And those renewable sources go a lot further if you electrify transportation, heating, energy, and industrial processes directly instead of making an inefficient detour through hydrogen.
According to the EVangelists and greenies renewables are a very cheap and limitless resource, ( but very unreliable as it turns out when you do not have limitless and very expensive storage) Hydrogen is really the only way to make use of unreliable renewables because at least you can store the hydrogen.
@@chrissmith2114 it's not "according to," it's truth. Go argue with the economists at Lazard who publish Levelized Cost of Energy analysis now up to v.15. Ignore the reality that the majority of new generation everywhere in the world is wind and solar because they're cheap and quick. Intermittent does not mean unreliable. The obvious thing to do when wind and solar are generating is cheaply charge your EV and heat or cool your building and water in advance. Maybe make green hydrogen as well, but in all the hours that renewables aren't producing, electricity is more expensive, and idle electrolyzers increase your capex. And there are other ways to store electricity; hydrogen storage has yet to prove itself. Even if you don't store electricity, renewables are still a huge win for the environment, because you're shoveling millions of tons LESS dirty fossil fuel into coal and gas plants for hours, days, weeks at a time. (Yes, China is building more coal plants along with hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar but many of its coal plants have capacity factors less than 25%.)
@@chrissmith2114- Renewables are indeed cheap, and with more and more Grid Scale Storage batteries being installed, it can supply all our needs. Hydrogen makes no sense because the end to end efficiency is terrible. The Hydrogen Cult survives on the irrelevant facts that they keep trotting out. It's the most abundant Element... it's Green Hydrogen, there are no tailpipe emissions... yawn. None of this matters. End to End efficiency is what matters, and it's three times better if you have BEVs. Hydrogen had its chance over the past 50 years, and it didn't make it because it's hopelessly impractical and inefficient. Now BEVs are a reality, it has zero chance. If it couldn't compete with ICE cars when there was no competition, it's a dead duck.
Hydrogen has been on the verge of powering my life sooner than I realize for the last 70 years. It has been and will likely always be the fuel of the future
The problem with H₂ is that you waste ⅔ of the input energy as heat; the hydrogen energy chain is about as efficient as diesel. You'd be far better off using the energy as electricity. Solar and Hydro cost money; the common spiel that "It's from renewables so efficiency doesn't matter" is not a realistic argument.
It is not as simplistic as that. You have been brainwashed by Elon Musk. You have to look at cost, not just efficiency. Is it cheaper to export renewable energy by DC cable (plus batteries) or as a hydrogen product? Because one windmill in the UK produces much less energy than one in South Chile for the same cost. Then it becomes more a question of what is the cheapest way to store and distribute this cheap energy.
@@jimj2683 The inefficiency of the: electrolysis / compression / chilling / transport / compression / chilling / fuel-cell chain is well known and simple physics. I don't understand where Elon Musk comes into the equation?
@@Clark-Mills Exactly, as Richard Feynman famously said: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Add to this the comparison between distribution of electricity vs any fuel. Grid distribution of electricity loses less than 5%, and is fairly low maintenance thin infrastructure. Plus some of the electricity can be created at the endpoint like rooftop solar which cuts distribution losses and bypasses oligopoly providers. Any fuel needs to be distributed with storage and transportation infrastructure which is high maintenance and a lot more materials. Something like 30% of fuel is used just transporting fuel. Hydrogen is even harder to store than gasoline/diesel. Grid electricity and electrified transportation have a massive head start over any fuel solution just with the efficiency of the distribution.
Hydrogen will never replace BEVs unless there are gigantic changes. It's ridiculously expensive and inefficient and the economics just don't work. In Europe Shell is closing their very few hydrogen filling stations. They have already realized that it just doesn't work.
Currently the best application for hydrogen is where BEV fails due to size or weight capacity. Large mining and farm equipment, transoceanic shipping, trains and heavy long haul trucking. Trucking still has weight per axle restrictions that reduces the load they can carry because the batteries weigh so much. The above industries produce the lions share of carbon in the transportation category plus aircrafts. Within that segment cars are a small carbon producer. Batteries can't run a tank and get the weight under 60 tons or fuel a fighter, a frigate or a harvester combine running 16 hours per day, in a wheat field miles away from a charging center. Hydrogen can be transported just like diesel can and diesel engines can be converted to run on hydrogen, which is going to be important for small island nations using diesel generators to produce electricity. They have daily blackouts as it is imagine adding BEVs to their power consumption. We have a multi fuel economy now we'll need multiple sources of green energy to power the globe in the future.
@@IMGreg..you still have the cost of hydrogen, and hydrogen is crazy expensive to store, also requires huge fuel tanks that weigh almost as much as batteries. Tankers will go offshore wind+wireless power transfer
Except...BEV's are pretty unsustainable and have negligible environmental benefits compared to ICE vehicles when you take into account their total environmental footprint. Hydrogen is the future. It just needs further investment and development. If the trillions of dollars that are being pumped into EV's went instead into Hydrogen, we would be so much further along.
I love hydrogen. I used to generate it a lot as a kid. Almost blew my thumb off one time when I tried to blow a syringe full of it at a flame. I learned my lesson.
Год назад+21
Green hydrogen can also vanish into thin air faster than you think... Literally
Hydrogen is a cult not a solution. The small amount of green hydrogen available needs to be used for industrial applications like steel or cement production. Storage and transportation of hydrogen is very difficult so it will always limit it's use.
Decarbonizing steel and cement will deliver 16% reduction of GHG emissions and would require more renewables than currently in operation. Neither storage or transportation has reached its final solution so diverse transport and storage methods will have to slug it out.
Agreed! I'm more interested in it's manufacturing potential. That the type of debate we need to be having instead the tribal lack of nuance one we're having.
Hydrogen users are irrelevant to the problem, hydrogen users can burn both green and grey hydrogen, grey hydrogen is just burning natural gas with extra steps so will never be economical compared to just burning natural gas, which means at end of the day the only question is how much renewable capacity you have to generate potentially economical green hydrogen. As of right now China dominate renewable energy generation, China is the only country with large enough renewable capacity to potentially produce green hydrogen economically, and China is the only one actually building green hydrogen distribution, which means the green hydrogen economy is just where you buy Chinese renewable energy stored in hydrogen form. And let's face it, most hydrogen will be gray, because the whole point is for oil companies to sell natural gas while pretending they're "green", if people actually cared about the "green" part they'd be investing in renewable, as it is "green" is just a PR stunt.
Seems to be a contradiction between "grey hydrogen is just burning natural gas with extra steps so will never be economical compared to just burning natural gas" and "most hydrogen will be gray, because the whole point is for oil companies to sell natural gas while pretending they're "green"" . Why would grey hydrogen have any significant market share at all when it´s more expensive than just burning natural gas?
Green hydrogen is just generating renewable electricity, with extra inefficient steps. We will electrify all the things (cars, buses, trucks, construction, heating, many industrial process, short-range ferries and flying, ...) leaving very few niches for hydrogen. The Forbes reporter could and should have spoken to any number of energy experts who will explain why hydrogen isn't going to happen for land transportation, heating, energy storage, etc...
@@skierpage you are right and you are wrong. Hydrogen for energy storage does not make a lot of sense. But the chemical industry needs hydrogen and actually a lot of it. Right now, that is almost all grey hydrogen. Replacing that with green hydrogen from seasonal surplus is not exactly a small niche. Therefore producing hydrogen is an excellent outlet for that. On top of that there is a lot of chemistry, that would benefit from using hydrogen. first and foremost stealproduction.
@@MusikCassette so you agree, the issue is how big are the niches. Obviously hydrogen is a relatively small tail on the big dog of terawatts of renewable energy and storage, despite the cynical hopes of fuel companies addicted to selling atoms instead of electrons. Hydrogen used in refining crude oil into liquid fuels needs to die along with burning fossil fuel; I'm not sure how much hydrogen the rest of the chemical and plastic industries use. Look at Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder for the unavoidable uses of hydrogen vs. the dumb uneconomic ones, and Michael Barnard has good analysis of individual use cases for hydrogen.
What everyone dunking on hydrogen seems to conveniently forget is that 747s and cargo ships will never be capable of running on batteries. Semi-trucks going cross-country don't have time to sit around half the time while charging batteries, all while carrying 15,000 pounds of batteries that would have been cargo weight otherwise. Batteries are great, I agree, but they aren't omnipotent and will never be capable of all the things we want to do with heavy vehicles. Bulldozers, planes, dump trucks, and basically everything that weighs over 10,000 pounds or is supposed to carry 10,000 pounds of cargo more than 100 miles need hydrogen. Everything lightweight, low-range, and for infrequent use can use batteries, and that definitely makes more sense.
@@paulc6766 yes for short distances not across the country. Batteries are really heavy and don't have enough energy for long distance but for across town they can't be beat. 👍
The transportation industry only likes hydrogen because it needs to be transported. They hate electrification because it is transported by grid not by truck. Nearly 30% of the global freight transportation industry is just trasnporting fuel. If we reduce our use of fuels it is a lot better for the environment not just direct emissions but also the reduction in cargo transportation demand. So electrified transportation is great for the environment but bad for revenues of global cargo transportation companies. So the cargo industry will gladly support the greenwashing of a fuel over electrification, because they like profits more than they like their grandchildren.
@user-ky7iz6up1v nobody put a handful of backyard tinkerers is going to bother making hydrogen at home, when they can just take their homemade electricity and use it directly to recharge their BEV and in more efficient electric appliances.
@user-ky7iz6up1v .... and they all have tiny sales to backyard tinkerers! Besides Lavo's fantasy that Australians will buy its $35,000 home hydrogen energy storage instead of batteries, who else is there? edit: and a year ago Rethink Energy reports "Lavo pivots to MW-scale as home hydrogen faces heat" "Solar will be paired with small-scale hydrogen storage as part of a new project being developed by Sungrow and ‘hydrogen battery’ company Lavo, as part of a deal signed last month. Having previously pinned its hopes on the residential market, this adds to the string of signals that hydrogen may not be set for decentralization to the same extent as batteries." Put up solar, make your own electricity, store it in your EV and maybe a residential battery while your car is out and about. DONE! No screwing around with hydrogen needed. Also, the French loan-word is "voilà," not an oversized string instrument 🎻
Hydrogen is good where only 30% electricity can actually be extracted from 100% electricity that was needed to make it . BEV should be the focus , solid state batteries , Battery Swapping , Fast Charging , Energy Dense batteries , Super Capacitors , etc .
It is not very smart to use Hydrogen unless it is the cheaper solution. EV's will continue to improve dramatically and so will electrolysis and fuel cells. So the question is simple will it become cheaper to produce route and hydrogen to power an EV or not.
Charging net works, reducing battery sizes should be the plan, not the fossil fuel history of a huge tank of smelly dangerous fluid to carry around to get the range no one will ever drive in one go.
@@hamishbracey5411fossil fuels aren't produced, they're extracted. Natural processes over millions of years turned carbon matter into oil and coal. They're relatively cheap to dig up, if you ignore the massive worsening harms resulting from burning them for energy. Original poster is correct. In most cases, it's stupid to use renewable electricity to inefficiently make hydrogen, when you can just use the renewable electricity directly.
@@skierpageElectricity cannot be use directly for transportation unless you have long cables connected to the vehicles , even battery EVs convert electricity into chemical energy during charging and converting them back into electricity. Hydrogen has better Wh/kg, potentially longer range than batteries. Good for aircrafts, ships and long distance haulage.
@@madsam0320 batteries are good enough for all of land transportation and continue to improve, so almost no one will use the far more expensive fuel. When subsidies for trials of hydrogen buses, construction equipment, large trucks, and trains run out, the vehicles are quietly scrapped, while sales of battery competitors increase. There's a chance for ships and planes.
It's interesting that the interviewer doesn't know enough about hydrogen to ask questions or clarify numbers. Not interactive at all, just letting the companies speak. Hmm. 2:09 love how Plug Power avoids the inefficiency by saying putting in 1MW gives you 420kg of H2. Yes, putting in 1MW all day long or 24MWh gives you 420kg per day. That's 57kWh/kg. A very standard 58% efficient electrolizer. Not counting compression, liquification, transportation, etc. Then he claims a 2:30 it could supply 400 standard sedans. Yes, but only for one day of average driving. Not fill them up like at a gas station, just fill them with one day's worth of hydrogen. I find Plug Power tends to be pretty dishonest in general. 12:18 uses 5MW and produces 2 tons. Since hydrogen is usually measured in kg, I'm assuming metric tons or 2000kg. So 5MW x 24 hrs = 120MWh to produce 2000kg, or 60kWh/kg. That's also average for producing H2 at atmospheric pressure. For reference the most efficient FCEV, the Toyota Mirai can get 70 miles on 1kg of H2, a Tesla Model 3 can get 240 miles on the same 60kWh of electric. 13:21 And then let me get this straight. Your selling Florida Power and Light electrolyzers to produce H2 from electricity to blend with NG and run through a turbine to make, what? ..... electricity. I get it, probably for peak demand. So use 120MWh to produce 2000kg (66MWh hydrogen), then run it through a turbine that's maybe 65% efficient to get 43MWh back out. Hopefully, it's rare that you have to actually use that method.
Hydrogen is currently made using a ton of energy to extract it from natural gas/methane. Every time you change forms of energy or process it there are losses. This is not the answer, just a new business model.
It's a total money maker for big oil - that's why they are pushing this 'green' hydrogen economy. They know damn well that they hydrogen will have to come from methane for any economical production - more bonuses for them and more environmental damage for the planet.
Please note that solar energy is coming from sun as free energy we need to store it in an something that can store that energy as long as we like and hydrogen is the most reliable thing we can store that energy it is not important if we have higher losses during the process the important thing is that we can rely on hydrogen that we get energy at the time when we need it. And this is what makes hydrogen more reliable than batteries for energy storage because batteries can not store energy for long periods of time on very large scale
@@Faisal710 ...and this is the fallacy that big oil green washing promulgates. Tell you what, when every single oil, coal, gas and nuclear power station has been shut down because they have been displaced by solar/wind/geothermal then, at that point only, would it make sense to convert green electrons into other energy sources. And, no hydrogen is very difficult to store - in fact it's one of the most difficult fuels to store in that it leaks through everything including solid metal; and it's reactive too, embrittling metals. In addition, molecular hydrogen is environmentally very bad for the environment in that it reacts with OH- molecules in the atmosphere. OH- molecules are the one natural compound that helps remove methane from the air. Hydrogen is a disaster in every way - that probably why big oil likes it so much.
And that we need to first answer all the current hydrogen demand for industrial and medical hydrogen with green hydrogen BEFORE we even start dreaming up new applications of hydrogen. The new applications of hydrogen only make sense with green hydrogen produced as a waste byproduct of green grid generation. Except even if we did some day have excess green grid generation to make hydrogen with, our first step should be to eliminate production of Grey hydrogen. If we make green hydrogen for new applications, but keep all the old applications of hydrogen Grey, then ALL hydrogen is still dirty.
@@OtisFlint Well there you go. The added up numbers do not look good for H2 in any way. It begs the question: Is there any place where H2, green (or otherwise which nobody would want) is competitive?
Hydrogen seems like one of those things that only takes off when the entire life cycle agrees to make it happen. But once it does I really believe we'll be in the future!
This is big oil propaganda. They are desperate to get the hydrogen 'economy' established because it is technically impossible, prohibitively expensive and environmentally damaging to generate hydrogen from green energy sources. The energy loss is over 90%. far better to feed those green electrons straight to consumers or to store it in batteries. No, the real and only viable source of hydrogen will be from methane which the fossils in big oil will only be too happy to supply - dumping, of course, prodigious amounts of carbon in to the environment.
It is funny that is always non technical people who are enthousiast about hydrogen. When you speak with engineers they will always say that hydrogen is not the solution but a very difficult and expensive way to be used as energy source.
@guruxara7994 You do not seem to understand what I meant. I am an hydrogen engineer with 30 years experience in the oil and gas industry and I know that using hydrogen as energy carrier is far from ideal as you have to make hydrogen (with an energy source that provides for the energy .....), store the hydrogen which is difficult and expensive, transport it (which is expensive) and store it in the car (which is not convenient).
@@JongJande Your post is retrospective. There have been five cavern storage facilities just like the more than two thousand for Methane. LOHC fits like a glove for pipelines, tankers etc. Topsoe that has built more Hydrogen plants than any other company in existence has just made final investment decision on first stage 0.5GW SOEC electrolyser production facility to be completed i 2024. Good luck trying to explain the foremost Hydrogen expert company on the globe that they have gotten it all wrong!
Renewable Electricity is the # 1 power for BEV. Before the cost of hydrogen comes down, you have to build the infrastructure which will be prohibitive in cost.
How about a car that is hybrid hydrogen, with a rotary engine, a blower, a supercharger, and a turbo charger. With strawberries on top. What a great idea!
The problem with hydrogen fuel is that hydrogen storage is expensive, and hydrogen fuel is insanely expensive. Even with the high efficiency of a fuel cell, the per-mile cost of driving on hydrogen is almost double the price of driving on diesel or gasoline, and nearly 10x the price of driving on electricity. The only companies that will consider it will be for promotional "Look at how green we are" deals with little actual use. Currently, the cheapest source of hydrogen is steam reforming of natural gas, current retail price about $16 per Kg. Hydrogen from electroysis costs even more. So, how do they plan to get to $2 per Kg? By somehow magically getting "renewable electricity" at only 2 cents per Kwh - but that means EVs could get electricity at that price, and hydrogen still couldn't compete. The mythical "$1 per Kg" price isn't a price they can actually achieve, it's the price they would have to achieve to be economically competitive to electricity - and that sim;y isn't possible. Forbes has slipped up. got caught up in the hype, and has ignored the bad economics of hydrogen fuel
The steam reform production cost without carbon capture and based upon heavily subsidized methane is $1.5/kg so this is the cost point that green hydrogen has to beat. Hydrogen price at the pump is representative for something like 0.00000000000001% of the annual sales. The question you have to ask is whether and when the cost of green Hydrogen drops below grey hydrogen.
There is no such thing as green hydrogen. There is hydrogen from electrolysis or hydrocarbons. Electrolysis depends on method of generating electricity.
I am impressed both by the number of idiots spewing nonsense on why hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and the number of people who understand that it is nonsense in the comments.
14:06 "Hydrogen is very versatile. It can be used for fuel, but also as an energy carrier..." Uh... that's not "versatile"; you merely said the SAME THING twice. That's what a fuel IS - a store of energy. It stores and carries potential energy until it's released... by being used... as a FUEL. That's like saying "water is so versatile because it hydrates you, but also you can drink it when you're thirsty."
Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen is more about companies' business models and making money than carbon emissions and saving the planet. What we need is a mindset change, not H2.
All good and interesting HOWEVER it will take circa 3x more electricity to make, store and convert the hydrogen to useful output. Yes less weight than batteries but you will need 3 times more solar panels or wind turbines to stand still compared to batteries. Thus three times the running cost.
@richkalbus4346 but you need 50 HP to produce enough hydrogen to produce 1 Hp. How many billion solar panels will we need, and how many more planets to destroy with them? The molecules are so small that they can pass through solid steel. So where do we put the bombs that we store it in?
Wow, this Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series sounds like an amazing product for outdoor enthusiasts like us! With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology, it seems perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely check it out for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Thank you for your comment! I completely agree, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like a fantastic product for outdoor enthusiasts like us. Its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely be checking it out for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Wow, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does sound like a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us! The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely look into it for my next adventure. Thanks for the recommendation!
That Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does seem like a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us! The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely have to look into it for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing your recommendation!
Thanks for sharing! The Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does sound like a great option for outdoor enthusiasts. With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology, it's definitely worth considering for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I hope you have a fantastic adventure with it!
Fantastic! We only need 3x that terrible useless electrical energy to get hydrogen! And we can use that to produce 1/3 the original electrical energy! Reality is hydrogen just makes a really inefficient battery that is slow to charge and bulky, but 20 years ago had advantages over other batteries, which is why 20 years ago EVs were very limited. Hydrogen still has uses in reduction of ores and fertilizer, but any use for energy is now fringe at best.
Green hydrogen has a potential for iron production. 70% of it will be used in metallurgy, and 25% in the chemistry. At most 2% will be used in transportation.
I believe it will be tough to get to total "well to wheels" cost for hydrogen to be competitive, even if the generation cost is near zero. Storing and transporting hydrogen is very costly and difficult due to it's small molecule size, high pressures and low energy density. I think for some niche applications, the cost will be less of a problem and the higher energy density than batteries will win out. But batteries charged on the grid and in vehicles will be more efficient than hydrogen, which means it will likely be more expensive with hydrogen. Durability of fuel cells is still not there after decades of work and they are still very expensive. Again, some applications it may work (hydrogen in power plants), but I think batteries as way of storing energy will be cheaper in the vast majority of cases, especially as their chemistries get better.
Hydrogen powerd Cargo Ships, Airplane is fine. But Hydrogen power train doesn't make any sense. Train can just draw power directly from overhead electric cabel. There is no need of staring energy in this case. You are using electricity and water to generate Hydrogen. And then using that Hydrogen to again get electricity 😅 Why not use electricity directly. Yeah for Ships, Airplanes it makes sense because there is no overhead cabel. You have to store energy.
BEV Forklifts make so much more sense, at the end of a shift or during break times plug into a charger, when you have tens or hundreds of forklifts at a facility it is simple to add many chargers in appropriate places. When you see the Hydrogen vehicles refueling lines in California, people in queues 5 or 10 deep it takes 30 or 60 minutes to refill and you have to stay with the vehicle. With EV chargers it does take 15 or 20 minutes but you plug in and walk away so when you return vehicle is ready to go. If you are a forklift driver how do you want to spend your lunch break?
I missed the part about how much that electricity cost to make enough H2 to fill the tank ( of a car. ). Hint it is not less than $4.50 per gallon of gasoline
And also that electricity has emission. Of course they will say, "leta use solar to make the zero emissions electricity for the hydrogen production". But that all needs to be compared to just plugging that solar into the grid and bEV and just skipping the inefficient fuel concept all together.
@user-ky7iz6up1v You're WAY off on the cost of electricity. Listen to 16:25. Solar will cost $0.02/kWh and H2 will be $1/kg in a few years. $0.12/kWh is expensive even for household electricity.
There is a lot more cost to green hydrogen electrolysis than just the electricity. There are consumables more than electricity and water, there is also the cathode/anode replacement costs. Current estimates at $3-6 per KG cost (not consumer price, just cost to produce) Which makes it sound kinda equal to gasoline but there are a lot of other factors along the way that will make it more expensive by the time it gets to your vehicle. Including transportation, losses, more expensive storage, taxes and someone somewhere is going to want to make some profits. All combined at the filling station most guess around $15 per KG which is a lot higher cost per mile than gasoline (and way more than just taking the same electricity and putting it into a bEV).
@user-ky7iz6up1v Forget the hydrogen (for your purpose). The 50 kWh electric energy required for producing that 1 kg H₂ will get you about 150 miles in an electric car.
@user-ky7iz6up1v You still haven't given a single reason to make the inefficient expensive detour through hydrogen instead of putting renewable electricity straight into a battery.
@@rogerphelps9939 I am from the shipping industry and our vessels are now being powered by LNG along with traditional high sulphur fuel and Shipping has great scope for Hydrogen and I believe all heavy machinery has great scope for hydrogen. But as you suggest it may not be possible for everything
the energy needed to make it is massive and the power grid cant handle this item nor is it from green power production. So dues it pollute ? well yes if your efforts to make it are powered from old tech.
I am impressed by recent changes in the long-haul shipping industry, specifically the emergence of container ships using green methanol. One of the early application domains for green hydrogen is as feedstock for the green methanol used in container ships. Maersk, the second largest container shipping company in the world, says they are on track to move 25% of their ocean operations to green methanol by 2030. Although biomethanol (where organic waste is the feedstock) might be part of that, they expect most to come from electrolysis and green hydrogen (so-called e-methanol). Maersk's first green methanol ship is already operating as a feeder vessel in the Baltic, and they expect to take delivery of 25 much larger container ships with methanol engines over the next two years or so. Other container shipping companies are ordering methanol-capable ships as well, I have heard there are between 100 and 170 additional ship orders. As recently as 2019, long-haul shipping was considered a hard-to-abate sector. Today, it looks like large shipping companies like Maersk can meet a net-zero target by 2040. Their ships, and other parts of the logistics chain they are responsible for, will create a massive and secure market for emerging green hydrogen suppliers. Even with existing prices, they expect that the transition to e-methanol (and future fuels like ammonia and direct combustion of hydrogen) will be economic, in part because their customers are also committed to net zero, and are willing to pay a small green premium to send their cargoes on green vessels and green logistics chains. As green hydrogen production scales up, its price should go down and the need to pay a green premium should disappear. Just like it is now cheaper to build new electricity capacity with renewables rather than coal (you can't get financing for a new coal plant any more), it will be cheaper to fuel your ships with green fuels rather than polluting hydrocarbons. Of course, even if that price point for green hydrogen is reached sooner rather than later, there will still need to be massive capital investments and time in order to convert existing fleets and industrial capacity to hydrogen. But at least the end goal is in sight. Shipping represents 3% of global emissions, and if companies like Maersk attain their broader objective of decarbonizing the entire logistics chain (terminal operations, trucking, warehouses, etc.), that will address 11% of global emissions. The discussion 18:50 about trains with diesel engines in the US where electrification is just 1% (compared to 60% in Europe), indicates that it could be another sector ripe for a rapid transition to a decarbonized future.
Absolutely. Future of shipping looks encouraging. Would like to add though that while shipping is still overwhelmingly using fossil fuels, what I think press fails to sheds the light on is that shipping has already been doing a lot of improvements with existing technologies to reduce carbon emission. Despite merchant fleet growing by 40% since 2008, overall carbon emission actually dropped since its high in 2008.
Green methanol is profoundly different than this green hydrogen fossil fuel scam. With green methanol (provided it really is using atmospheric carbon and green electrons) is just a way of storing electrical energy for use when away from a convenient power source. Nothing particularly wrong with that and far better then burning bunker fuel. However the big push (by big oil) is domestic hydrogen, particularly for transportation. It has no merit thermodynamically or economically but that is not stopping the fossil fuel people from promoting it like in this propaganda video; trying to pull the wool over the ill-informed with green washing. They know all too well that the bulk of the feed stock for the hydrogen will be methane which they will be only too happy to supply - at vast environmental and commercial cost.
This whole story seems to have pointedly ignored the honest economics of the production, storage, and transportation of hydrogen. Not even counting the infrastructure, this hydrogen fairy tale is presuming mystical other sources of practically free energy PLUS government subsidies, both of which these company managers did mention.
This is all well and great, but the on-vehicle storage problem still isn't being discussed. The hydrogen needs to be stored in a tank at either a very high pressure, or a very low temperature, but so far no manufacturer has managed to make a storage tank that's light enough but must also survive repeated low-high temperature/pressure cycles without catastrophic failure. They still haven't figured out the embrittlement problem, because hydrogen causes most metals to go brittle and crack. Until these big problems are solved, hydrogen is simply not going to work in any safe, practical manner to be certified on a road vehicle.
@@Amukalalu Uhm, that's not what I heard mate. Carbon fibre isn't some wonder material, it delaminates when subjected to repeated pressure cycles...as the unfortunate folks aboard the Titan submersible found out. I've seen a report by the NHTSA on hydrogen storage tanks that were designed for road use and had to be tested by them to be certified for use in vehicles, one stainless, several types of carbon fibre (some with a ptfe liner because CF is porous to hydrogen) and others that were steel in various designs. Every single one of them failed every test. The stainless steel one started to become porous until it cracked, all of the carbon fibre ones delaminated (either due to cold temperature or pressure cycling) with the ones with the ptfe liner only lasting a little longer, because the liner tended to collapse inside the tank, all of the steel ones fractured from embrittlement. Not one of the tanks under test lasted more than 100x temp/pressure cycles before catastrophic failure, some of the cryogenic tanks ruptured on the test stand while they were sat there, doing nothing. Imagine what would have happened if that was inside a vehicle in a car park...kaboom. It's a very serious problem, so bad it seems, that the media just doesn't want to cover it for political reasons because they're being paid to portray hydrogen technologies as all shiny and the fuel of the future, disregarding it's inherent problems. Here in the UK, the Government was making a big deal about piping hydrogen through the existing natural gas network to people's homes. It sounded great, until it was revealed that most of the pipework is made out of HDPE...a material that is completely porous to hydrogen, with the rest being steel..which embrittles and fractures. Trying to do this as-is would have resulted in major gas leaks under roads, streets and housing until it found an ignition source. The cost of replacing the network with PTFE-lined stainless steel pipes ran into the £billions and would have led to an infrastructure project that would take decades to complete. You don't hear about hydrogen gas in the natural gas network anymore...that idea fizzled out as fast as the gas would have done through the pipework. It was also found that you'd need 3x as much hydrogen to burn the same amount of heat as natural gas does. The energy requirement to generate that much hydrogen to replace natural gas is immense, never mind storing it in specialised tanks. In the end, it was deemed that it just wasn't worth it and practically every hydrogen-generation project in the UK has been quietly shelved since.
Uhhhh.....and where does that electricity come from to make the hydrogen? If it's not renewable, or perhaps fusion in the future, hydrogen will require lots of solar, wind, hydro, and fission to be green. If you are making all that electricity, wouldn't it be more efficient to use it directly? Even with battery charge/discharge losses, surely a lot less than making hydrogen. And then, of course, hydrogen must be compressed and stored in cryogenic containers, which lose a percentage every day just sitting around.
Due to the unreliability of renewables which make our grid very unreliable the only real use for intermittent renewables is to make hydrogen, 'make hydrogen while the sun shines and the wind blows'.
My god it's yet another pie-in-the-sky hopium piece on hydrogen. By this point it's a never-fails-to-attract-eyeballs topic that writers can go to when there's no real news to cover.
Hate to see this. Its a good way for fossil fuel companies to create a dependancy on their products, because green hydrogen will most likely not be used for transportation, but chemical processes that actually require hydrogen, as it is nowhere near the quantities we need. I dont think battery technology will provide solutions to every problem, but it seems like they do the hard work, while some weird tech innovation guru start ups postulate the next revolution. Most of the breakthroughs are not as impotant as relentlessly researching and optimizing existing technoligies.
You nailed it. It will take over a decade to build enough electrolyzers and additional renewable power generation to switch the 70-100 million tons of dirty hydrogen currently used by industry annually to green hydrogen. So fossil fuel companies produce promote dubious new uses for hydrogen like land transportation, heating, switching gas appliances, etc. knowing it will only increase demand for their dirty stuff for years to come.
Hydrogen is useless for road transport because to replace a single petrol delivery tanger would require 18 such tankers. It’s lunacy to propose hydrogen for road transportation.
Do you know ?!? H2 cars are 100% electric, H2 goes into a fuelcell and electricity comes out, which replaces the battery. The fuelcell in a Mirai cost $35,000 and its only good for 150,000 miles. Electrolysis puts 3X more electricity in than you get back. The above plus additional inefficiencies along the energy path, H2 cars require 5X more electricity at the generation source than BEV's The above means a world of H2 cars needs 5X the energy production (thus 5X the cost) as a world of BEV's H2 station cost $10,000,000 - NACS (Tesla) chargers cost $50,000 There's so much more cost throughout the H2 process, the complexities of compressing, storing, transporting, all the infrastructure requirements, in addition to the high cost and degree of personnel and maintenance required throughout the entire complex H2 ecosystem. If this hasn't convinced you that H2 is a fools errand, then you're drunk on the koolaid.
The argumentation against Hydrogen is centered around alledged inefficiencies leading to too high economic costs. The cost of solar and wind power is going to continue down and so will the cost of generating, transporting and storing Hydrogen. Transporting and storing electrons is very expensive and allthough it too will go down in cost there simply is less potential for cost drop and hardly any potential for efficiency improvement.
Summary at @16:40 - It takes 50KWh of solar power to make one kilo of hydrogen, which is equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. So you get green solar hydrogen for 2 cents per 1KWh, and you use 50KWh to make a one kilo of hydrogen, so you can see how quickly we get under 2 dollars per kilo. But sadly that is a little far away from the DOE goal of one dollar per one kilo of hydrogen!
That is also ignoring the capital costs of building the electrolyser, and hydrogen storage, and all the other infrastructure involved. That has to be added to the sales price. Current retail price of hydrogen fuel is $16 per Kg from the cheapest "grey hydrogen" source. Hydrogen from electrolysis is not cheaper, not without heavily subsidized electricity. and if they can get electricity for 2 cents a Kwh, so can other companies and hydrogen still can't compete with much cheaper electricity.
I like the video, but the title is misleading. They don’t really discuss how these companies are achieving Green Hydrogen. The tech on making Hydrogen is cool and improving, but none of the companies say how they are getting the electricity for their systems.
While all Hydrogen Fuel Cell (HFC) vehicles have a (small) battery and electric drive chain, the problem with HFC's is the inability to store energy via regenerative braking. With an EV you can recoup most of your energy, and in trucks it makes air / exhaust brakes redundant (and effectively silent). The tiny buffer-battery that HFC drive chains use are overwhelmed pretty much instantly (similar to the Prius' regen).
That would depend on the size of the battery. A FCEV truck normally have a battery size similar to a PHEV truck, so capacity and power sink for regen braking is ample. E.g. Diamler GenH2 trucks has 70 kWh battery. A battery that size allow them to use smaller fuel cell and run that more efficient with stable power generation.
@@Foersom_ Agreed, but when we had our Prius the battery was generally kept at ~70% charge for when you could run on pure electric. The 30% was available for regen, and 30% of "tiny" is minuscule :) and didn't help much at all when traversing ranges. Ok for city start/stop but low value for out-of-town. HFC buffer batteries will always be small as the fuel-cell / mini-EV / ICE systems in the HFC vehicles already take up so much weight/volume.
@@Clark-Mills What does a Prius HEV passenger car have to do with FCEV truck? Nothing. Your experience with the limitations of Prius HEV battery, has no relation to FCEV trucks, where the battery is 50x larger. FCEV is possible solution for long haul trucking. Alternative we can use more trains that moves truck trailers for the long haul, and EV trucks that perform shorter hauls. FCEV is also a solution for trains where no overhead catenary exist. FCEV may also be a solution for ships.
@@Foersom_ The Prius is mentioned as, similar to HFC, you have energy stored in the small battery for actual motive power. In a FFC vehicle you do not drive the motor directly from the fuel-cell, rather you "charge up" the battery from the fuel-cell and then use that energy to drive the wheels. In a HEV it's similar, the ICE charges the battery to a point leaving some headroom for regen. The limitation of regen is a real setback for HFC.
@@Clark-Mills The limitation of your HEV Prius has nothing to do with a FCEV truck that has a battery 50x the capacity of a Prius. So please stop that nonsense comparison. "rather you "charge up" the battery from the fuel-cell and then use that energy to drive the wheels." Actually, the fuel-cell power will go directly to the motor, only excess power from fuel-cell will charge the battery. This allow fuel-cell to run with stable power output which allow to use smaller fuel-cell and run it more efficient. "The limitation of regen is a real setback for HFC." Nonsense. With a 70 kWh battery as used by Diamler there is no practical regen limitation.
With the help of "First Graphene" and their patents, it may be possible in the future to produce hydrogen, graphite and graphene from crude oil or natural gas. Current batteries are dirty, have a poor CO2 balance and recycling is difficult! Recently, a large amount of natural hydrogen was found in France. Hydrogen provides clean energy. Batteries are the cause of destructive mining!
Hydrogen will never be a good choice for consumer vehicles because of the huge costs involved with infrastructure and storage, and the related safety issues. And only a maybe for semi trucks & shipping.
Storing very intermittent renewable energy in massive batteries so that it can be available ( solar peak is midday but peak usage is between 6 to 8pm ) when needed is a massively expensive. This means the most efficient use for intermittent renewables is to make hydrogen, 'make hydrogen while the sun shines and the wind blows, because tomorrow may be cloudy and windless'...
Let me know when we have *so much* wind and solar that there are no immediate customers or batteries that need charging. Far better to put money into alternative energy stores than hydrogen which is insanely unviable in all metrics. Without big oil pushing this greenwashing, there would be no discussion. The physics and economics are entirely clear that hydrogen is a total dead end except out of very small niche industrial and rocket motor applications.
@@mb-3faze Every unreliable source of renewable wind and solar needs 100% backup from a reliable source, and only CCGT ( combined cycle gas turbines ) are quick enough to ramp up when renewables go AWOL at the whim of nature. Adding the cost of expensive storage to try to level out the vagaries of renewables makes them a very, very, very expensive option indeed. On a small scale renewables can save gas, but that is all they are 'fuel savers'. At the moment Britain sucks in a lot of French ( nuclear generated ) energy every day, nothing ever goes the other way from our 'fantastic renewables'. Solar is very peaky and in UK almost absent from October to March, the slightest cloud slashes the output. In winter we have long periods when high pressure sits over UK, they can go on for many weeks, and the bad news is that the high pressure means cleat skies and low temperatures, and in winter there is only meagre solar for a few hours per day. This is the opposite to the pipe dream of the renewables fanboys...
@@chrissmith2114 So how you going to make your green Hydrogen if the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow you want to put all CCGT and Biomass and what's left of coal to make Hydrogen when you could just put those into the grid Hydrogen fanboy.
Here is a suggestion - Install 200 (or whatever it takes) new nuclear plants in the US for the base.+ all green energy. Adjust and add so excess makes enough for hydrogen to create a new industry for cars, plans, trains and trucks. Done. Next problem. When fusion is actualized, add. Again, next problem.
Wow, I wonder why they don't make/market storage tanks for H2 use in rooftops solar solar, competing with battery makers. Homes with solar arrays can make H2 and store it for later use instead of batteries, create competitive market for rooftops solar.
Green hydrogen should have been powering our transportation since the fifties and all the technology to do so efficiently and safely has existed since then.
Hydrogen trains have to be the most pointless green virtue-signalling ever. We've had electric trains for a hundred years. We have long-haul, regional, metro trains, underground city subways, above ground trams & trolleys, all of it running on electricity. We don't need to build yet another parallel infrastructure for trains. We have to improve and green our grids anyway. If we do that, the train systems we already have all get greener "for free" with no additional effort. Hydrogen trains are silly.
😂😂😂😂 10:15 Running train with Hydrogen is not a good idea. You are using Electricity & Water to generate Hydrogen, again using that Hydrogen to generate Electricity!! why that is needed??😂, why can't you use Electricity directly for trains? 😂😂😂 just make sure that Electricity got generated from green sources, like Solar or Wind or Nuclear. For Ships 🚢 or Trucks 🚚 this is fine but not for Trains. First 🚅🚋 make all trains across the world runs only on electricity + this solution for 🚚 and shipping🚢 , that itself will solve significant amount of worlds 🌎 climate issue. For airplanes ✈️ optimize this technology and For cars better continue with Li-ion or Sodium or Silicon based batteries 🔋... i feel with these in place we could solve significant amount of worlds 🌎 climate issue right away.
To produce 1kg of H2 you need 9 litres of clean water so their 1MW electrolyser for quoted the 420kg will require 3.780 tons of water. Where are we going to find all this clean water?😡
Very interesting. Excuse my ignorance, but I was always curious if it was possible to power cars and trucks with what I believe is called atomic power? If atomic power can power large electric companies, submarines, etc., then why cannot they power a car? Obviously there would need to have safeguards put into place, but I would think atomic power could be fairly clean, people would not need to plug into a car to recharge every day, would not have to stop at a gas station to refill once a week, etc. Just am curious about this.
Too complex to do at that small scale. Better to just have a way to store the electrical energy needed for the vehicle. A nuclear submarine has an entire power plant onboard. They are huge. A car or truck does not have that kind of space to safely do something like this.
I feel like there's a lot of propaganda against hydrogen power, like it's a waste of time because it will never be efficient enough. Most of it is due to companies that produce electric vehicle and obviously don't like a shift in the market.
Yes, in Michael Liebreich's "Clean Hydrogen Ladder" fertilizer and chemical feedstocks like ammonia are near the top of "Unavoidable", unlike trucks, heating, hydrogen fuel cell cars which are all down at the "Uncompetitive" level. The problem is industrial users don't want to pay the higher cost of green hydrogen (and ammonia). Nor do truck operators, car buyers, home boiler owners, etc. and in all those cases using the renewable electricity in a battery or heat pump is more efficient and cheaper than any color of hydrogen.
@@wilfredpeake9987 yes, Porsche can use renewable energy in Chile to split water for H2, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to get carbon, and react it together to produce punishingly expensive synthetic renewable e-fuels that it can ship to Europe and North America so rich sports car owners can drive around a track making Vroom-vroom noises. But in the real world where cost-effectiveness matters, this sort of "Hey, we're not violating any laws of physics" tomfoolery gets out-competed by saner approaches.
Well if you actually pay for the CO2 you put in the atmosphere oil fuels are not economical at all. However hydrogen is not economical compared with electrification and other storage mediums.
having said that, we actually need a lot of hydrogen for the chemical industry. And it is still quite a while of, that this can be satisfied with green hydrogen.
The refinement to get green hydrogen loses too much energy and takes to much time to make and retain. I'd rather take modern nuclear. Green hydrogen needs a lot of innovation.
Green hydrogen is not "an unlimited source of energy", it's a way of storing energy produced by renewable sources and is as limited as these sources.
And those renewable sources go a lot further if you electrify transportation, heating, energy, and industrial processes directly instead of making an inefficient detour through hydrogen.
@@skierpage Exactly, which is why hydrogen is going nowhere, outside of niche applications.
According to the EVangelists and greenies renewables are a very cheap and limitless resource, ( but very unreliable as it turns out when you do not have limitless and very expensive storage) Hydrogen is really the only way to make use of unreliable renewables because at least you can store the hydrogen.
@@chrissmith2114 it's not "according to," it's truth. Go argue with the economists at Lazard who publish Levelized Cost of Energy analysis now up to v.15. Ignore the reality that the majority of new generation everywhere in the world is wind and solar because they're cheap and quick.
Intermittent does not mean unreliable. The obvious thing to do when wind and solar are generating is cheaply charge your EV and heat or cool your building and water in advance. Maybe make green hydrogen as well, but in all the hours that renewables aren't producing, electricity is more expensive, and idle electrolyzers increase your capex. And there are other ways to store electricity; hydrogen storage has yet to prove itself. Even if you don't store electricity, renewables are still a huge win for the environment, because you're shoveling millions of tons LESS dirty fossil fuel into coal and gas plants for hours, days, weeks at a time. (Yes, China is building more coal plants along with hundreds of gigawatts of wind and solar but many of its coal plants have capacity factors less than 25%.)
@@chrissmith2114- Renewables are indeed cheap, and with more and more Grid Scale Storage batteries being installed, it can supply all our needs.
Hydrogen makes no sense because the end to end efficiency is terrible. The Hydrogen Cult survives on the irrelevant facts that they keep trotting out. It's the most abundant Element... it's Green Hydrogen, there are no tailpipe emissions... yawn. None of this matters. End to End efficiency is what matters, and it's three times better if you have BEVs. Hydrogen had its chance over the past 50 years, and it didn't make it because it's hopelessly impractical and inefficient. Now BEVs are a reality, it has zero chance. If it couldn't compete with ICE cars when there was no competition, it's a dead duck.
Hydrogen has been on the verge of powering my life sooner than I realize for the last 70 years. It has been and will likely always be the fuel of the future
Hydrogen will never be powering anyones life, because its not a fuel. Its nothing more than an energy carrier at best.
And because no one has has the common sense to figure out how to make money off of it.
Read above, the answer is written.
Well said!
@@Furious1Autoit’s easy to make money off of hydrogen, just scam all the people that are dumb enough to believe in it. there’s a lot of them
Boo!
The problem with H₂ is that you waste ⅔ of the input energy as heat; the hydrogen energy chain is about as efficient as diesel. You'd be far better off using the energy as electricity. Solar and Hydro cost money; the common spiel that "It's from renewables so efficiency doesn't matter" is not a realistic argument.
It is not as simplistic as that. You have been brainwashed by Elon Musk. You have to look at cost, not just efficiency. Is it cheaper to export renewable energy by DC cable (plus batteries) or as a hydrogen product? Because one windmill in the UK produces much less energy than one in South Chile for the same cost. Then it becomes more a question of what is the cheapest way to store and distribute this cheap energy.
@@jimj2683 The inefficiency of the:
electrolysis / compression / chilling / transport / compression / chilling / fuel-cell
chain is well known and simple physics. I don't understand where Elon Musk comes into the equation?
@@Clark-Mills
Exactly, as Richard Feynman famously said: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Add to this the comparison between distribution of electricity vs any fuel.
Grid distribution of electricity loses less than 5%, and is fairly low maintenance thin infrastructure. Plus some of the electricity can be created at the endpoint like rooftop solar which cuts distribution losses and bypasses oligopoly providers.
Any fuel needs to be distributed with storage and transportation infrastructure which is high maintenance and a lot more materials. Something like 30% of fuel is used just transporting fuel. Hydrogen is even harder to store than gasoline/diesel.
Grid electricity and electrified transportation have a massive head start over any fuel solution just with the efficiency of the distribution.
@@jimj2683 Quite ironic to see an Elon Musk insult in this context, as EM is one of the most cost-aware persons on earth (and Mars 😄).
Hydrogen will never replace BEVs unless there are gigantic changes. It's ridiculously expensive and inefficient and the economics just don't work. In Europe Shell is closing their very few hydrogen filling stations. They have already realized that it just doesn't work.
Currently the best application for hydrogen is where BEV fails due to size or weight capacity.
Large mining and farm equipment, transoceanic shipping, trains and heavy long haul trucking.
Trucking still has weight per axle restrictions that reduces the load they can carry because the batteries weigh so much.
The above industries produce the lions share of carbon in the transportation category plus aircrafts.
Within that segment cars are a small carbon producer.
Batteries can't run a tank and get the weight under 60 tons or fuel a fighter, a frigate or a harvester combine running 16 hours per day, in a wheat field miles away from a charging center.
Hydrogen can be transported just like diesel can and diesel engines can be converted to run on hydrogen, which is going to be important for small island nations using diesel generators to produce electricity.
They have daily blackouts as it is imagine adding BEVs to their power consumption.
We have a multi fuel economy now we'll need multiple sources of green energy to power the globe in the future.
🎯💯🎯💯🎯💯🎯💯💯💯🎯
@@IMGreg..you still have the cost of hydrogen, and hydrogen is crazy expensive to store, also requires huge fuel tanks that weigh almost as much as batteries. Tankers will go offshore wind+wireless power transfer
Someone obviously didn't listen to the video 😂
Except...BEV's are pretty unsustainable and have negligible environmental benefits compared to ICE vehicles when you take into account their total environmental footprint.
Hydrogen is the future. It just needs further investment and development. If the trillions of dollars that are being pumped into EV's went instead into Hydrogen, we would be so much further along.
I love hydrogen. I used to generate it a lot as a kid. Almost blew my thumb off one time when I tried to blow a syringe full of it at a flame. I learned my lesson.
Green hydrogen can also vanish into thin air faster than you think... Literally
It depends on efficiency, it’s not something that just vanishes with no reason
At high pressure hydrogen can be very dangerous!
At high pressure everything is dangerous @@smde1
Hydrogen is a cult not a solution. The small amount of green hydrogen available needs to be used for industrial applications like steel or cement production. Storage and transportation of hydrogen is very difficult so it will always limit it's use.
Decarbonizing steel and cement will deliver 16% reduction of GHG emissions and would require more renewables than currently in operation. Neither storage or transportation has reached its final solution so diverse transport and storage methods will have to slug it out.
Agreed! I'm more interested in it's manufacturing potential. That the type of debate we need to be having instead the tribal lack of nuance one we're having.
Hydrogen is the most versatile element in nature.
Hydrogen users are irrelevant to the problem, hydrogen users can burn both green and grey hydrogen, grey hydrogen is just burning natural gas with extra steps so will never be economical compared to just burning natural gas, which means at end of the day the only question is how much renewable capacity you have to generate potentially economical green hydrogen.
As of right now China dominate renewable energy generation, China is the only country with large enough renewable capacity to potentially produce green hydrogen economically, and China is the only one actually building green hydrogen distribution, which means the green hydrogen economy is just where you buy Chinese renewable energy stored in hydrogen form.
And let's face it, most hydrogen will be gray, because the whole point is for oil companies to sell natural gas while pretending they're "green", if people actually cared about the "green" part they'd be investing in renewable, as it is "green" is just a PR stunt.
Seems to be a contradiction between
"grey hydrogen is just burning natural gas with extra steps so will never be economical compared to just burning natural gas"
and
"most hydrogen will be gray, because the whole point is for oil companies to sell natural gas while pretending they're "green"" .
Why would grey hydrogen have any significant market share at all when it´s more expensive than just burning natural gas?
Green hydrogen is just generating renewable electricity, with extra inefficient steps. We will electrify all the things (cars, buses, trucks, construction, heating, many industrial process, short-range ferries and flying, ...) leaving very few niches for hydrogen. The Forbes reporter could and should have spoken to any number of energy experts who will explain why hydrogen isn't going to happen for land transportation, heating, energy storage, etc...
Not true, Saudi Arabia is building one called the NEOM Green Hydrogen project that will dwarf China's plants
@@skierpage you are right and you are wrong. Hydrogen for energy storage does not make a lot of sense. But the chemical industry needs hydrogen and actually a lot of it. Right now, that is almost all grey hydrogen. Replacing that with green hydrogen from seasonal surplus is not exactly a small niche. Therefore producing hydrogen is an excellent outlet for that. On top of that there is a lot of chemistry, that would benefit from using hydrogen. first and foremost stealproduction.
@@MusikCassette so you agree, the issue is how big are the niches. Obviously hydrogen is a relatively small tail on the big dog of terawatts of renewable energy and storage, despite the cynical hopes of fuel companies addicted to selling atoms instead of electrons. Hydrogen used in refining crude oil into liquid fuels needs to die along with burning fossil fuel; I'm not sure how much hydrogen the rest of the chemical and plastic industries use. Look at Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder for the unavoidable uses of hydrogen vs. the dumb uneconomic ones, and Michael Barnard has good analysis of individual use cases for hydrogen.
What everyone dunking on hydrogen seems to conveniently forget is that 747s and cargo ships will never be capable of running on batteries. Semi-trucks going cross-country don't have time to sit around half the time while charging batteries, all while carrying 15,000 pounds of batteries that would have been cargo weight otherwise.
Batteries are great, I agree, but they aren't omnipotent and will never be capable of all the things we want to do with heavy vehicles. Bulldozers, planes, dump trucks, and basically everything that weighs over 10,000 pounds or is supposed to carry 10,000 pounds of cargo more than 100 miles need hydrogen. Everything lightweight, low-range, and for infrequent use can use batteries, and that definitely makes more sense.
Trucks already electric.
@@paulc6766 yes for short distances not across the country. Batteries are really heavy and don't have enough energy for long distance but for across town they can't be beat. 👍
The transportation industry only likes hydrogen because it needs to be transported. They hate electrification because it is transported by grid not by truck.
Nearly 30% of the global freight transportation industry is just trasnporting fuel. If we reduce our use of fuels it is a lot better for the environment not just direct emissions but also the reduction in cargo transportation demand.
So electrified transportation is great for the environment but bad for revenues of global cargo transportation companies.
So the cargo industry will gladly support the greenwashing of a fuel over electrification, because they like profits more than they like their grandchildren.
@user-ky7iz6up1v nobody put a handful of backyard tinkerers is going to bother making hydrogen at home, when they can just take their homemade electricity and use it directly to recharge their BEV and in more efficient electric appliances.
@user-ky7iz6up1v .... and they all have tiny sales to backyard tinkerers! Besides Lavo's fantasy that Australians will buy its $35,000 home hydrogen energy storage instead of batteries, who else is there?
edit: and a year ago Rethink Energy reports "Lavo pivots to MW-scale as home hydrogen faces heat" "Solar will be paired with small-scale hydrogen storage as part of a new project being developed by Sungrow and ‘hydrogen battery’ company Lavo, as part of a deal signed last month. Having previously pinned its hopes on the residential market, this adds to the string of signals that hydrogen may not be set for decentralization to the same extent as batteries."
Put up solar, make your own electricity, store it in your EV and maybe a residential battery while your car is out and about. DONE! No screwing around with hydrogen needed.
Also, the French loan-word is "voilà," not an oversized string instrument 🎻
Come on Forbes - stop promoting this big oil garbage propaganda. Promulgating this nonsense doesn't do your brand any good.
Hydrogen is good where only 30% electricity can actually be extracted from 100% electricity that was needed to make it . BEV should be the focus , solid state batteries , Battery Swapping , Fast Charging , Energy Dense batteries , Super Capacitors , etc .
It is not very smart to use Hydrogen unless it is the cheaper solution. EV's will continue to improve dramatically and so will electrolysis and fuel cells. So the question is simple will it become cheaper to produce route and hydrogen to power an EV or not.
Charging net works, reducing battery sizes should be the plan, not the fossil fuel history of a huge tank of smelly dangerous fluid to carry around to get the range no one will ever drive in one go.
@@jensstubbestergaard6794 only person with common sense in this comment section 🥲
Produce a bunch of energy to store a bunch of energy, but you waste a bunch of energy in the process.
Sounds really dumb.
That dosnt make any sense. What you just said is how all fossil fuels are produced
@@hamishbracey5411fossil fuels aren't produced, they're extracted. Natural processes over millions of years turned carbon matter into oil and coal. They're relatively cheap to dig up, if you ignore the massive worsening harms resulting from burning them for energy.
Original poster is correct. In most cases, it's stupid to use renewable electricity to inefficiently make hydrogen, when you can just use the renewable electricity directly.
There’s a lot of energy in digging them out and undergoing various processes to refine them.
@@skierpageElectricity cannot be use directly for transportation unless you have long cables connected to the vehicles , even battery EVs convert electricity into chemical energy during charging and converting them back into electricity. Hydrogen has better Wh/kg, potentially longer range than batteries. Good for aircrafts, ships and long distance haulage.
@@madsam0320 batteries are good enough for all of land transportation and continue to improve, so almost no one will use the far more expensive fuel. When subsidies for trials of hydrogen buses, construction equipment, large trucks, and trains run out, the vehicles are quietly scrapped, while sales of battery competitors increase.
There's a chance for ships and planes.
It's interesting that the interviewer doesn't know enough about hydrogen to ask questions or clarify numbers. Not interactive at all, just letting the companies speak. Hmm.
2:09 love how Plug Power avoids the inefficiency by saying putting in 1MW gives you 420kg of H2. Yes, putting in 1MW all day long or 24MWh gives you 420kg per day. That's 57kWh/kg. A very standard 58% efficient electrolizer. Not counting compression, liquification, transportation, etc. Then he claims a 2:30 it could supply 400 standard sedans. Yes, but only for one day of average driving. Not fill them up like at a gas station, just fill them with one day's worth of hydrogen. I find Plug Power tends to be pretty dishonest in general.
12:18 uses 5MW and produces 2 tons. Since hydrogen is usually measured in kg, I'm assuming metric tons or 2000kg. So 5MW x 24 hrs = 120MWh to produce 2000kg, or 60kWh/kg. That's also average for producing H2 at atmospheric pressure. For reference the most efficient FCEV, the Toyota Mirai can get 70 miles on 1kg of H2, a Tesla Model 3 can get 240 miles on the same 60kWh of electric.
13:21 And then let me get this straight. Your selling Florida Power and Light electrolyzers to produce H2 from electricity to blend with NG and run through a turbine to make, what? ..... electricity. I get it, probably for peak demand. So use 120MWh to produce 2000kg (66MWh hydrogen), then run it through a turbine that's maybe 65% efficient to get 43MWh back out. Hopefully, it's rare that you have to actually use that method.
THIS! Best comment under this video.
Hydrogen is currently made using a ton of energy to extract it from natural gas/methane. Every time you change forms of energy or process it there are losses. This is not the answer, just a new business model.
It's a total money maker for big oil - that's why they are pushing this 'green' hydrogen economy. They know damn well that they hydrogen will have to come from methane for any economical production - more bonuses for them and more environmental damage for the planet.
Please note that solar energy is coming from sun as free energy we need to store it in an something that can store that energy as long as we like and hydrogen is the most reliable thing we can store that energy it is not important if we have higher losses during the process the important thing is that we can rely on hydrogen that we get energy at the time when we need it. And this is what makes hydrogen more reliable than batteries for energy storage because batteries can not store energy for long periods of time on very large scale
@@Faisal710 ...and this is the fallacy that big oil green washing promulgates. Tell you what, when every single oil, coal, gas and nuclear power station has been shut down because they have been displaced by solar/wind/geothermal then, at that point only, would it make sense to convert green electrons into other energy sources. And, no hydrogen is very difficult to store - in fact it's one of the most difficult fuels to store in that it leaks through everything including solid metal; and it's reactive too, embrittling metals. In addition, molecular hydrogen is environmentally very bad for the environment in that it reacts with OH- molecules in the atmosphere. OH- molecules are the one natural compound that helps remove methane from the air. Hydrogen is a disaster in every way - that probably why big oil likes it so much.
@@Faisal710 sorry to say, but nothing is free. Maybe if we were manufacturing the panels locally and not in China your point would be valid.
Nice promotional video that completely avoids the politics and challenges of generating green hydrogen.
And that we need to first answer all the current hydrogen demand for industrial and medical hydrogen with green hydrogen BEFORE we even start dreaming up new applications of hydrogen.
The new applications of hydrogen only make sense with green hydrogen produced as a waste byproduct of green grid generation. Except even if we did some day have excess green grid generation to make hydrogen with, our first step should be to eliminate production of Grey hydrogen.
If we make green hydrogen for new applications, but keep all the old applications of hydrogen Grey, then ALL hydrogen is still dirty.
Hydrogen is our saviour !
Green H2 will always be too expensive compared to direct electricity into batteries. The numbers do not add up for H2.
15x more expensive. Not competitive at all.
@@OtisFlint Well there you go. The added up numbers do not look good for H2 in any way. It begs the question: Is there any place where H2, green (or otherwise which nobody would want) is competitive?
@@ramblerandy2397 IMO no. The more I look at the data, the more I see why hydrogen has gone absolutely nowhere in 30+ years of development.
@@OtisFlint Well indeed.
@@ramblerandy2397 Yes, for heavier vehicles. The heavier it gets, less efficient BEVs become.
Hydrogen seems like one of those things that only takes off when the entire life cycle agrees to make it happen. But once it does I really believe we'll be in the future!
This is big oil propaganda. They are desperate to get the hydrogen 'economy' established because it is technically impossible, prohibitively expensive and environmentally damaging to generate hydrogen from green energy sources. The energy loss is over 90%. far better to feed those green electrons straight to consumers or to store it in batteries. No, the real and only viable source of hydrogen will be from methane which the fossils in big oil will only be too happy to supply - dumping, of course, prodigious amounts of carbon in to the environment.
It won't. The economics and practical problems are awful.
Hydrogen will never have wide spread use unless they can make fusion reactors our normal power source...
It is funny that is always non technical people who are enthousiast about hydrogen. When you speak with engineers they will always say that hydrogen is not the solution but a very difficult and expensive way to be used as energy source.
That would be the engineers you happen to talk to.
Engineers are the ones developing new hydrogen technologies, so your statement doesn't make sense.
@guruxara7994 You do not seem to understand what I meant. I am an hydrogen engineer with 30 years experience in the oil and gas industry and I know that using hydrogen as energy carrier is far from ideal as you have to make hydrogen (with an energy source that provides for the energy .....), store the hydrogen which is difficult and expensive, transport it (which is expensive) and store it in the car (which is not convenient).
@@JongJande Your post is retrospective. There have been five cavern storage facilities just like the more than two thousand for Methane. LOHC fits like a glove for pipelines, tankers etc. Topsoe that has built more Hydrogen plants than any other company in existence has just made final investment decision on first stage 0.5GW SOEC electrolyser production facility to be completed i 2024. Good luck trying to explain the foremost Hydrogen expert company on the globe that they have gotten it all wrong!
Renewable Electricity is the # 1 power for BEV. Before the cost of hydrogen comes down, you have to build the infrastructure which will be prohibitive in cost.
How about a car that is hybrid hydrogen, with a rotary engine, a blower, a supercharger, and a turbo charger. With strawberries on top. What a great idea!
Excellent documentary!
The problem with hydrogen fuel is that hydrogen storage is expensive, and hydrogen fuel is insanely expensive. Even with the high efficiency of a fuel cell, the per-mile cost of driving on hydrogen is almost double the price of driving on diesel or gasoline, and nearly 10x the price of driving on electricity. The only companies that will consider it will be for promotional "Look at how green we are" deals with little actual use. Currently, the cheapest source of hydrogen is steam reforming of natural gas, current retail price about $16 per Kg. Hydrogen from electroysis costs even more. So, how do they plan to get to $2 per Kg? By somehow magically getting "renewable electricity" at only 2 cents per Kwh - but that means EVs could get electricity at that price, and hydrogen still couldn't compete. The mythical "$1 per Kg" price isn't a price they can actually achieve, it's the price they would have to achieve to be economically competitive to electricity - and that sim;y isn't possible.
Forbes has slipped up. got caught up in the hype, and has ignored the bad economics of hydrogen fuel
The steam reform production cost without carbon capture and based upon heavily subsidized methane is $1.5/kg so this is the cost point that green hydrogen has to beat. Hydrogen price at the pump is representative for something like 0.00000000000001% of the annual sales. The question you have to ask is whether and when the cost of green Hydrogen drops below grey hydrogen.
There is no such thing as green hydrogen. There is hydrogen from electrolysis or hydrocarbons.
Electrolysis depends on method of generating electricity.
I am impressed both by the number of idiots spewing nonsense on why hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and the number of people who understand that it is nonsense in the comments.
14:06 "Hydrogen is very versatile. It can be used for fuel, but also as an energy carrier..."
Uh... that's not "versatile"; you merely said the SAME THING twice. That's what a fuel IS - a store of energy. It stores and carries potential energy until it's released... by being used... as a FUEL. That's like saying "water is so versatile because it hydrates you, but also you can drink it when you're thirsty."
Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen is more about companies' business models and making money than carbon emissions and saving the planet. What we need is a mindset change, not H2.
The US governemnt have too much invested in Electric Batteries, it might be an uphill battle to get tax credits from them
Green hydrogen is always going to be "just around the corner". It shares an Uber with Fusion energy and Carbon Capture.
But we know carbon capture will never work... unless, maybe when they figure out fusion. 🤣🤣
Electric vehicles were "just around the corner" since 1890, and now it's a reality, electric vehicles are everywhere.
Amazing and so Awesome! Great job !
All good and interesting HOWEVER it will take circa 3x more electricity to make, store and convert the hydrogen to useful output. Yes less weight than batteries but you will need 3 times more solar panels or wind turbines to stand still compared to batteries. Thus three times the running cost.
Exactly
I'm investing in Fuel Cell Energy (FCEL) Who has a contract with Exxon testing it's carbon capture technology..
Did you ever invest in it? What do you think about it?
"Hydrogen is the universes most sbundant element".
The very first sentence. You don't have to listen any longer than that.
Wow so you use enough energy to power 1000 homes & you make enough hydrogen for 20 fork trucks really ?
If only we had enough energy to produce it and a safe way to store it!
the sun does come up almost every day.
@richkalbus4346 but you need 50 HP to produce enough hydrogen to produce 1 Hp. How many billion solar panels will we need, and how many more planets to destroy with them? The molecules are so small that they can pass through solid steel. So where do we put the bombs that we store it in?
What is the round trip efficiency of the electrolizers and fuel cell.
Wow, this Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series sounds like an amazing product for outdoor enthusiasts like us! With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology, it seems perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely check it out for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Thank you for your comment! I completely agree, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like a fantastic product for outdoor enthusiasts like us. Its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely be checking it out for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing this recommendation!
Wow, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does sound like a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us! The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely look into it for my next adventure. Thanks for the recommendation!
That Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does seem like a fantastic option for outdoor enthusiasts like us! The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology make it perfect for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I'll definitely have to look into it for my next adventure. Thanks for sharing your recommendation!
Thanks for sharing! The Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series does sound like a great option for outdoor enthusiasts. With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof technology, it's definitely worth considering for camping trips or as a home backup power solution. I hope you have a fantastic adventure with it!
Fantastic! We only need 3x that terrible useless electrical energy to get hydrogen! And we can use that to produce 1/3 the original electrical energy!
Reality is hydrogen just makes a really inefficient battery that is slow to charge and bulky, but 20 years ago had advantages over other batteries, which is why 20 years ago EVs were very limited. Hydrogen still has uses in reduction of ores and fertilizer, but any use for energy is now fringe at best.
This is great work, thanks!
Any indication the cost in creating the hydrogen?
Green hydrogen has a potential for iron production. 70% of it will be used in metallurgy, and 25% in the chemistry. At most 2% will be used in transportation.
"The government should give us money so that we can make a profit on our product."
I believe it will be tough to get to total "well to wheels" cost for hydrogen to be competitive, even if the generation cost is near zero. Storing and transporting hydrogen is very costly and difficult due to it's small molecule size, high pressures and low energy density. I think for some niche applications, the cost will be less of a problem and the higher energy density than batteries will win out. But batteries charged on the grid and in vehicles will be more efficient than hydrogen, which means it will likely be more expensive with hydrogen. Durability of fuel cells is still not there after decades of work and they are still very expensive.
Again, some applications it may work (hydrogen in power plants), but I think batteries as way of storing energy will be cheaper in the vast majority of cases, especially as their chemistries get better.
Great film🎉🎉🎉
Hydrogen for vehicles is the Fools Gold!
Hydrogen powerd Cargo Ships, Airplane is fine.
But Hydrogen power train doesn't make any sense.
Train can just draw power directly from overhead electric cabel.
There is no need of staring energy in this case.
You are using electricity and water to generate Hydrogen.
And then using that Hydrogen to again get electricity 😅
Why not use electricity directly.
Yeah for Ships, Airplanes it makes sense because there is no overhead cabel.
You have to store energy.
BEV Forklifts make so much more sense, at the end of a shift or during break times plug into a charger, when you have tens or hundreds of forklifts at a facility it is simple to add many chargers in appropriate places. When you see the Hydrogen vehicles refueling lines in California, people in queues 5 or 10 deep it takes 30 or 60 minutes to refill and you have to stay with the vehicle. With EV chargers it does take 15 or 20 minutes but you plug in and walk away so when you return vehicle is ready to go. If you are a forklift driver how do you want to spend your lunch break?
Thank you very informative.
I missed the part about how much that electricity cost to make enough H2 to fill the tank ( of a car. ). Hint it is not less than $4.50 per gallon of gasoline
And also that electricity has emission.
Of course they will say, "leta use solar to make the zero emissions electricity for the hydrogen production". But that all needs to be compared to just plugging that solar into the grid and bEV and just skipping the inefficient fuel concept all together.
@user-ky7iz6up1v You're WAY off on the cost of electricity. Listen to 16:25. Solar will cost $0.02/kWh and H2 will be $1/kg in a few years.
$0.12/kWh is expensive even for household electricity.
There is a lot more cost to green hydrogen electrolysis than just the electricity. There are consumables more than electricity and water, there is also the cathode/anode replacement costs.
Current estimates at $3-6 per KG cost (not consumer price, just cost to produce)
Which makes it sound kinda equal to gasoline but there are a lot of other factors along the way that will make it more expensive by the time it gets to your vehicle. Including transportation, losses, more expensive storage, taxes and someone somewhere is going to want to make some profits. All combined at the filling station most guess around $15 per KG which is a lot higher cost per mile than gasoline (and way more than just taking the same electricity and putting it into a bEV).
@user-ky7iz6up1v Forget the hydrogen (for your purpose). The 50 kWh electric energy required for producing that 1 kg H₂ will get you about 150 miles in an electric car.
@user-ky7iz6up1v You still haven't given a single reason to make the inefficient expensive detour through hydrogen instead of putting renewable electricity straight into a battery.
Very informarive on real ground devlopment for hydrogen.. im rooting for hydrogen in our daily use..
You will be very disappointed then.
@@rogerphelps9939 I am from the shipping industry and our vessels are now being powered by LNG along with traditional high sulphur fuel and Shipping has great scope for Hydrogen and I believe all heavy machinery has great scope for hydrogen. But as you suggest it may not be possible for everything
How long is a fuell cell good for & what is the cost to replace?
longer than a tesla battery thats for sure
Beep! Wrong, 100,000 miles to replace fuel Cell, costing double of the price of a Tesla battery.@@tonypastrami3071
My 2018 Tesla M# LR, RWD has 159,000 km & still going strong in Canada, with over 450km of range!@@tonypastrami3071
the energy needed to make it is massive and the power grid cant handle this item nor is it from green power production. So dues it pollute ? well yes if your efforts to make it are powered from old tech.
These days need to invest to Hydrogen.
I can make one at home. So easy. Why isn't this already on the road?
Politicians. Money. Power.
it IS already on the road! there are dozens of them in california!
I am impressed by recent changes in the long-haul shipping industry, specifically the emergence of container ships using green methanol. One of the early application domains for green hydrogen is as feedstock for the green methanol used in container ships. Maersk, the second largest container shipping company in the world, says they are on track to move 25% of their ocean operations to green methanol by 2030. Although biomethanol (where organic waste is the feedstock) might be part of that, they expect most to come from electrolysis and green hydrogen (so-called e-methanol).
Maersk's first green methanol ship is already operating as a feeder vessel in the Baltic, and they expect to take delivery of 25 much larger container ships with methanol engines over the next two years or so. Other container shipping companies are ordering methanol-capable ships as well, I have heard there are between 100 and 170 additional ship orders.
As recently as 2019, long-haul shipping was considered a hard-to-abate sector. Today, it looks like large shipping companies like Maersk can meet a net-zero target by 2040. Their ships, and other parts of the logistics chain they are responsible for, will create a massive and secure market for emerging green hydrogen suppliers. Even with existing prices, they expect that the transition to e-methanol (and future fuels like ammonia and direct combustion of hydrogen) will be economic, in part because their customers are also committed to net zero, and are willing to pay a small green premium to send their cargoes on green vessels and green logistics chains. As green hydrogen production scales up, its price should go down and the need to pay a green premium should disappear. Just like it is now cheaper to build new electricity capacity with renewables rather than coal (you can't get financing for a new coal plant any more), it will be cheaper to fuel your ships with green fuels rather than polluting hydrocarbons. Of course, even if that price point for green hydrogen is reached sooner rather than later, there will still need to be massive capital investments and time in order to convert existing fleets and industrial capacity to hydrogen. But at least the end goal is in sight. Shipping represents 3% of global emissions, and if companies like Maersk attain their broader objective of decarbonizing the entire logistics chain (terminal operations, trucking, warehouses, etc.), that will address 11% of global emissions.
The discussion 18:50 about trains with diesel engines in the US where electrification is just 1% (compared to 60% in Europe), indicates that it could be another sector ripe for a rapid transition to a decarbonized future.
Absolutely. Future of shipping looks encouraging. Would like to add though that while shipping is still overwhelmingly using fossil fuels, what I think press fails to sheds the light on is that shipping has already been doing a lot of improvements with existing technologies to reduce carbon emission. Despite merchant fleet growing by 40% since 2008, overall carbon emission actually dropped since its high in 2008.
Green methanol is profoundly different than this green hydrogen fossil fuel scam. With green methanol (provided it really is using atmospheric carbon and green electrons) is just a way of storing electrical energy for use when away from a convenient power source. Nothing particularly wrong with that and far better then burning bunker fuel. However the big push (by big oil) is domestic hydrogen, particularly for transportation. It has no merit thermodynamically or economically but that is not stopping the fossil fuel people from promoting it like in this propaganda video; trying to pull the wool over the ill-informed with green washing. They know all too well that the bulk of the feed stock for the hydrogen will be methane which they will be only too happy to supply - at vast environmental and commercial cost.
Why do that and greatly reduce the calorific value? There is not enough biomass around to meet the anticipated demand for methanol anyway.
This whole story seems to have pointedly ignored the honest economics of the production, storage, and transportation of hydrogen. Not even counting the infrastructure, this hydrogen fairy tale is presuming mystical other sources of practically free energy PLUS government subsidies, both of which these company managers did mention.
This is all well and great, but the on-vehicle storage problem still isn't being discussed.
The hydrogen needs to be stored in a tank at either a very high pressure, or a very low temperature, but so far no manufacturer has managed to make a storage tank that's light enough but must also survive repeated low-high temperature/pressure cycles without catastrophic failure. They still haven't figured out the embrittlement problem, because hydrogen causes most metals to go brittle and crack. Until these big problems are solved, hydrogen is simply not going to work in any safe, practical manner to be certified on a road vehicle.
Toyota has been using carbon fiber in there hydrogen vehicles to store hydrogen which is working out just fine.
@@Amukalalu Uhm, that's not what I heard mate. Carbon fibre isn't some wonder material, it delaminates when subjected to repeated pressure cycles...as the unfortunate folks aboard the Titan submersible found out.
I've seen a report by the NHTSA on hydrogen storage tanks that were designed for road use and had to be tested by them to be certified for use in vehicles, one stainless, several types of carbon fibre (some with a ptfe liner because CF is porous to hydrogen) and others that were steel in various designs. Every single one of them failed every test. The stainless steel one started to become porous until it cracked, all of the carbon fibre ones delaminated (either due to cold temperature or pressure cycling) with the ones with the ptfe liner only lasting a little longer, because the liner tended to collapse inside the tank, all of the steel ones fractured from embrittlement.
Not one of the tanks under test lasted more than 100x temp/pressure cycles before catastrophic failure, some of the cryogenic tanks ruptured on the test stand while they were sat there, doing nothing. Imagine what would have happened if that was inside a vehicle in a car park...kaboom.
It's a very serious problem, so bad it seems, that the media just doesn't want to cover it for political reasons because they're being paid to portray hydrogen technologies as all shiny and the fuel of the future, disregarding it's inherent problems.
Here in the UK, the Government was making a big deal about piping hydrogen through the existing natural gas network to people's homes. It sounded great, until it was revealed that most of the pipework is made out of HDPE...a material that is completely porous to hydrogen, with the rest being steel..which embrittles and fractures. Trying to do this as-is would have resulted in major gas leaks under roads, streets and housing until it found an ignition source. The cost of replacing the network with PTFE-lined stainless steel pipes ran into the £billions and would have led to an infrastructure project that would take decades to complete. You don't hear about hydrogen gas in the natural gas network anymore...that idea fizzled out as fast as the gas would have done through the pipework.
It was also found that you'd need 3x as much hydrogen to burn the same amount of heat as natural gas does. The energy requirement to generate that much hydrogen to replace natural gas is immense, never mind storing it in specialised tanks. In the end, it was deemed that it just wasn't worth it and practically every hydrogen-generation project in the UK has been quietly shelved since.
Not fine. They are making huge losses making not many cars. The sunk cost fallacy.@@Amukalalu
Hydrogen is the future
Uhhhh.....and where does that electricity come from to make the hydrogen? If it's not renewable, or perhaps fusion in the future, hydrogen will require lots of solar, wind, hydro, and fission to be green. If you are making all that electricity, wouldn't it be more efficient to use it directly? Even with battery charge/discharge losses, surely a lot less than making hydrogen. And then, of course, hydrogen must be compressed and stored in cryogenic containers, which lose a percentage every day just sitting around.
Due to the unreliability of renewables which make our grid very unreliable the only real use for intermittent renewables is to make hydrogen, 'make hydrogen while the sun shines and the wind blows'.
Game changer!
My god it's yet another pie-in-the-sky hopium piece on hydrogen. By this point it's a never-fails-to-attract-eyeballs topic that writers can go to when there's no real news to cover.
you mean like the msm ukraine war. you stick to that
Hate to see this. Its a good way for fossil fuel companies to create a dependancy on their products, because green hydrogen will most likely not be used for transportation, but chemical processes that actually require hydrogen, as it is nowhere near the quantities we need. I dont think battery technology will provide solutions to every problem, but it seems like they do the hard work, while some weird tech innovation guru start ups postulate the next revolution. Most of the breakthroughs are not as impotant as relentlessly researching and optimizing existing technoligies.
You nailed it. It will take over a decade to build enough electrolyzers and additional renewable power generation to switch the 70-100 million tons of dirty hydrogen currently used by industry annually to green hydrogen. So fossil fuel companies produce promote dubious new uses for hydrogen like land transportation, heating, switching gas appliances, etc. knowing it will only increase demand for their dirty stuff for years to come.
Anyone can produce hydrogen. You drink 400 grams of hydrogen every day.
@@guruxara7994 Not the point!
Hydrogen is useless for road transport because to replace a single petrol delivery tanger would require 18 such tankers. It’s lunacy to propose hydrogen for road transportation.
Do you know ?!?
H2 cars are 100% electric, H2 goes into a fuelcell and electricity comes out, which replaces the battery.
The fuelcell in a Mirai cost $35,000 and its only good for 150,000 miles.
Electrolysis puts 3X more electricity in than you get back.
The above plus additional inefficiencies along the energy path, H2 cars require 5X more electricity at the generation source than BEV's
The above means a world of H2 cars needs 5X the energy production (thus 5X the cost) as a world of BEV's
H2 station cost $10,000,000 - NACS (Tesla) chargers cost $50,000
There's so much more cost throughout the H2 process, the complexities of compressing, storing, transporting, all the infrastructure requirements, in addition to the high cost and degree of personnel and maintenance required throughout the entire complex H2 ecosystem.
If this hasn't convinced you that H2 is a fools errand, then you're drunk on the koolaid.
The argumentation against Hydrogen is centered around alledged inefficiencies leading to too high economic costs. The cost of solar and wind power is going to continue down and so will the cost of generating, transporting and storing Hydrogen. Transporting and storing electrons is very expensive and allthough it too will go down in cost there simply is less potential for cost drop and hardly any potential for efficiency improvement.
Summary at @16:40 - It takes 50KWh of solar power to make one kilo of hydrogen, which is equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. So you get green solar hydrogen for 2 cents per 1KWh, and you use 50KWh to make a one kilo of hydrogen, so you can see how quickly we get under 2 dollars per kilo.
But sadly that is a little far away from the DOE goal of one dollar per one kilo of hydrogen!
Let me finish that math for you:
$0.02/kWh * 50 kWh/kg = $1/kg
That is also ignoring the capital costs of building the electrolyser, and hydrogen storage, and all the other infrastructure involved. That has to be added to the sales price. Current retail price of hydrogen fuel is $16 per Kg from the cheapest "grey hydrogen" source. Hydrogen from electrolysis is not cheaper, not without heavily subsidized electricity. and if they can get electricity for 2 cents a Kwh, so can other companies and hydrogen still can't compete with much cheaper electricity.
I like the video, but the title is misleading. They don’t really discuss how these companies are achieving Green Hydrogen. The tech on making Hydrogen is cool and improving, but none of the companies say how they are getting the electricity for their systems.
Natural Gas of course
While all Hydrogen Fuel Cell (HFC) vehicles have a (small) battery and electric drive chain, the problem with HFC's is the inability to store energy via regenerative braking. With an EV you can recoup most of your energy, and in trucks it makes air / exhaust brakes redundant (and effectively silent). The tiny buffer-battery that HFC drive chains use are overwhelmed pretty much instantly (similar to the Prius' regen).
That would depend on the size of the battery. A FCEV truck normally have a battery size similar to a PHEV truck, so capacity and power sink for regen braking is ample. E.g. Diamler GenH2 trucks has 70 kWh battery. A battery that size allow them to use smaller fuel cell and run that more efficient with stable power generation.
@@Foersom_ Agreed, but when we had our Prius the battery was generally kept at ~70% charge for when you could run on pure electric. The 30% was available for regen, and 30% of "tiny" is minuscule :) and didn't help much at all when traversing ranges. Ok for city start/stop but low value for out-of-town. HFC buffer batteries will always be small as the fuel-cell / mini-EV / ICE systems in the HFC vehicles already take up so much weight/volume.
@@Clark-Mills What does a Prius HEV passenger car have to do with FCEV truck? Nothing.
Your experience with the limitations of Prius HEV battery, has no relation to FCEV trucks, where the battery is 50x larger.
FCEV is possible solution for long haul trucking. Alternative we can use more trains that moves truck trailers for the long haul, and EV trucks that perform shorter hauls.
FCEV is also a solution for trains where no overhead catenary exist. FCEV may also be a solution for ships.
@@Foersom_ The Prius is mentioned as, similar to HFC, you have energy stored in the small battery for actual motive power. In a FFC vehicle you do not drive the motor directly from the fuel-cell, rather you "charge up" the battery from the fuel-cell and then use that energy to drive the wheels. In a HEV it's similar, the ICE charges the battery to a point leaving some headroom for regen. The limitation of regen is a real setback for HFC.
@@Clark-Mills The limitation of your HEV Prius has nothing to do with a FCEV truck that has a battery 50x the capacity of a Prius. So please stop that nonsense comparison.
"rather you "charge up" the battery from the fuel-cell and then use that energy to drive the wheels."
Actually, the fuel-cell power will go directly to the motor, only excess power from fuel-cell will charge the battery. This allow fuel-cell to run with stable power output which allow to use smaller fuel-cell and run it more efficient.
"The limitation of regen is a real setback for HFC."
Nonsense. With a 70 kWh battery as used by Diamler there is no practical regen limitation.
I got half way through and nothing new. Seems to be a 5-10 year old video with a click bait title.
1 MW -> 420 kg hydrogen? Per day? That would be 70-ish % efficiency.
With the help of "First Graphene" and their patents, it may be possible in the future to produce hydrogen, graphite and graphene from crude oil or natural gas. Current batteries are dirty, have a poor CO2 balance and recycling is difficult! Recently, a large amount of natural hydrogen was found in France. Hydrogen provides clean energy. Batteries are the cause of destructive mining!
The most important oil sands. Yeeapp baby canadian and Venezuelan Will appreciate that 🎉
😊😊😊❤❤❤ hydrogen is as useful as much as the world want it to be, hydrogen is great resource for our future.
Hydrogen will never be a good choice for consumer vehicles because of the huge costs involved with infrastructure and storage, and the related safety issues. And only a maybe for semi trucks & shipping.
How well does a fuel cell operate in subzero weather ?
Storing very intermittent renewable energy in massive batteries so that it can be available ( solar peak is midday but peak usage is between 6 to 8pm ) when needed is a massively expensive. This means the most efficient use for intermittent renewables is to make hydrogen, 'make hydrogen while the sun shines and the wind blows, because tomorrow may be cloudy and windless'...
Let me know when we have *so much* wind and solar that there are no immediate customers or batteries that need charging. Far better to put money into alternative energy stores than hydrogen which is insanely unviable in all metrics. Without big oil pushing this greenwashing, there would be no discussion. The physics and economics are entirely clear that hydrogen is a total dead end except out of very small niche industrial and rocket motor applications.
@@mb-3faze Every unreliable source of renewable wind and solar needs 100% backup from a reliable source, and only CCGT ( combined cycle gas turbines ) are quick enough to ramp up when renewables go AWOL at the whim of nature. Adding the cost of expensive storage to try to level out the vagaries of renewables makes them a very, very, very expensive option indeed. On a small scale renewables can save gas, but that is all they are 'fuel savers'. At the moment Britain sucks in a lot of French ( nuclear generated ) energy every day, nothing ever goes the other way from our 'fantastic renewables'. Solar is very peaky and in UK almost absent from October to March, the slightest cloud slashes the output. In winter we have long periods when high pressure sits over UK, they can go on for many weeks, and the bad news is that the high pressure means cleat skies and low temperatures, and in winter there is only meagre solar for a few hours per day. This is the opposite to the pipe dream of the renewables fanboys...
@@chrissmith2114 So how you going to make your green Hydrogen if the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow you want to put all CCGT and Biomass and what's left of coal to make Hydrogen when you could just put those into the grid Hydrogen fanboy.
Cost factor is very important To break down the cost will be highjy effective in green hydrogen
Mass Mobility!
Here is a suggestion - Install 200 (or whatever it takes) new nuclear plants in the US for the base.+ all green energy. Adjust and add so excess makes enough for hydrogen to create a new industry for cars, plans, trains and trucks. Done. Next problem. When fusion is actualized, add. Again, next problem.
Hydrogen will never happen for cars to any significant extent, and probably not for any ground transport
やはり最終的に残りそうなのは水素エネルギーなんでしょうね。
しかし今回のテーマにあるようにグリーン水素の製造にはまだまだコストが掛り、日本でも一般には広まっていない。
それに水素へ移行するには社会構造にも問題が有る。
TOYOTAも国内のレースではエンジンで水素を燃焼させているタイプを実験しているが、どうやら燃焼時にNoxのような不純物が発生するらしい。
だから市販車で投入しているミライは水素の燃料電池車なのですが、現在燃焼機関を製造している関連会社を延命させるために水素の燃焼型を実験しているように思う。
それにこの動画で知りましたがグリーン水素を作るには想像以上に電力が必要なんですね。（製造時に熱は発生しないのか？）
別の観点で将来的には原材料となる水も心配です。
雨が多い日本でも今年の異常気象（ジェット気流の変動）で雨の通る地域が変わり、複数のダムで渇水が進行しました。
地球が暑くなり、インドを筆頭にこれからエアコンが急増される事が予想されており、そうなると今後室外機から更に熱が発生するだろう。
子供や孫に少しでも安定した環境を残すにはもっと抜本的な省エネ対策が必要で、もう既にかなり追い詰められた状況だと思う。
10 million barrels a day, nope. Need nuclear now. Well yesterday. We are screwed.
Joe Swanson’s voice ‘Bring it on’
Wow, I wonder why they don't make/market storage tanks for H2 use in rooftops solar solar, competing with battery makers. Homes with solar arrays can make H2 and store it for later use instead of batteries, create competitive market for rooftops solar.
It will happen, sooner than you think.
Eirex Tech in Canada solves all the problems of dangerous and expensive hydrogen production.
Green hydrogen should have been powering our transportation since the fifties and all the technology to do so efficiently and safely has existed since then.
Wow. I'm amazed at all the negative comments. It appears the viewers are NOT impressed with hydrogen's attributes as a renewable energy solution.
Which will be first, cheap hydrogen, or fusion power?
I say... Half Life 3
The Tesla Semi can obtain over a 500-mile range with a full 81k pound weight. Be careful not to spread FUD.
Hydrogen trains have to be the most pointless green virtue-signalling ever. We've had electric trains for a hundred years. We have long-haul, regional, metro trains, underground city subways, above ground trams & trolleys, all of it running on electricity. We don't need to build yet another parallel infrastructure for trains. We have to improve and green our grids anyway. If we do that, the train systems we already have all get greener "for free" with no additional effort. Hydrogen trains are silly.
😂😂😂😂 10:15 Running train with Hydrogen is not a good idea. You are using Electricity & Water to generate Hydrogen, again using that Hydrogen to generate Electricity!! why that is needed??😂, why can't you use Electricity directly for trains? 😂😂😂 just make sure that Electricity got generated from green sources, like Solar or Wind or Nuclear. For Ships 🚢 or Trucks 🚚 this is fine but not for Trains. First 🚅🚋 make all trains across the world runs only on electricity + this solution for 🚚 and shipping🚢 , that itself will solve significant amount of worlds 🌎 climate issue. For airplanes ✈️ optimize this technology and For cars better continue with Li-ion or Sodium or Silicon based batteries 🔋... i feel with these in place we could solve significant amount of worlds 🌎 climate issue right away.
To produce 1kg of H2 you need 9 litres of clean water so their 1MW electrolyser for quoted the 420kg will require 3.780 tons of water. Where are we going to find all this clean water?😡
Cost comes with scale, we need pipelines!
Very interesting. Excuse my ignorance, but I was always curious if it was possible to power cars and trucks with what I believe is called atomic power? If atomic power can power large electric companies, submarines, etc., then why cannot they power a car? Obviously there would need to have safeguards put into place, but I would think atomic power could be fairly clean, people would not need to plug into a car to recharge every day, would not have to stop at a gas station to refill once a week, etc. Just am curious about this.
Too complex to do at that small scale. Better to just have a way to store the electrical energy needed for the vehicle.
A nuclear submarine has an entire power plant onboard. They are huge. A car or truck does not have that kind of space to safely do something like this.
It's too difficult to make it safe.
I feel like there's a lot of propaganda against hydrogen power, like it's a waste of time because it will never be efficient enough. Most of it is due to companies that produce electric vehicle and obviously don't like a shift in the market.
should be made into a giant generator for electricity
Green hydrogen for ammonia production is something i can see. Your basically turning water and air into a very in demand fuel
Yes, in Michael Liebreich's "Clean Hydrogen Ladder" fertilizer and chemical feedstocks like ammonia are near the top of "Unavoidable", unlike trucks, heating, hydrogen fuel cell cars which are all down at the "Uncompetitive" level. The problem is industrial users don't want to pay the higher cost of green hydrogen (and ammonia). Nor do truck operators, car buyers, home boiler owners, etc. and in all those cases using the renewable electricity in a battery or heat pump is more efficient and cheaper than any color of hydrogen.
@skierpage so with enough cheap renewable energy u can do almost anything
@@wilfredpeake9987 yes, Porsche can use renewable energy in Chile to split water for H2, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere to get carbon, and react it together to produce punishingly expensive synthetic renewable e-fuels that it can ship to Europe and North America so rich sports car owners can drive around a track making Vroom-vroom noises.
But in the real world where cost-effectiveness matters, this sort of "Hey, we're not violating any laws of physics" tomfoolery gets out-competed by saner approaches.
@skierpage you forgot how geopolitics affects that business case and in the past 2 years our ammonia and natural gas capacity has shrunk quite a bit
Ammonia is extremely nasty.
is it economical comparded to oil fuels ?
Well if you actually pay for the CO2 you put in the atmosphere oil fuels are not economical at all.
However hydrogen is not economical compared with electrification and other storage mediums.
having said that, we actually need a lot of hydrogen for the chemical industry. And it is still quite a while of, that this can be satisfied with green hydrogen.
The refinement to get green hydrogen loses too much energy and takes to much time to make and retain. I'd rather take modern nuclear. Green hydrogen needs a lot of innovation.