The problem with electricity is, and has always been the storage. On a normal grid, at every moment, the same amount of power has to go in as goes out. So if you have big solar farms, wind turbines etc, the necessary corrections are difficult to make. Storage via hydrogen is one possibility. So the thought is not "Hydrogen -> less co2" but "regenerative electricity being valid because you can store it"
I didn't suggest some massive, planetary-scale problem. Water has greater thermal capacity than carbon dioxide. The whole point of the rainforest comparison (as opposed to, say, a nuclear weapon) was to consider the effect on major metropolitan areas, where concept of being a heat island is already deadly with just carbon dioxide; imagine the same energy consumption, but with water vapor rather than carbon dioxide.
Brady, this would make another great project to revisit as it progresses through it's stages, like the wind-power storage project you have covered earlier. I'd love to hear a bit more on the results once they have been peer reviewed, and any progression in the reasearch at that point since this video :)
It's electronic storage that doesn't need a lot of change to our infrastructure. Hydrogen would require huge amounts of either pipes or transport vehicles. The electrical grid is already there and more efficient. Saying that many technologies need to be created could go for both the hydrogen and electron economy. We could focus on better ways to store electrons as well. :)
He kind of addresses this issue when he mentions using unreliable renewable energy sources to produce the hydrogen. For instance the big problem with wind power is that it can produce lots of electricity one day and none the next. If you used it to produce hydrogen then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. So long as you could store it efficiently that is.
two things on that: There is still a lot of research going on on that topic, so maybe we'll see easier, more efficient ways of producing it in the future and Even if you use carbon energy, as far as I know you can make oil or gas power plants more efficient than car motors, mainly due to size. So while it's certainly far from ideal, the net-effect would be better than using oil in cars.
Certainly hydrogen is power intensive to make but the benefit is that it can be made centrally and potentially from renewable sources. Imagine, for example, that we can get carbon capture and storage working. Even a coal fired power station making hydrogen for cars is then better than a car burning petrol from a climate change point of view.
Hydrogen is sure an interesting option for _storing_ energy, but it's not really an option for _producing_ energy. There are no free sources of (molecular) hydrogen around us (Sun is a bit too far away) and you always need to spend more energy to create hydrogen than how much energy you get back by "burning" it. Therefore there's no chance it will replace fossil fuels. If we want to discuss replacing fossil fuels, then sun (in whatever form) and nuclear are the only options available.
Would hydrogen be a solution to all the energy problems? Deuterium is also hydrogen; so, somewhere around DEMO it could be. One not about the hydrogen economy, if we could move to a major switch to it, what are the effects of so much water vapor. If you doubt that's a point of interest, take a look at a rainforests and their self-generated water cycles. And then there's leakage and H2 reacting with atmosphere and nearby components.
Perhaps we could toe our own personal zeppelin behind our cars. Might make it a wee bit difficult to negotiate an underpass or a lovely tree0lines country lane. On a more serious note. Would replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen materially effect the atmosphere? We need to remember that the Environmental Impact Statement for rubbing two sticks together got through the review process. chees
Why would the use of H2 reduce CO2 emissions? You're just moving the emission from the car to a hydrogen factory. Even though a factory might be more efficient you'd still have to spend energy moving it around, compressing it and converting it from hydrogen to electrical energy and then to kinetic energy. This loses a lot of energy. I don't see it being revolutionary at all. Why not focus on electronic energy, something that is easy to transport and more ready to convert to kinetic energy?
If you could take the hydrogen generator and make it small enough to fit on a ship (boat), than you could provide any ship with unlimited range, as the fuel is made on-board. I bet that the military would be very interested in this and also it would be a great way to develop this technology to consumer level. This would take off a lot of pollution from the atmosphere. PS: If you like this idea, pass it on!
I'm not saying CC&S is a good idea, I think it's a terrible idea. At best it's just making the problem something our children or grandchildren have to deal with. If I was king of the world I'd be pumping money into nuclear research like there was no tomorrow. The world has good reserves of fissile material and with appropriate technology it looks like it can produce waste that is almost harmless. I'd also heavily back fusion research but that is, quite literally, a boil the ocean solution.
Finally, while I'm in my top douchebaggery-mode, this idea of engineers being conservative sounds odd...when you've read quite a bit of the grant proposals out there. Perhaps conservative, in this context, means American Conservatism, you know, the kind where you might say something bizarrely unscientific, like, "If you believe in Climate Change."
All of the people you interview are so well spoken, does that come from editing out the stumbling and "uhms/errs"?
The problem with electricity is, and has always been the storage. On a normal grid, at every moment, the same amount of power has to go in as goes out. So if you have big solar farms, wind turbines etc, the necessary corrections are difficult to make. Storage via hydrogen is one possibility.
So the thought is not "Hydrogen -> less co2" but "regenerative electricity being valid because you can store it"
you can use unstored energy from wind or solar power into making hydrogen from for example electrolysis (not poluting).
I didn't suggest some massive, planetary-scale problem. Water has greater thermal capacity than carbon dioxide. The whole point of the rainforest comparison (as opposed to, say, a nuclear weapon) was to consider the effect on major metropolitan areas, where concept of being a heat island is already deadly with just carbon dioxide; imagine the same energy consumption, but with water vapor rather than carbon dioxide.
Brady, this would make another great project to revisit as it progresses through it's stages, like the wind-power storage project you have covered earlier. I'd love to hear a bit more on the results once they have been peer reviewed, and any progression in the reasearch at that point since this video :)
It's electronic storage that doesn't need a lot of change to our infrastructure. Hydrogen would require huge amounts of either pipes or transport vehicles. The electrical grid is already there and more efficient. Saying that many technologies need to be created could go for both the hydrogen and electron economy. We could focus on better ways to store electrons as well. :)
More videos!!!!!!!!
He kind of addresses this issue when he mentions using unreliable renewable energy sources to produce the hydrogen. For instance the big problem with wind power is that it can produce lots of electricity one day and none the next. If you used it to produce hydrogen then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. So long as you could store it efficiently that is.
The audio sounds great Brady.
two things on that: There is still a lot of research going on on that topic, so maybe we'll see easier, more efficient ways of producing it in the future and
Even if you use carbon energy, as far as I know you can make oil or gas power plants more efficient than car motors, mainly due to size. So while it's certainly far from ideal, the net-effect would be better than using oil in cars.
He has covered why he adds the timestamp in a previous video, its not going anywhere.
That was the wind-power storage project i was refering to ;)
All of that refinement already happens for petroleum, to cut out the emissions on the roads would be a big leap
once you put in the hydrogen molecules in the sponge how do you extract them
Certainly hydrogen is power intensive to make but the benefit is that it can be made centrally and potentially from renewable sources. Imagine, for example, that we can get carbon capture and storage working. Even a coal fired power station making hydrogen for cars is then better than a car burning petrol from a climate change point of view.
What a bag of hot hydrogen.
Do you know whether it is only hydrogen that acts this way, within the "sponges"?
Where do you get these notions from? There are huge losses in moving electricity around.
Hydrogen is sure an interesting option for _storing_ energy, but it's not really an option for _producing_ energy. There are no free sources of (molecular) hydrogen around us (Sun is a bit too far away) and you always need to spend more energy to create hydrogen than how much energy you get back by "burning" it. Therefore there's no chance it will replace fossil fuels. If we want to discuss replacing fossil fuels, then sun (in whatever form) and nuclear are the only options available.
Hydrogen is certainly the fuel of the future, and always will be.
This man reminds me of a Sontaran from Doctor Who.
Once you've noticed that he doesn't have any eyebrows, it's going to bug you for the whole video.
Okay, go into detail. What's innaccurate?
Would hydrogen be a solution to all the energy problems? Deuterium is also hydrogen; so, somewhere around DEMO it could be.
One not about the hydrogen economy, if we could move to a major switch to it, what are the effects of so much water vapor. If you doubt that's a point of interest, take a look at a rainforests and their self-generated water cycles. And then there's leakage and H2 reacting with atmosphere and nearby components.
OMIGODBRADY ZOOM OUT. It feels like his boogers might teleport through my screen.
thanks for the extra footage
Perhaps we could toe our own personal zeppelin behind our cars. Might make it a wee bit difficult to negotiate an underpass or a lovely tree0lines country lane.
On a more serious note. Would replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen materially effect the atmosphere? We need to remember that the Environmental Impact Statement for rubbing two sticks together got through the review process.
chees
I work with a guy that looks exactly like this guy. I mean identical except the guy I know is like 25 yrs old lol
Why would the use of H2 reduce CO2 emissions? You're just moving the emission from the car to a hydrogen factory. Even though a factory might be more efficient you'd still have to spend energy moving it around, compressing it and converting it from hydrogen to electrical energy and then to kinetic energy. This loses a lot of energy. I don't see it being revolutionary at all. Why not focus on electronic energy, something that is easy to transport and more ready to convert to kinetic energy?
plz remove that annoying time thing next time :\
Is this channel dead?
He danced around the question and did not answer. He spat out a bunch of fairytale stuff that don't make sense.
If you could take the hydrogen generator and make it small enough to fit on a ship (boat), than you could provide any ship with unlimited range, as the fuel is made on-board. I bet that the military would be very interested in this and also it would be a great way to develop this technology to consumer level. This would take off a lot of pollution from the atmosphere.
PS: If you like this idea, pass it on!
I'm not saying CC&S is a good idea, I think it's a terrible idea. At best it's just making the problem something our children or grandchildren have to deal with. If I was king of the world I'd be pumping money into nuclear research like there was no tomorrow. The world has good reserves of fissile material and with appropriate technology it looks like it can produce waste that is almost harmless. I'd also heavily back fusion research but that is, quite literally, a boil the ocean solution.
Finally, while I'm in my top douchebaggery-mode, this idea of engineers being conservative sounds odd...when you've read quite a bit of the grant proposals out there. Perhaps conservative, in this context, means American Conservatism, you know, the kind where you might say something bizarrely unscientific, like, "If you believe in Climate Change."
Your understanding of the topics involved here is deeply scientifically inaccurate.