, not many countries want to mine it, 98% of lithium is not recycled and goes in to land fills or dumps, causing even worst toxins in peoples water canals and ocean, it is way cheaper to mine lithium than recycle it, the huge amount of lithium used to make just one lithium car is not sustainable for all cars, lithium is a water guzzling toxic element metal, it takes 1000 gallons of clean water turned very toxic , just to mine or build one lithium car(just one)this is just lithium and not including cobalt which is another of many other real toxic element metals in the build of a lithium toxic car ( just horrible) on top of this, most lithium cars are still connected to the oil and coal grids! clean EV car, NOT, have you been paying attention to the disasters aroumd planet on recycling facilities that have caused catastrophic fires and aftermath toxins released onto atmosphere, the lithium on board airline fire disaster that killed hundreds of people sometime back , try visiting a lithium recycling plant to see the dangers, however i would truly advise you on the dangers of visitation and good luck! There are many green hydrogen projects slated or moment green hydrogen facilities being built around the globe, fact, by 2030 green hydrogen will be abundant! cost effective cheap, however due to the heavy toxins and pollution in mining lithium, when a lithium car is still in the company assembly line it has already polluted more than a hydrogen fuel cell car that has been on the road for more than 125000 miles, solar cells have become much more cost efficient in making green hydrogen and better storage plus for in long run than having battery storage or just plan electricity, fuel cells will always have 10 times more energy power for the buck than any other lithium battery or solide state battery, plus the amazing secret about hydrogen fuel cell cars is that each car actually cleans the air as it runs due to it`s clean watered electrolysis when released onto the atmosphere.
Hydrogen today, nuclear fusion tomorrow. Both are dead in the womb.
Please don’t learn about shorting. What we should be doing is banning it (along with high frequency trading and a bunch of other Wall Street bullshit that isn’t doing anything to help us move forward). The basic concept of taking a chance on a good idea and then making a profit if it succeeds - that kind of seems like it could be useful in a society - the rest, not so much.
I used to make money shorting. A lot of trading doesn’t create anything positive.
Why should it be banned?
@@DaraParsavand Shorting of stocks has a vital function since it provides an incentive for market participants to uncover inefficiency or outright fraud. Wirecard, Nikola and Theranos are all prominent examples of companies where regulators and investors all failed to uncover fraudulant practices that then came to light because of research done by short sellers.
White collar high roller gambling.
Shorting is essential for functioning markets and helps keep them balanced. The hatred against shorting is only emotionally driven and misplaced, as it overlooks the role short sellers play in enhancing market efficiency
Every time I saw a surge of advertising on Hydrogen, I suspected that it was a petroleum red herring to undermine electric cars.
I fully agree. Not only has “motivated reasoning” played a role in the hydrogen economy hype but “confirmation bias” has served to gather cherry picked evidence to back up that reasoning. It seems, to me, related to the increase in our immersion in a culture drowning in misinformation.
Going to the moon, installing space stations that orbit the Earth and the whole internet were also not economically profitable. But we made it happen with tax money. So sorry, but the excuse "but it's not profitable" is not very convincing to me that it is a bad idea.
two out of three of your examples still aren't profitable decades later. Argument: Failed.
*ENGINEER HERE and you are 100% right*
*I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them.* HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to *SHUT UP.*
We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but *BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK* and over the next 20-30 years *WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER.*
And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to *SHUT UP.*
Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she *DOES NOT KNOW* is we know how to engineer around those issues.
The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. *HOWEVER* for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible.
As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf *AND THEY WORK.* As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy.
If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that *WORKS.*
@@kreek22 Why should the goal be to be profitable? So that the richest 1% can leech off of it, like it's doing with the internet? What type of brain disease do you need to think that the selling off of the internet to wealthy investors was anything more than fcking over tax payers with something their tax money created in the first place. Same thing happened during the economic crisis of 2008; companies were nationalized when it was doing bad, so that tax payer money could be injected into it to make it profitable again, but once it got profitable, they couldn't have its profit going into the state treasury so that we can do something nice with it for tax payers, no, it had to be privatized immediately so that a select group of lazy leechers can profit off of it.
Space exploration is good, because it expands our scientific knowledge. Period.
@@tonywilson4713 Yeah, I personally think she can better shut up about any topic that isn't theoretical physics. Sure, you can do personal research, but it will never make you qualified enough to present your results to the internet as an authority on the subject. It's smth that's a big problem on RUclips, with history RUclipsrs for instance.
The goal of this hydrogen-bashing is of course, because they want to push their nuclear energy agenda, which of course has never gone through a period where it was very unprofitable and had many issues that had to be worked around /s Why this agenda I don't know for sure, but it feels like it works as a nice distraction from actual green and sustainable energy (one of which nuclear energy isn't), and gullible people fall for it because it seems like a good "middle ground" to keep energy profitable during the green transition, while nuclear has also been disinvested from in history because of a lack of profitability. We should just accept that green and profitable don't go hand in hand.
As you can see in her graph China is planning to build a lot of hydrogen related projects, and at this point when it's green energy related and China does it, you can kinda assume that it's a good idea. And it's probably just the religion of the free market and privatization in the west that explains this mass disinvestment in hydrogen, because it doesn't allow you to plan ahead more than what seems profitable to the biggest companies. And at this point it should already be clear that this economic model is outdated, and the west is only shooting itself in its foot by clinging onto it.
@@tonywilson4713 This whole "efficiency doesn't matter, only feasibility matters" gives me Soviet history flashbacks. The Soviets, of course, were both inefficient and environmentally indifferent. And that's what happens when you centralize power and focus on a single objective (in their case military competition)--every other priority is ignored.
The price system of a capitalist economy is, as Hayek clearly showed 90 years ago, the original artificial intelligence. Overthrow it, and you are sure to lose more than you gain.
Also, just how much *below* 57% efficiency is currently possible under ideal conditions (like almost no storage time, meaning minimal leakage)?