The economist forgot to point out that upcoming gen 4 nuclear reactors can produce alot of >600c heat as a waste product. That heat could be used for thermal splitting to create hydrogen instead of standard electrolysis. This method at scale could reduce the cost of hydrogen at less than 2 dollars per kg.
@@5353Jumper every type of energy production or transfer produces heat, yes, that is how the nuclear power plants work. The question is whether or not the "wasted heat" can be utilised. Big industry don't bother trying to do so, because it's cheaper not to.....and therein lies the rub
This video is slick propaganda. Please see this for accurate information about the deception. Go to blogger page planet earth needs you... All one word and find most recent post.
I appreciate the distinction between short-term decarbonization, which will come from green electricity, and long-term decarbonization, which will tackle industries that can't be decarbonized with green electricity alone. Hopefully the short term push for green electricity will be so successful that energy-negative processes, like producing hydrogen, will be worth it.
There is no short term decarbonization,there is simply more C02 dumbed into the air every day than the day before,we warned about this inv 1970 the world could have used nuclear industry, fossil fuel interests disguised as solar power people and leftest like Jane Fonda with Russian interests at hart ,made sure nuclear didn't spread,today the same people build coal and gas plants while talking solar . Nothing has been decarbonized anywhere.
@@paulbedichek2679 think it's more the association of nuclear power with weapons of war plus the very negative press for its issues Ukraine/Japan that killed most public want for nuclear power
@@sherqyanstromain9580 So people associate the Hydrogen in water to nuclear weapons? No people aren't that ignorant, fossil fuel interests pay for anti-nuclear propaganda they get what they pay for,less nuclear means more coal in Germany it means more Russian coal and Russian gas.
@@paulbedichek2679 well yeah thats correct just saying nuclear was always fighting the image of bombs and how badly it could go instead of relatively clean cheap energy
@@taimalik1110 True. Though at least we've made progress with fusion. We used hydrogen fuel cells on the moon and they still haven't found a market 50 years later.
I understand one of the big problems of Hydrogen is its embrittlement affect on metals and alloys which means that existing infrastructure cannot be used to store and transport the fuel. No mention of it in this video.
The tanks used in cars are carbon fibre to store compressed H2, but when we wanna look for large scale storage and transport of hydrogen, we can transport it using lOHC tech or ammonia where you don't need any special tanks
Even if Germany invested so much money on focusing on Hydrogen, it has still a shame for phasing out of nuclear power in favour of gas energy ( from the Russian Nord Stream, for which they invested far more money in order to become a refurbisher in Europe). Keeping nuclear would have made Germany a very nice green hydrogen productor.
That would be a real waste of money - and we (I live in Berlin) STILL haven't found a permanent storage site for our nuclear waste. I am very glad that the last of our nuclear power stations are closing this year... they were subsidised to start ... given mountains of money and huge legal freedoms to continue (minimal insurance liability) and were paid to close down. The only countries who are building new ones, are countries that have nuclear weapons programs and have invested "too much" in that industry in the past.
@@1968Christiaan tbh the amount of nuclear waste made isnt that bad most of it usually stored in the nuclear power plant itself since it doesnt take alot of space. Plus its not great to make it permanent since alot of it is still recyclable. I think 90 percent ish still can be converted back into fuel
Yes same for New Zealand, nuclear is very efficient and alot 'greener' in terms of chemical reaction. But of course the risks atm outweigh the benefits.
Waste of Alternative energy to make hydrogen? No, you should not treat hydrogen as a fuel, but an an energy STORAGE material offering a replacement for the battery and being better for upgrading things like aircraft to alternative energy since hydrogen is very lightweight compared to lithium.
Yeah exactly. There is going to be more and more times and places where we will have way to much renewable energy. Overclock on production (for cloudy relatively windless days) and plug it into making a bit of profit when you overproduce. Might be at 200% required power some days just because extra solar panels are so much cheaper than batteries.
@@pauleohl not necessarily. new lightweight, composite containers are being developed for this application. I've seen it with my own eyes. When the main problem with hydrogen becomes the weight of the container we will know we are very advanced.
Yep, and with the lack if infrastructure for vehicles, it will start with delivery/freight trucks. Then as refueling stations increase, itll gain popularity
There's a lot more sectors which need decarbonisation, like industry, aircraft, ships. If we start making hydrogen for these at large scale, costs may come down, and people might start preferring it over batteries too. Will be interesting to see what happens, but there's definitely place for both batteries and hydrogen in the future.
H2 won't work for aircraft for one reason only - storage. High pressure tanks or inuslated tanks are going to make any aircraft that uses it impractical . Not going to happen. the only way that is currently accesible to make a zero carbon long haul aircraft is with some sort of bio fuel.
@@anissbenthami no, that is not the case, in fact. You are probably thinking of cobalt, and the use of cobalt in batteries is waning. Oh, and by the way, cobalt is also used in large quantities in the production of petroleum products
"Current hydrogen production methods using natural gas do produce some greenhouse gases"... Understatement of the year. 90 percent of world hydrogen production is still made in this way and it produces almost as much CO2 as the entire aviation industry. The green methods mentioned here are simply untried or tested at the scale required for large scale rollout. To produce 1 tonne of hydrogen takes 45 mWh of electricity and 11000 litres of water. For fully green hydrogen production, to put what would be needed into perspective, to enable a full scale roll out by 2050, the UK would require SEVEN TIMES the total wind power it currently has. All doing nothing else but powering electrolysers
Excellent video, and has given me some food for thought. If only someone thought of storing excess wind, tidal, wave or any other alternative as hydrogen. I know the national grid in the UK would find something like that useful. Also it could negate the usage of natural gas power stations where the global supply is tenuous and at record high prices. My government has a department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. the politicians could save their political capital when the energy costs reach records and the country faces an energy crisis. IN the UK a large percentage of electricity production is renewable wind, with sights also set on tidal/wave. The UK already has the largest offshore wind in the North Sea. Where to store such energy as and when needed - hydrogen of course is more energy dense than any manmade battery. The man in the video is right(Vijay) ,with investment hydrogen applications certainly has a niche ;-)
The problem is hydrogen production needs a lot of energy.. And using green electricity to generate hydrogen is doubly inefficient. There may be better ways.
The value proposition for hydrogen-fueled cars seems shaky considering the increasing popularity of EVs and growing recharging infrastructure support. It may find a niche as an alternative to bunker fuel and jet fuel for ships and airplanes.
@@fireWireX4 Do you mean "power", or do you mean "energy"? They are not the same. Either way, H2 for passenger / light trucks is already DOA. Look at California and the Mirai and Clarity, how is that going? Not well! How many Nexo vehicles will be sold vs IONIQ, EV#, Kona, Niro Electrics? A: a tiny fraction! The H2 chain is inefficient vs EV because with EVs there is no energy conversion involved and EV batteries and electric motors are 80-90% efficient, vs 30% for ICE vehicles. This is why it's better to store renewable electricity in batteries, rather than use H2 for storage, though this is admittedly quite expensive and there may be some applications for H2 in industry, rail, and large semi-trailers for freight. p.s. I don't hold any TSLA shares, but I do credit the company for its success (the owner, not so much: money has addled what's left of his brain, or maybe heart).
I think it makes sense to make green hydrogen from excess energy created by renewables when energy production is greater than consumption throughout the day, rather than, in the case of wind turbines, just switching them off.
Because it's not very easy to deal with. As they said you be needing to keep a certain pressure on it and certain temperatures. Such tech is expensive to implement and again if it's about reducing co2 it needs to come from green energy. I would say Norway could be the first and only nation to succesfully try this out as a net zero energy form. But they are to busy earning money by selling oil
There are some imprecisions in the piece. Hydrogen is very energy dense but when the fuel cell is added, this energy density decreases. (I think there's a video by Real Engineering about this) Hydrogen is a battery and not a fuel - just like is mentioned early in the piece. It is an energy loss (some call it "a waste of green energy") but it has several advantages among them fast recharging (it's just like refueling) and the possibility to ship energy from resource abundant green energy producers to places that can't produce but need the energy. (btw, that's why Japan chose Hydrogen instead of Li-ion batteries). There are other problems, though: the first method of obtaining Hydrogen will put one atom of Carbon for every 4 Hydrogen atoms produced. There's something else we can do with Hydrogen: make Hydrogen atoms colide with each other at high speeds so they will form a Helium atom that weighs a tiny bit less than the two Hydrogen atoms. This tiny difference becomes energy by the famous equation everybody knows and very few understand: E=mc² where E is Energy (probably Joules), m is mass (probably Kilograms) and c is the speed of light (in meters/second, probably). E(J)=m(kg) x 90.000.000.000.000.000(m/s). Since there are 16 zeros after the 9, even a tiny amount of mass will produce a huge amount of energy and that's called Hydrogen Fusion. We might be about to turn the last corner and reach very long lasting source of clean energy (some people call virtually infinite but we should have learned not to use "infinite" carelessly): MIT has produced an alloy that enables the superconductive magnets needed for the plasma containment that allow for 10 times more current than the Niobium-Titanium currently used. That might make the ITER reactor go from a huge laboratory into the first commercial Hydrogen fusion power plant ever. A suggestion for you guys at The Economist: start to think how to make society run when energy becomes free and clean because with energy we can do anything - and everything. BTW, when that happens, everything will run on Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
This video was interesting. I wonder why it didn't look further at hydrogen as a form of energy storage. A principle benefit of fossil fuels is their dense energy storage. The video discussed how hydrogen gas can store large quantities of energy in small, high pressure containers, and the demand for such fuel in industrial applications. But it didn't consider how governments could continue to encourage utilities to buy private renewable power and help them store excess as hydrogen for industry. The story makes the case for this being a long-term goal, but it looks like the same people pushing communities to accept restarting old nuclear facilities (e.g. in Japan), instead of coal and oil, could instead push renewables and hydrogen and get the output control they want without the emissions. I gather, because the video did emphasize the price of replacing old infrastructure, that this is not yet an economic alternative where The Economist has looked. I wonder how far it is from being price competitive.
Hydrogen is a lot more difficult to store and transport than fossil fuels so the price will always be an issue. Makes sense there's no hydrogen market to create supply for.
Excellent journalism and this subject increases in relevance over time. I agree with Vijay, hydrogen is explosive, but so is petroleum! Also his professional role within this great publication is well chosen;-) My own investigative journalism is as follows: Currently UK has several experimental projects to create a viable hydrogen economy with renewable energy infrastructure to meet net zero. Germany is involved by investing and manufacturing wind turbines(Siemens) for the UK .Their energy company (Eon) is a player in the neoliberal British energy market. Indeed German and French energy companies have already built the world's largest offshore wind power in the North Sea and reliable nuclear plants by EDF are currently being constructed. UK has around 50+% renewable energy and this will increase still further, at least to mid 2030s as further wind farms in the planning and construction. This being alongside tidal/wave as experimental projects. UK has one of the longest coastlines and best geography for renewables in the world. Renewable energy to power to the whole of Europe could be possible. What's more the world's largest manufacturing site for electrolysers(green hydrogen) in the UK builds storage for renewable energy. Europe can wean itself from Russian petro dependence and any further conflagrations in Eastern Europe too! Lets create a hydrogen economy to store renewable energy/transportation and replace natural gas. European energy security and self reliance is possible. Wir shaffen das! ;-)
Surely part of the answer lies in the more efficient use of the currently wasted renewable energy capacity where the electricity generating source have to be turned off because there is no demand and there is insufficient batteries to store the electricity for the times that the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing. If that spare capacity was used to generate green hydrogen then it could be used in places where electricity is not available or not practical. EV cars make total sense, EV trucks, ships, trains, heavy plant and aircraft don't but they do with hydrogen.
The war between Hydrogen and EV is ended some time ago and the reason is simple. No one serious about Hydrogen. Don't let media tell you that Toyota is all in FCEV. If Toyota is real serious, they would already build an extensive network of Hydrogen refilling station all around the country. Toyota has massive amount of capital and technology on F-cell. They could easily do it but it was not their intention to transition out of fossil fuel
So how do you propose manufacturing, storing and transporting at a massive scale? It needs to be kept at 30 degrees below 0 otherwise it leaks out of its containers. The energy required to do that would be massive. The cost of building that kind of infrastructure, maintaining it and transporting it would make it prohibitively expensive and who’s going to build it? It’s already been shown to be unfeasible except in limited applications where it’s used where it’s manufactured as in steel production. In a lot of cases we’ll still have to use fossil fuel to make it.
As batteries get better and better likely automobiles, motorcycles, delivery and 500km truck routes will stay battery, but hydrogen makes sense for rockets, planes and long haul transport. I'm interested to see where that dividing line will be between batteries and hydrogen. Right now the cost issues with hydrogen are related to its movement of energy. Making it and using it is inefficient, while electricity in batteries is incredibly efficient. i doubt that hydrogen will ever be able to fill the gap between the efficiencies, but it may not matter for travel that needs much higher energy density.
No,batteries are not efficient,they take an incredible amount of pollution to build as the chemicals are all treated in China with the maximum use of coal,batteries don't last forming dendrites by calendar life as well as the number of discharges. And battery fires are common,the Tesla battery in Aus.
@@paulbedichek2679 you can't honestly believe that producing electricity to charge a battery to power a motor is less efficient anything else. The production of the electricity in the 1st place, to produce the battery and to charge it is the issue. And these battery fires and short life batteries? Where are you getting your figures? From the 1970's?
@@CamTracey Please,Tesla's Australian battery burst into flames as soon as it was turned on, last month,don't you get the internet? Batteries are extremely small in terms of energy they hold,since they are expensive and cause pollution when they are made,countries prefer to use natural gas instead. We can use batteries coupled with soalr,but it won't work as well with wind as you get energy from wind and then get a two week no wind periond while batteries last only four hours or less. Batteries today have less than a millionth of the power of the grid.
Putting wires costs a set number of lives per year as well as hundreds of millions in maintance costs,it all depends on the density,Railroads started in GB and they have lines that to this day are not electrified and they are using H2.
Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas or electrolysis. Electrolysis can use fresh or salt water. Salt water deposits salt on the electrodes however which necessitates more maintenance to clean them. Think about a salt water chlorinater in a pool - need to back flush it regularly. Now the statement that hydrogen is safer than gasoline is BS. Hydrogen is less energy dense than gasoline, is a sneaky little molecule and difficult to contain, it embrittles iron and it has to be stored at 10,000 psig to get any range. I’m not sitting on a 250 litre tank at 10k pressure 😳 Using electricity is a better solution for small transport.
@@mtscott I'm sure technology will progress with demand . I'll say H202 is the cleanest fuel (adds 02) and also the safest , cheapest and most convenient to anybody . Too bad our Congress people put it on the TERRORIST list . Probably terrifies Big Oil -even tho I'm sure they are not influenced by "campaign contributions " at all . You know it powered the world's fastest cars ?
Indeed, producing hydrogen in times of excessive renewable energy production for storage or for large industry.....but transport? Why use large amounts of electricity to produce hydrogen to compress, transport it, and put it in a vehicle for a single use....to produce electricity to drive an electric motor. This just baffles me. Use the same electricity to charge a car battery and save the middle man. It's just common sense (and mathematically irrefutable)!
Weight, range and refueling times ..... Batteries are very heavy, and it is virtually impossible at this time to make a lightweight electric vehicle go any amount of distance that is useful, and in shipping (trucks, trains, ships, planes) weight makes a huge difference, a compressed hydrogen tank is light weight and can give you more range than a battery. and it's quick to refuel, about the same as fueling a car now. I think the future will be BEVs for cities and suburbs, HFCs for shipping, industry and rural areas (once we have infrastructure in place)
@@SnowWolf9999 as for trains..... why not magnets and quantum locking? Reduces friction..... you just need to keep the components super cold....... another hurdle science could conquer given the interest....that is to say, funding. But the corporations have us squabbling over hydrogen vs battery. And the fossil fuel industry currently make money from extracting the hydrogen from gas....so, what's a boy to believe
Basically, if there was a way to get hydrogen in its unrefined form, we would have the fuel issue figured out. I understand why video games that take place in space (like Mass Effect) talk about hydrogen based fuel. They are basically pulling hydrogen from gas giants through various solar systems. In fact when you visit the Sol system (our solar system) in the game and stop on jupiter it talks about one of its moons being used as a base and they pull hydrogen directly from Jupiter's atmosphere. This isn't too far off from what would be a solution for us if we could find a way of transporting it on regular intervals from Jupiter to Earth. It seems like science fiction, but it isn't. This is a very real possiblity. If you think about it, it takes about 5 and a half years to get into Jupiter orbit. If we sent regular vessels there and back while having a way of extracting hydrogen, we could have a constant supply.
I think our main focus should be making industries more efficient and tackling the Kettle boil time on our grids. Hydrogen does have a place but I think steam reforming is the best option as natural gas is plentiful at present and methane can be made if needed.
As long as Bosch holds up to their promise of mass production and someone starts up a chain of Hyrodgen fuel stations along the major interstates across the country such as I-80, I-70, and I-40. This WILL happen! Also, don't forget investments in Residential fuel cells like what Panasonic does with their Ene-Farm systems. Otherwise it aint happenin!
I am also engaged in the assembly and development of hydrogen generators, I have developments with wave effects, the efficiency in my generators is higher than anywhere else
Once hydrogen is established as an energy source it can be used to create itself. Renewables can only work if the energy can be stored until needed requiring batteries which are toxic and lithium is in limited supply. Nuclear is also toxic. Hydrogen is the only viable long term alternative, every effort should be used to move in that direction including including the existing fossil fuel industry in the process, they are best equipped to do it and can use the incentive to be productive at it. Hope and pray for everyone to see the light and do the right things for everyone not just themselves. My opinion
If producing hydrogen is a net negative energy process, Wouldn't using hydrogen to power electrolysis be an even greater net negative process? If the energy value of the hydrogen produced is about 80% of the electricity used to split the water molecule, then instead of being 80% efficient, you're at .8*.8=64% efficient.
These two statements give a clear indication where the Economist stands today in terms of adopting new technology - @3:30 "The existing fossil fuel infrastructure worth billions has been in place for decades so it makes it difficult for governments to pushed aside to make way for radical new energy." "The Hindenburg did not explode because of Hydrogen, that's a misconception!"
The longer term profitability of this alternative as a option, is what makes this important short term to long term, it's a better long term investment and it adds to profit quality/sustainability.
i think we just can't ignore hydrogen technology because we are not only talking about production, but the adaptation of existing combustion engines to green energy, wich is a less expensive process then to go full electric. Fossil combustion engines can be adapted to hydrogen, and slowly the hybridization of hydrogen combustion with some kind of electrical systems (coils, it isn't that hard to figure out) should be the future. We just can't erase decades of mass production of technology based on combustion. Even the gas stations can be adapted to the storage of liquid hydrogen. Basically at the end of the day we would be releasing water in to the atmosphere.
Hydrogen can function as a battery to store the excess energy from renewables when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to then use when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. It could also serve as a battery for cars since the batteries we use now are unsustainable and leave an enormous amount of waste. This is, because the materials required for batteries are too scarce and can't be reused after the batteries die.
I rarely have seen two sentences with as many factual errors than your post. Batteries are sustainable (lithium for example is more abundant than lead) and fully recyclable (when they reach that stage in their lifecycle in 20-30 years from now - today it's only 95% efficient). What is unsustainable is hydrogen fuel cells because they need platinum and iridium (the latter being the most rare metal we have at our disposal) to achieve any kind of longevity (5 years tops). I don't know if you are just talking but just to be sure: You need to have your FCEV pressure tested (700 bar/10000 psi) every 6000 miles, have new air filters installed every 18000 miles (at $500 a pop without labour) and have a new membrane at $1500 a pop every 36000 miles. That's what I call unsustainable. And on your tank filler cap there is a use by date printed after which you have to install a complete new high pressure tank system and hoses that can withstand the 10000 psi pressure - so it's a fixed "this car now is unsellable junk" date.
Thanks for sharing a balanced view on hydrogen potential. I do agree there is a large niche in industry and heavy transport, but I struggle with some applications. Personal vehicles should be electric which have much lower costs per km. BEV’s have twice the system efficiency as FCEV’s and cheaper and more convenient for daily partial charging at home. Hydrogen safety also has issues in confined spaces. Will insurance companies even allow FCEV parking indoors without approved high point vent systems?
Oooooo.....amazing presentation! So well done I even understood it...:-)))))....finally!! AND love the presenter....very well spoken...not to slow and not too fast...and NO mumbling!...it is so important with this kind of presentations...THANK YOU....
It's an interesting video but it has two elements if not wrong, at least misleading. 1/ You say for example that the only real way to make green hydrogen is to use renewable energies. This is not true. For example, to respect the European taxonomy on low-carbon hydrogen, you "just" need to have enough decarbonized electricity to make electrolysis directly from the grid. Countries like France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland or Georgia can do it. In the case of Norway, France or Finland it is largely thanks to nuclear energy. Moreover, the Generation IV reactors and SMRs create prospects for electrolysis or thermolysis with higher yields. Besides, you are mixing fossil fuels and nuclear in an assertion that is not historically true. In short, you are unfairly ignoring this energy which has a crucial role to play in the decarbonization of electricity and hydrogen. 2/ You say that hydrogen will be used in a second phase. This is almost false. It is true for the case of transport because there are still many barriers (which you mentioned). But it is not true for industry. For example, ArcellorMital (the biggest steel producer) plans to decarbonize (thanks to Hydrogen) many of its factories within 3/4 year. And they are not alone. By 2030, the focus will be on industry, while the period 2030-2050 will see mobility develop strongly. In short, nice but many approxmations. Too bad for a newspaper of your rank.
So developed Nations like US, UK, France, Germany etc need toinvest in these technologies:- (1) Nuclear-Energy => PWRs & FBRs (2) Hydrogen-FCEVs (3) Green-Hydrogen For Automobiles, these technologies must be adopted:- (1) Battery-EVs => 2, 3 & 4-wheelers (2) Hydrogen-FCEVs => 6-wheelers & Above, Airplanes & Ships
4:55 what you conveniently miss out with your issues is that outfits such a EuroTunnel won't transport cars with fuel under pressure of some 700 Bar, they won't allow any vehicles under pressure including LPG. You likely won't be able to drive through mountain passes i.e tunnels with those pressures, and in some countries you can't even park a car with LPG gas (at only 50 Bar) in underground car parks.
In the first instance hydrogen needs to be produced effectively and efficiently. Adding 10% to natural gas is an easy win as it requires no modification to existing equipment and infrastructure. If H2 production is economic it should also be easy to fuel cars, buses and trucks with not too much infrastructure change. That said with the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030 electric will likely charge ahead... Personally I see hydrogen as being most effective in the home where a home owner may generate from a small wind turbine of say 500 watts and PV solar cells on the roof with excess energy being used to electrolyse water and store hydrogen produced on site. This could offer effective storage with a fuel cell producing heat and electricity for the home. Of course this is max 30% of energy usage associated with CO2 so solutions in industry and transport are needed. It's all down to primary generation. It needs to be low cost enough to be attractive and get adopted. The safety issues are a lesser problem.
Super Bad It is being used for transport, domestic boilers have been developed and fuel cells are relatively old technology so it is already "happening". I doubt it will be efficient or economic in the short to medium term. All said natural gas will eventually run out and in the U.K. we now have to import LNG and of course gas via pipe from Norway. Hydrocarbons are finite so alternate fuels will come in time.
Hydrogen can be used in large vehicles where batteries are not effective. Ships, large planes, semi trucks. - will not work with any battery technology that we currently have in development.
TheGuy both hydrogen and EV batteries have limitations and without breakthroughs providing save and economic energy density it is hard to see how large or long range ship/plane/truck can be successful. Of course the energy input in the first instance is not an insignificant issue. As an oilman I am only too well aware of the vast amounts of convenient, cheap and concentrated energy we have been fortunate to fuel the living standards we enjoy.
@@davidramsay6142 hydrogen is already being used in submarines with better results than batteries. How, even in theory, can you have jet engine with batteries? Hydrogen based ones are totally possible.
Tidal energy is one of many renewables that need to be deployed. Looking at hydrogen energy vs. petroleum/gasoline, one must objectively compare total cost & energy input vs. output for current and future. It is known that new technology will increase hydrogen efficiency at lower cost; and petroleum cost will eventually increase due to limited supply at the rate currently used.
It appears highly competitive zero pollution hydrogen can be generated from abandoned oil wells on land or off-shore applications. This is why the American Hydrogen Association should be excited about Proton Technologies, Inc located in Canada.
Hydrogen will never be competitive with fossil fuels. Hydrogen made the cheapest way (steam reformation of natural gas) costs about $10/gal gas equivalent.
Hydrogen is a total dead end because it’s hopelessly inefficient. Electrolysis is only 50% efficient. Even Toyota’s latest fuel cell in the Mirai appears to be less than 50% efficient. And the fuel cell is heavy (500 Lbs) and expensive.
According to the US Department of Energy Hydrogen Program, a vehicle that run using hydrogen fuel cells are around 40 to 60 per cent efficient, whereas vehicles with a combustion engine runs at around 20 per cent efficiency. Still we are using very inefficient ICE vehicles for ages.
Yep, no need for a fuel cell. Toyota and JCB already have engines that run off injected hydrogen. If you want to see a JCB hydrogen vehicle, look at Harry’s Garage for a video.
Burning hydrogen in a car engine is even less efficient compared to fuel cell. When hydrogen is burned it still pollute the air (although quite a bit less compared to petrol and diesel). Average efficiency of burning hydrogen in a car is 16 to 20 %, for fuel cell car is 25 to 30 %, for electric car is 80 to 90 %.
Hmmm, on a kg basis it has a high energy density but it is gaseous and so is in m3 where it has a very low energy density, thus making the carrying of sufficient for a truck both difficult to fit on it and costly. If you liquefy it you lose 36% of the energy doing so. I do wish people would research their facts better before peddling hopium around. Trying to distribute hydrogen as a gas is very difficult and costly. The Well to wheel efficiency of a HFC vehicle is less than 30% compared to a battery vehicle at 85% and a diesel ICE at 42%. As for emissions he fails to say that the heat is lost as well as the water and thus the heat adds to global warming….
@@aljudy01 And you know this how? Through a detailed explanation showing that I'm wrong or simply saying I am wrong. But as an a retired English teacher and attorney, his English is terrible. He is not a native speaker.
On a volume basis, compressed hydrogen is still more energy dense than lithium ion batteries. Approximately twice as dense. Liquid hydrogen is about four times as dense as lithium ion.
The doped canvas skin. The H2 gas is very buoyant,so escapes upward with no ill effect. Toyota fired a bullet into the Mirai tank with no ill effects while a Tesla will explode a 100% of the time a bullet hits the battery.
@John James While getting shot wouldn't be very common, driving over something and getting the under carriage hit would be quite common. That kind of damage has been the source of battery fires.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The economist forgot to point out that upcoming gen 4 nuclear reactors can produce alot of >600c heat as a waste product. That heat could be used for thermal splitting to create hydrogen instead of standard electrolysis. This method at scale could reduce the cost of hydrogen at less than 2 dollars per kg.
This would be cool!
Didn't know that was a thing, but for sure industry contains so much waste that could be so better utilised.
I really though the heat was used to drive the turbines and create the electricity...not waste heat.
@@5353Jumper all the heat isn't utilised there is some waste heat which can be used for other processes.
@@5353Jumper every type of energy production or transfer produces heat, yes, that is how the nuclear power plants work. The question is whether or not the "wasted heat" can be utilised. Big industry don't bother trying to do so, because it's cheaper not to.....and therein lies the rub
You can’t start a hydrogen video without saying “hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe”
😂 Yeah they all do that.
Yes but it only exists as an ash! And it takes more energy to release it then it puts out burning! And sorry we can't change the laws of physics!
Joseph, where is the issue if this information is true? Back to basic!
As if they don't understand what a pointless statement that is.
This video is slick propaganda. Please see this for accurate information about the deception. Go to blogger page planet earth needs you... All one word and find most recent post.
I can see that this professor really get a passion in hydrogen energy field! That's a pure and intrinsic enthousiasm to hydrogen energies.
Hydrogen energy comes from completely brain dead thinking. Thinking?
I appreciate the distinction between short-term decarbonization, which will come from green electricity, and long-term decarbonization, which will tackle industries that can't be decarbonized with green electricity alone. Hopefully the short term push for green electricity will be so successful that energy-negative processes, like producing hydrogen, will be worth it.
There is no short term decarbonization,there is simply more C02 dumbed into the air every day than the day before,we warned about this inv 1970 the world could have used nuclear industry, fossil fuel interests disguised as solar power people and leftest like Jane Fonda with Russian interests at hart ,made sure nuclear didn't spread,today the same people build coal and gas plants while talking solar . Nothing has been decarbonized anywhere.
@@paulbedichek2679 think it's more the association of nuclear power with weapons of war plus the very negative press for its issues Ukraine/Japan that killed most public want for nuclear power
@@sherqyanstromain9580 So people associate the Hydrogen in water to nuclear weapons? No people aren't that ignorant, fossil fuel interests pay for anti-nuclear propaganda they get what they pay for,less nuclear means more coal in Germany it means more Russian coal and Russian gas.
@@paulbedichek2679 well yeah thats correct just saying nuclear was always fighting the image of bombs and how badly it could go instead of relatively clean cheap energy
Jared,
there is a large problem, 'green electricity' doesn't work and cannot be succesful. Hydrogen is even worse.
been the fuel of the future for 30 years lol
More like 70 years.
As Fusion has been..
40 to my knowledge 8-)
so has nuclear fusion been the energy of the future...just 20 years away!
@@taimalik1110 True. Though at least we've made progress with fusion. We used hydrogen fuel cells on the moon and they still haven't found a market 50 years later.
it takes 12kg of water to produce 1kg of H₂, so it’s not just a matter of sustainable input energy. there’s a lot of water required too.
I understand one of the big problems of Hydrogen is its embrittlement affect on metals and alloys which means that existing infrastructure cannot be used to store and transport the fuel. No mention of it in this video.
The tanks used in cars are carbon fibre to store compressed H2, but when we wanna look for large scale storage and transport of hydrogen, we can transport it using lOHC tech or ammonia where you don't need any special tanks
@@mraduldhakar8406 great answer
Even if Germany invested so much money on focusing on Hydrogen, it has still a shame for phasing out of nuclear power in favour of gas energy ( from the Russian Nord Stream, for which they invested far more money in order to become a refurbisher in Europe). Keeping nuclear would have made Germany a very nice green hydrogen productor.
Completely agree, the stigma around nuclear is really overblown and the fact that countries are phasing it _out_ is honestly quite sad.
That would be a real waste of money - and we (I live in Berlin) STILL haven't found a permanent storage site for our nuclear waste. I am very glad that the last of our nuclear power stations are closing this year... they were subsidised to start ... given mountains of money and huge legal freedoms to continue (minimal insurance liability) and were paid to close down. The only countries who are building new ones, are countries that have nuclear weapons programs and have invested "too much" in that industry in the past.
@@1968Christiaan tbh the amount of nuclear waste made isnt that bad most of it usually stored in the nuclear power plant itself since it doesnt take alot of space. Plus its not great to make it permanent since alot of it is still recyclable. I think 90 percent ish still can be converted back into fuel
Yes same for New Zealand, nuclear is very efficient and alot 'greener' in terms of chemical reaction. But of course the risks atm outweigh the benefits.
@@telmenfing8310 sorry, but I have to ask what do you mean by risk and how those risk are outweighing the benefits
Waste of Alternative energy to make hydrogen? No, you should not treat hydrogen as a fuel, but an an energy STORAGE material offering a replacement for the battery and being better for upgrading things like aircraft to alternative energy since hydrogen is very lightweight compared to lithium.
Yeah exactly. There is going to be more and more times and places where we will have way to much renewable energy. Overclock on production (for cloudy relatively windless days) and plug it into making a bit of profit when you overproduce. Might be at 200% required power some days just because extra solar panels are so much cheaper than batteries.
Hydrogen loses its light weight claim when you add in the weight of the container that contains it.
@@pauleohl not necessarily. new lightweight, composite containers are being developed for this application. I've seen it with my own eyes. When the main problem with hydrogen becomes the weight of the container we will know we are very advanced.
Yep, and with the lack if infrastructure for vehicles, it will start with delivery/freight trucks. Then as refueling stations increase, itll gain popularity
@@pauleohl Most of the new containers being used for cars, trucks, trains etc.. are made from carbon fiber, they are very light weight
There's a lot more sectors which need decarbonisation, like industry, aircraft, ships. If we start making hydrogen for these at large scale, costs may come down, and people might start preferring it over batteries too. Will be interesting to see what happens, but there's definitely place for both batteries and hydrogen in the future.
NO BATTERIES.... would you want them buried in YOUR backyard...big waste of time and money...to poison the earth.
@@tracesmith4966 Batteries are not to be buried but recycled, instead....
H2 won't work for aircraft for one reason only - storage. High pressure tanks or inuslated tanks are going to make any aircraft that uses it impractical . Not going to happen. the only way that is currently accesible to make a zero carbon long haul aircraft is with some sort of bio fuel.
Lithium batteries, which are used in all EVs and most consumer electronics, use Lithium which is a scarce resource found in very few fields
@@anissbenthami no, that is not the case, in fact. You are probably thinking of cobalt, and the use of cobalt in batteries is waning. Oh, and by the way, cobalt is also used in large quantities in the production of petroleum products
"Current hydrogen production methods using natural gas do produce some greenhouse gases"...
Understatement of the year.
90 percent of world hydrogen production is still made in this way and it produces almost as much CO2 as the entire aviation industry.
The green methods mentioned here are simply untried or tested at the scale required for large scale rollout.
To produce 1 tonne of hydrogen takes 45 mWh of electricity and 11000 litres of water.
For fully green hydrogen production, to put what would be needed into perspective, to enable a full scale roll out by 2050, the UK would require SEVEN TIMES the total wind power it currently has. All doing nothing else but powering electrolysers
Excellent video, and has given me some food for thought. If only someone thought of storing excess wind, tidal, wave or any other alternative as hydrogen. I know the national grid in the UK would find something like that useful. Also it could negate the usage of natural gas power stations where the global supply is tenuous and at record high prices. My government has a department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. the politicians could save their political capital when the energy costs reach records and the country faces an energy crisis. IN the UK a large percentage of electricity production is renewable wind, with sights also set on tidal/wave. The UK already has the largest offshore wind in the North Sea. Where to store such energy as and when needed - hydrogen of course is more energy dense than any manmade battery. The man in the video is right(Vijay) ,with investment hydrogen applications certainly has a niche ;-)
The problem is hydrogen production needs a lot of energy.. And using green electricity to generate hydrogen is doubly inefficient. There may be better ways.
@@mrgyani But using the excess energy of solar and wind is better than letting it go to waste. Even this use case is becoming enticing.
The value proposition for hydrogen-fueled cars seems shaky considering the increasing popularity of EVs and growing recharging infrastructure support. It may find a niche as an alternative to bunker fuel and jet fuel for ships and airplanes.
And also for the heavy and chemical industry there isn’t a other option.
If fusion wouldn’t be another 30 years to come up..
Hydrogen is an option for transport trucks and trains, but BEVs seem to be the future of passenger cars.
Why do they seem "shaky" how many TSLA shares do u own? Or EVs? The power to weight ratio is very high with hydrogen powered vehicles
@@fireWireX4 Do you mean "power", or do you mean "energy"? They are not the same. Either way, H2 for passenger / light trucks is already DOA. Look at California and the Mirai and Clarity, how is that going? Not well! How many Nexo vehicles will be sold vs IONIQ, EV#, Kona, Niro Electrics? A: a tiny fraction! The H2 chain is inefficient vs EV because with EVs there is no energy conversion involved and EV batteries and electric motors are 80-90% efficient, vs 30% for ICE vehicles. This is why it's better to store renewable electricity in batteries, rather than use H2 for storage, though this is admittedly quite expensive and there may be some applications for H2 in industry, rail, and large semi-trailers for freight. p.s. I don't hold any TSLA shares, but I do credit the company for its success (the owner, not so much: money has addled what's left of his brain, or maybe heart).
I think it makes sense to make green hydrogen from excess energy created by renewables when energy production is greater than consumption throughout the day, rather than, in the case of wind turbines, just switching them off.
This 'lets improve Cars' makes me think "Uhm, no? I saw Adam Somethings video on Banning Cars."
The video editing skills...... I just love it. Thank you Economist for making such great content.
NASA were using hydrogen in space in the 1960’s and today we’re still reliant on fossil fuels in 2021….crazy!!
Cuz its expensive don't you know
it is what this video talking about....it's expensive !!!! we put more energy to produce hydrogen than hydrogen gives it back.
Because it's not very easy to deal with.
As they said you be needing to keep a certain pressure on it and certain temperatures.
Such tech is expensive to implement and again if it's about reducing co2 it needs to come from green energy.
I would say Norway could be the first and only nation to succesfully try this out as a net zero energy form.
But they are to busy earning money by selling oil
There are some imprecisions in the piece. Hydrogen is very energy dense but when the fuel cell is added, this energy density decreases. (I think there's a video by Real Engineering about this)
Hydrogen is a battery and not a fuel - just like is mentioned early in the piece. It is an energy loss (some call it "a waste of green energy") but it has several advantages among them fast recharging (it's just like refueling) and the possibility to ship energy from resource abundant green energy producers to places that can't produce but need the energy. (btw, that's why Japan chose Hydrogen instead of Li-ion batteries). There are other problems, though: the first method of obtaining Hydrogen will put one atom of Carbon for every 4 Hydrogen atoms produced.
There's something else we can do with Hydrogen: make Hydrogen atoms colide with each other at high speeds so they will form a Helium atom that weighs a tiny bit less than the two Hydrogen atoms. This tiny difference becomes energy by the famous equation everybody knows and very few understand: E=mc² where E is Energy (probably Joules), m is mass (probably Kilograms) and c is the speed of light (in meters/second, probably). E(J)=m(kg) x 90.000.000.000.000.000(m/s). Since there are 16 zeros after the 9, even a tiny amount of mass will produce a huge amount of energy and that's called Hydrogen Fusion. We might be about to turn the last corner and reach very long lasting source of clean energy (some people call virtually infinite but we should have learned not to use "infinite" carelessly): MIT has produced an alloy that enables the superconductive magnets needed for the plasma containment that allow for 10 times more current than the Niobium-Titanium currently used. That might make the ITER reactor go from a huge laboratory into the first commercial Hydrogen fusion power plant ever.
A suggestion for you guys at The Economist: start to think how to make society run when energy becomes free and clean because with energy we can do anything - and everything. BTW, when that happens, everything will run on Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
the new honda steering wheel looks sick
Transporting and storing hydrogen is far more costly than any other fuel source.
"It's present in *almost* all living things." This is not quite right since, as far as we know, *all* life depends on water.
He means that almost all organic compounds contain hydrogen which in turn makes all life
@@abhinavdahiya3492 Hmm well just to be clear, hydrogen is indeed present in all [known] life.
Are you saying that water, (H2O) does not contain hydrogen?
@@djayjp so you've just done a U turn on your first comment and agreed with the video 😂😂
Umm what. What is in quotations is what the narrator said. I'm correcting him. Please read what I wrote thx.
Very informative and well explanationed.
This video was interesting. I wonder why it didn't look further at hydrogen as a form of energy storage. A principle benefit of fossil fuels is their dense energy storage. The video discussed how hydrogen gas can store large quantities of energy in small, high pressure containers, and the demand for such fuel in industrial applications. But it didn't consider how governments could continue to encourage utilities to buy private renewable power and help them store excess as hydrogen for industry. The story makes the case for this being a long-term goal, but it looks like the same people pushing communities to accept restarting old nuclear facilities (e.g. in Japan), instead of coal and oil, could instead push renewables and hydrogen and get the output control they want without the emissions. I gather, because the video did emphasize the price of replacing old infrastructure, that this is not yet an economic alternative where The Economist has looked. I wonder how far it is from being price competitive.
Toyota is trying really hard, looks like Japanese will come up with something interesting sooner or later apart from Toyota Mirai.
Imagine life 2000 years from now 😱
Hydrogen is a lot more difficult to store and transport than fossil fuels so the price will always be an issue. Makes sense there's no hydrogen market to create supply for.
"Hydrogen is entirely renewable and completely green! But you will need coal fired powerplants, or some other form of energy to produce it."
Excellent journalism and this subject increases in relevance over time. I agree with Vijay, hydrogen is explosive, but so is petroleum! Also his professional role within this great publication is well chosen;-) My own investigative journalism is as follows: Currently UK has several experimental projects to create a viable hydrogen economy with renewable energy infrastructure to meet net zero. Germany is involved by investing and manufacturing wind turbines(Siemens) for the UK .Their energy company (Eon) is a player in the neoliberal British energy market. Indeed German and French energy companies have already built the world's largest offshore wind power in the North Sea and reliable nuclear plants by EDF are currently being constructed. UK has around 50+% renewable energy and this will increase still further, at least to mid 2030s as further wind farms in the planning and construction. This being alongside tidal/wave as experimental projects. UK has one of the longest coastlines and best geography for renewables in the world. Renewable energy to power to the whole of Europe could be possible. What's more the world's largest manufacturing site for electrolysers(green hydrogen) in the UK builds storage for renewable energy. Europe can wean itself from Russian petro dependence and any further conflagrations in Eastern Europe too! Lets create a hydrogen economy to store renewable energy/transportation and replace natural gas. European energy security and self reliance is possible. Wir shaffen das! ;-)
Bottom line: Hydrogen for cars: No. Hydrogen for heavy vehicles and heavy industry: Yes. Renewable Energy Sources: Definitly!
Hydrogen is for cars
My master's thesis on steam reforming for hydrogen production. yay
Should we not quote the current price of H2 in USD/MJ to ease comparison ?
What? And make it obvious that its ridiculously expensive? 😂
I appreciate that transition at the start, had to rewatch that
Surely part of the answer lies in the more efficient use of the currently wasted renewable energy capacity where the electricity generating source have to be turned off because there is no demand and there is insufficient batteries to store the electricity for the times that the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing.
If that spare capacity was used to generate green hydrogen then it could be used in places where electricity is not available or not practical.
EV cars make total sense, EV trucks, ships, trains, heavy plant and aircraft don't but they do with hydrogen.
The war between Hydrogen and EV is ended some time ago and the reason is simple. No one serious about Hydrogen. Don't let media tell you that Toyota is all in FCEV. If Toyota is real serious, they would already build an extensive network of Hydrogen refilling station all around the country. Toyota has massive amount of capital and technology on F-cell. They could easily do it but it was not their intention to transition out of fossil fuel
The world needs a truly clean hydrogen energy carrier.
What is the music played at the beginning of first part of the video, it’s beautiful .
So how do you propose manufacturing, storing and transporting at a massive scale?
It needs to be kept at 30 degrees below 0 otherwise it leaks out of its containers. The energy required to do that would be massive.
The cost of building that kind of infrastructure, maintaining it and transporting it would make it prohibitively expensive and who’s going to build it?
It’s already been shown to be unfeasible except in limited applications where it’s used where it’s manufactured as in steel production.
In a lot of cases we’ll still have to use fossil fuel to make it.
A methane pyrolysis plant in Nebraska is producing zero-carbon H₂ using 15% of the input energy required by electrolysis.
Does it have a name, or location?
As batteries get better and better likely automobiles, motorcycles, delivery and 500km truck routes will stay battery, but hydrogen makes sense for rockets, planes and long haul transport. I'm interested to see where that dividing line will be between batteries and hydrogen. Right now the cost issues with hydrogen are related to its movement of energy. Making it and using it is inefficient, while electricity in batteries is incredibly efficient. i doubt that hydrogen will ever be able to fill the gap between the efficiencies, but it may not matter for travel that needs much higher energy density.
No,batteries are not efficient,they take an incredible amount of pollution to build as the chemicals are all treated in China with the maximum use of coal,batteries don't last forming dendrites by calendar life as well as the number of discharges. And battery fires are common,the Tesla battery in Aus.
@@paulbedichek2679 you can't honestly believe that producing electricity to charge a battery to power a motor is less efficient anything else. The production of the electricity in the 1st place, to produce the battery and to charge it is the issue. And these battery fires and short life batteries? Where are you getting your figures? From the 1970's?
@@CamTracey Please,Tesla's Australian battery burst into flames as soon as it was turned on, last month,don't you get the internet? Batteries are extremely small in terms of energy they hold,since they are expensive and cause pollution when they are made,countries prefer to use natural gas instead. We can use batteries coupled with soalr,but it won't work as well with wind as you get energy from wind and then get a two week no wind periond while batteries last only four hours or less.
Batteries today have less than a millionth of the power of the grid.
The batteries get better and better? In which planet, of which solar system?
Technology is moving quickly and the new system recently launched by Chiyoda called SPERA is a sure change in the direction of the H2 economy
It’s the closest to our current infrastructure, easy transportable and can be stored.
Really great overview
Very succinct presentation. Thank you
Amazing explanation thank you!
I literally wanted that💯
Great report...thank you for sharing.
great intro into the topic. thank you!
BEVs are more convenient. They charge while you sleep. They're also much cheaper to run.
H has its place, but that place is not in personal vehicles.
Well that depends on where you live. Not everyone has access to a garage or a parking lot with chargers.
I just imagined all our cars spewing out tons of water while driving around 🤣
Very well in cold climates where it then turns to ice on the roads.
Best putting the electricity straight into the battery. Most efficient use. FACT.
Why use hydrogen for trains? Wouldn't it be much easier and more efficient to just put an electric wire over the tracks?
Putting wires costs a set number of lives per year as well as hundreds of millions in maintance costs,it all depends on the density,Railroads started in GB and they have lines that to this day are not electrified and they are using H2.
If tracks too long the cost will be too much expensive specially in order to maintain it
Yes, and anyone who begs to differ hasn't got a clue about electricity and probably even less about hydrogen
Curso muito interessante e oportuno!
In order to produce green hydrogen we need a massive growth in renewable energy sources like Solar and Wind power..
Or just less solar and wind power and use batteries instead.
Does the process start from sea water to fresh water then hydrogen gas ? Is salt the by-product ?
It's an electrolyte - reduces power requirements
No one is producing hydrogen from water, its a waste of time, money, and energy. Electrolysis is pointless
Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas or electrolysis. Electrolysis can use fresh or salt water. Salt water deposits salt on the electrodes however which necessitates more maintenance to clean them. Think about a salt water chlorinater in a pool - need to back flush it regularly.
Now the statement that hydrogen is safer than gasoline is BS. Hydrogen is less energy dense than gasoline, is a sneaky little molecule and difficult to contain, it embrittles iron and it has to be stored at 10,000 psig to get any range. I’m not sitting on a 250 litre tank at 10k pressure 😳
Using electricity is a better solution for small transport.
@@mtscott I'm sure technology will progress with demand .
I'll say H202 is the cleanest fuel (adds 02) and also the safest , cheapest and most convenient to anybody .
Too bad our Congress people put it on the TERRORIST list . Probably terrifies Big Oil -even tho I'm sure they are not influenced by "campaign contributions " at all .
You know it powered the world's fastest cars ?
@@mtscott all the H202 you can buy in the U.S. is made from an "organic" process (oil) (HC's) combined with O2 from air
Indeed, producing hydrogen in times of excessive renewable energy production for storage or for large industry.....but transport? Why use large amounts of electricity to produce hydrogen to compress, transport it, and put it in a vehicle for a single use....to produce electricity to drive an electric motor. This just baffles me. Use the same electricity to charge a car battery and save the middle man. It's just common sense (and mathematically irrefutable)!
Look up heliogen. It makes sense when it's a complete system overhaul.
Weight, range and refueling times ..... Batteries are very heavy, and it is virtually impossible at this time to make a lightweight electric vehicle go any amount of distance that is useful, and in shipping (trucks, trains, ships, planes) weight makes a huge difference, a compressed hydrogen tank is light weight and can give you more range than a battery. and it's quick to refuel, about the same as fueling a car now. I think the future will be BEVs for cities and suburbs, HFCs for shipping, industry and rural areas (once we have infrastructure in place)
@@SnowWolf9999 as for trains..... why not magnets and quantum locking? Reduces friction..... you just need to keep the components super cold....... another hurdle science could conquer given the interest....that is to say, funding. But the corporations have us squabbling over hydrogen vs battery. And the fossil fuel industry currently make money from extracting the hydrogen from gas....so, what's a boy to believe
@@nateb4543 I remember seeing this a while back. I hope they get this off the ground. The more stuff like this the better.
Thank you for the clear explanation for a technology to efficiently produce and efficiently utilize hydrogen…
Basically, if there was a way to get hydrogen in its unrefined form, we would have the fuel issue figured out. I understand why video games that take place in space (like Mass Effect) talk about hydrogen based fuel. They are basically pulling hydrogen from gas giants through various solar systems. In fact when you visit the Sol system (our solar system) in the game and stop on jupiter it talks about one of its moons being used as a base and they pull hydrogen directly from Jupiter's atmosphere. This isn't too far off from what would be a solution for us if we could find a way of transporting it on regular intervals from Jupiter to Earth. It seems like science fiction, but it isn't. This is a very real possiblity. If you think about it, it takes about 5 and a half years to get into Jupiter orbit. If we sent regular vessels there and back while having a way of extracting hydrogen, we could have a constant supply.
I think our main focus should be making industries more efficient and tackling the Kettle boil time on our grids. Hydrogen does have a place but I think steam reforming is the best option as natural gas is plentiful at present and methane can be made if needed.
As long as Bosch holds up to their promise of mass production and someone starts up a chain of Hyrodgen fuel stations along the major interstates across the country such as I-80, I-70, and I-40. This WILL happen! Also, don't forget investments in Residential fuel cells like what Panasonic does with their Ene-Farm systems. Otherwise it aint happenin!
Why isn’t no one talking about hydrogen engines??
@@mellopelas2857 because fuel cells are cleaner and better
I am also engaged in the assembly and development of hydrogen generators, I have developments with wave effects, the efficiency in my generators is higher than anywhere else
Compared with other energy, it is less mature.
Not true, both electrolysis and fuel cells are over 100 years old.
@@fredbloggs5902 that's age not maturity though
I want to know which countries are the market leaders in the hydrogen industry. Any statistics you can provide?
Once hydrogen is established as an energy source it can be used to create itself. Renewables can only work if the energy can be stored until needed requiring batteries which are toxic and lithium is in limited supply. Nuclear is also toxic. Hydrogen is the only viable long term alternative, every effort should be used to move in that direction including including the existing fossil fuel industry in the process, they are best equipped to do it and can use the incentive to be productive at it. Hope and pray for everyone to see the light and do the right things for everyone not just themselves. My opinion
If producing hydrogen is a net negative energy process, Wouldn't using hydrogen to power electrolysis be an even greater net negative process? If the energy value of the hydrogen produced is about 80% of the electricity used to split the water molecule, then instead of being 80% efficient, you're at .8*.8=64% efficient.
Hydrkgen Economy coming~~🎉
Nice video.
Thanks for information.
Thank you for sharing
These two statements give a clear indication where the Economist stands today in terms of adopting new technology - @3:30 "The existing fossil fuel infrastructure worth billions has been in place for decades so it makes it difficult for governments to pushed aside to make way for radical new energy."
"The Hindenburg did not explode because of Hydrogen, that's a misconception!"
Very informative and straight to the point
The longer term profitability of this alternative as a option, is what makes this important short term to long term, it's a better long term investment and it adds to profit quality/sustainability.
i think we just can't ignore hydrogen technology because we are not only talking about production, but the adaptation of existing combustion engines to green energy, wich is a less expensive process then to go full electric. Fossil combustion engines can be adapted to hydrogen, and slowly the hybridization of hydrogen combustion with some kind of electrical systems (coils, it isn't that hard to figure out) should be the future. We just can't erase decades of mass production of technology based on combustion. Even the gas stations can be adapted to the storage of liquid hydrogen. Basically at the end of the day we would be releasing water in to the atmosphere.
@@zillibran watch the film chain reaction.
Fantastic video. Thankyou
Thanks a lot for this video.
Content is very weak even for a ordinary publisher's article.
I heard someone came up with this idea like 50 years ago but people in power silenced him and his work. Anyone else?
I'm in . 💪🏻
Thank you for the video. I have believed in Hydrogen since 1974 and now I am about to purchase a Toyota Mirai to complete the adventure.
Hydrogen can function as a battery to store the excess energy from renewables when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to then use when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
It could also serve as a battery for cars since the batteries we use now are unsustainable and leave an enormous amount of waste.
This is, because the materials required for batteries are too scarce and can't be reused after the batteries die.
I rarely have seen two sentences with as many factual errors than your post. Batteries are sustainable (lithium for example is more abundant than lead) and fully recyclable (when they reach that stage in their lifecycle in 20-30 years from now - today it's only 95% efficient). What is unsustainable is hydrogen fuel cells because they need platinum and iridium (the latter being the most rare metal we have at our disposal) to achieve any kind of longevity (5 years tops). I don't know if you are just talking but just to be sure: You need to have your FCEV pressure tested (700 bar/10000 psi) every 6000 miles, have new air filters installed every 18000 miles (at $500 a pop without labour) and have a new membrane at $1500 a pop every 36000 miles. That's what I call unsustainable. And on your tank filler cap there is a use by date printed after which you have to install a complete new high pressure tank system and hoses that can withstand the 10000 psi pressure - so it's a fixed "this car now is unsellable junk" date.
Thanks for sharing a balanced view on hydrogen potential. I do agree there is a large niche in industry and heavy transport, but I struggle with some applications. Personal vehicles should be electric which have much lower costs per km. BEV’s have twice the system efficiency as FCEV’s and cheaper and more convenient for daily partial charging at home. Hydrogen safety also has issues in confined spaces. Will insurance companies even allow FCEV parking indoors without approved high point vent systems?
Why not hydrogen hybrid 😎 for small distance, electric, long distance, hydrogen. ~Maybe I’m a genius~
You helped me thx
Oooooo.....amazing presentation! So well done I even understood it...:-)))))....finally!! AND love the presenter....very well spoken...not to slow and not too fast...and NO mumbling!...it is so important with this kind of presentations...THANK YOU....
It's an interesting video but it has two elements if not wrong, at least misleading.
1/ You say for example that the only real way to make green hydrogen is to use renewable energies. This is not true. For example, to respect the European taxonomy on low-carbon hydrogen, you "just" need to have enough decarbonized electricity to make electrolysis directly from the grid. Countries like France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland or Georgia can do it. In the case of Norway, France or Finland it is largely thanks to nuclear energy. Moreover, the Generation IV reactors and SMRs create prospects for electrolysis or thermolysis with higher yields. Besides, you are mixing fossil fuels and nuclear in an assertion that is not historically true. In short, you are unfairly ignoring this energy which has a crucial role to play in the decarbonization of electricity and hydrogen.
2/ You say that hydrogen will be used in a second phase. This is almost false. It is true for the case of transport because there are still many barriers (which you mentioned). But it is not true for industry. For example, ArcellorMital (the biggest steel producer) plans to decarbonize (thanks to Hydrogen) many of its factories within 3/4 year. And they are not alone. By 2030, the focus will be on industry, while the period 2030-2050 will see mobility develop strongly.
In short, nice but many approxmations. Too bad for a newspaper of your rank.
So developed Nations like US, UK, France, Germany etc need toinvest in these technologies:-
(1) Nuclear-Energy => PWRs & FBRs
(2) Hydrogen-FCEVs
(3) Green-Hydrogen
For Automobiles, these technologies must be adopted:-
(1) Battery-EVs => 2, 3 & 4-wheelers
(2) Hydrogen-FCEVs => 6-wheelers & Above, Airplanes & Ships
Go hydrogen!!
Excellent animation and editing
Me gusta su edición... pero debería tener la posibilidad de traducción al español. Gracias 😉 🇦🇷.
4:55 what you conveniently miss out with your issues is that outfits such a EuroTunnel won't transport cars with fuel under pressure of some 700 Bar, they won't allow any vehicles under pressure including LPG. You likely won't be able to drive through mountain passes i.e tunnels with those pressures, and in some countries you can't even park a car with LPG gas (at only 50 Bar) in underground car parks.
Hydrogen for steel manufacturing. Batteries for transport.
Finally something explained well. Thank you!
Water coming out of everyone's tailpipes could potentially curb drought, or one day be the leading cause of flooding. 🥶
In the first instance hydrogen needs to be produced effectively and efficiently. Adding 10% to natural gas is an easy win as it requires no modification to existing equipment and infrastructure. If H2 production is economic it should also be easy to fuel cars, buses and trucks with not too much infrastructure change. That said with the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030 electric will likely charge ahead...
Personally I see hydrogen as being most effective in the home where a home owner may generate from a small wind turbine of say 500 watts and PV solar cells on the roof with excess energy being used to electrolyse water and store hydrogen produced on site. This could offer effective storage with a fuel cell producing heat and electricity for the home. Of course this is max 30% of energy usage associated with CO2 so solutions in industry and transport are needed. It's all down to primary generation. It needs to be low cost enough to be attractive and get adopted. The safety issues are a lesser problem.
Super Bad It is being used for transport, domestic boilers have been developed and fuel cells are relatively old technology so it is already "happening". I doubt it will be efficient or economic in the short to medium term. All said natural gas will eventually run out and in the U.K. we now have to import LNG and of course gas via pipe from Norway. Hydrocarbons are finite so alternate fuels will come in time.
Hydrogen can be used in large vehicles where batteries are not effective. Ships, large planes, semi trucks. - will not work with any battery technology that we currently have in development.
TheGuy both hydrogen and EV batteries have limitations and without breakthroughs providing save and economic energy density it is hard to see how large or long range ship/plane/truck can be successful. Of course the energy input in the first instance is not an insignificant issue. As an oilman I am only too well aware of the vast amounts of convenient, cheap and concentrated energy we have been fortunate to fuel the living standards we enjoy.
@@davidramsay6142 hydrogen is already being used in submarines with better results than batteries.
How, even in theory, can you have jet engine with batteries? Hydrogen based ones are totally possible.
Hydrogen is to dangerous in cars it can explode with right o2 amount isn't?
What about prices?
Wonderful~ great~~^^🎉
Tidal energy is one of many renewables that need to be deployed. Looking at hydrogen energy vs. petroleum/gasoline, one must objectively compare total cost & energy input vs. output for current and future. It is known that new technology will increase hydrogen efficiency at lower cost; and petroleum cost will eventually increase due to limited supply at the rate currently used.
It appears highly competitive zero pollution hydrogen can be generated from abandoned oil wells on land or off-shore applications. This is why the American Hydrogen Association should be excited about Proton Technologies, Inc located in Canada.
Hydrogen will never be competitive with fossil fuels. Hydrogen made the cheapest way (steam reformation of natural gas) costs about $10/gal gas equivalent.
Hydrogen is a total dead end because it’s hopelessly inefficient.
Electrolysis is only 50% efficient.
Even Toyota’s latest fuel cell in the Mirai appears to be less than 50% efficient.
And the fuel cell is heavy (500 Lbs) and expensive.
According to the US Department of Energy Hydrogen Program, a vehicle that run using hydrogen fuel cells are around 40 to 60 per cent efficient, whereas vehicles with a combustion engine runs at around 20 per cent efficiency. Still we are using very inefficient ICE vehicles for ages.
A petrol heads future, we can carry on with loud cars with hydrogen. And all green. 😎
Yep, no need for a fuel cell. Toyota and JCB already have engines that run off injected hydrogen. If you want to see a JCB hydrogen vehicle, look at Harry’s Garage for a video.
Burning hydrogen in a car engine is even less efficient compared to fuel cell. When hydrogen is burned it still pollute the air (although quite a bit less compared to petrol and diesel). Average efficiency of burning hydrogen in a car is 16 to 20 %, for fuel cell car is 25 to 30 %, for electric car is 80 to 90 %.
Shipping and aircraft fuel sure, otherwise no.
@Super Bad Quantum tunnel? Lol
Kindly make something on ocean energy.
Hmmm, on a kg basis it has a high energy density but it is gaseous and so is in m3 where it has a very low energy density, thus making the carrying of sufficient for a truck both difficult to fit on it and costly. If you liquefy it you lose 36% of the energy doing so. I do wish people would research their facts better before peddling hopium around. Trying to distribute hydrogen as a gas is very difficult and costly. The Well to wheel efficiency of a HFC vehicle is less than 30% compared to a battery vehicle at 85% and a diesel ICE at 42%. As for emissions he fails to say that the heat is lost as well as the water and thus the heat adds to global warming….
What???? First, your English is terribe. So second, you sound like you are making this up and don't know what you are talking about.
@@rabbit251 you are wrong. He is right.
@@aljudy01 And you know this how? Through a detailed explanation showing that I'm wrong or simply saying I am wrong. But as an a retired English teacher and attorney, his English is terrible. He is not a native speaker.
On a volume basis, compressed hydrogen is still more energy dense than lithium ion batteries. Approximately twice as dense. Liquid hydrogen is about four times as dense as lithium ion.
Wait.. hydrogen DIDN'T cause the Hindenberg to explode? Then what caused it?
I ask because this is what was taught to us in school.
The doped canvas skin. The H2 gas is very buoyant,so escapes upward with no ill effect. Toyota fired a bullet into the Mirai tank with no ill effects while a Tesla will explode a 100% of the time a bullet hits the battery.
It was the paint
@@paulbedichek2679 @Lucas Atilano , do you have any resources that talk about the cause of the disaster? I'm interested in learning more about it.
@John James It is a standard test.
@John James While getting shot wouldn't be very common, driving over something and getting the under carriage hit would be quite common. That kind of damage has been the source of battery fires.
I just want independence from our one and only electric company. I don't want them to dictate the price and the availability of my car's fuel
Hydrogen is not a primery fuel, it is just a enegy carrier like battery, need to conver from other primery fuels, so hydrogen is a future fuel.