🌎 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➡️ NordVPN.com/sabine It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
Make your new knowledge stick and take the quiz for this video: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
Replacing fossil fuel with hydrogen seems like an ideal solution to make transportation environmentally friendly and to provide a backup for intermittent energy sources like solar and wind. But how environmentally friendly is hydrogen really? And how sustainable is it, given that hydrogen fuel cells rely on supply of rare metals like platinum and iridium? In this video, we have collected all the relevant numbers for you.
The full "Under Pressure" performance is here: • Queen - Under pressure...
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ / sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video jordibusque.com/
00:00 Intro
00:49 Hydrogen Basics
03:39 The Hydrogen Market
06:04 The Colours Of Hydrogen
12:11 Water Supply
13:34 The Cold Start Problem
14:05 Rare Metal Shortages
15:55 Hydrogen Embrittlement
16:45 Summary
18:16 Protect Your Privacy with NordVPN
#science #technology #climate
This video comes with a quiz to help make the knowledge stick. Try it out here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1694265286826x891751541890124500
I'm OK for brainwashing but thanks.
To what brainwashing are you referring?
@logmeindangit I don't trust this woman based on the so called climate scientist guy she recommends . He's just an propaganda activist therefore she is not trusted for me .
The US DoE has set a target for 2026: 76% system efficiency for high temperature electrolysis. Ultimately, we would like to use advanced nuclear to output at 700-1000 C, using a closed Brayton power conversion cycle at around 50% efficiency, dry cooling to minimize water consumption (increases flexibility of plant location), and for the nuclear island to cost less than $1/watt. While fuel cells today operate at around 50% efficiency, it appears that 70% is possible. Ultra-low PGM and PGM-free membranes are still under heavy development, but could be a game changer along with solid state H2 storage, greatly expanding the H2 use case in the transportation sector. Solid state storage can also greatly reduce the pressure required. Liquefaction energy costs may also be cut in roughly half with an advanced process. Power delivery with H2 will soon get a major boost with the H70HF protocol, which has been tested with an average fill rate of around 13 kg-H2/min (about 16MW @ 52% efficiency & H2 HHV). Truck stops in the US can dispense energy at around 300 MW, so fast fills lower the footprint and ensure a high utilization of infrastructure. The potential of the H2 economy has been widely underestimated somewhat due the assumption that all energy production in the future will be from a material-intensive continent-spanning renewable-centric grid. This vision is likely fatally flawed due to the limits of mining, economics, environmental footprint, and diminishing returns. Climate mitigation is a race against time, and to rapidly scale up sustainable power, we are going to have to innovate like crazy to optimize our use of materials (due to power density, a nuclear-based system should use around 10x less). If we decouple sustainable energy production from the grid, we should be able to accelerate growth and meet our cost reduction targets. Very low cost power will be crucial to maximizing the rate of decarbonization, including the enabling of carbon capture on a massive scale.
Hold on a moment, hydrogen power cars would be a little bit heavier? A hatchback sized EV now weighs more than a 1969 Dodge Charger....
I spent two years working as an engineer in the hydrogen fuel cell industry. Going in I was so excited to be part of what I thought was going to be the future, but the reality of it set in pretty quickly. Been back in nuclear ever since.
Indeed, hydrogen is only 60% less "nuclear" than putting nuclear powered steam engines in cars >.< While there is no fallout the explosion in case of a disaster is absolutely devastating. Trying to hint that you would need a containment around the fuel tank equal to 60% of what a conventional nuclear reactor has to scale. In similarity, a hydrogen tank exploding in the street is as devastating as that ammonia tank "exploding" devastating miles around it decades ago. (to scale).
NP is the gold standard of clean energy. It’s as clean and safe as any alternative, & it does it with a fraction of the resources. NP really is the premier example of the phenomenon of ‘dematerialization’ in which we actually use less to produce more.
@@dodiewallace41 pity it's so extremely expensive
@@torgrimhanssen5100 in good old times they would just put engine on a cart with no protection at all. Modern men are weak!
Amen! I was right there form the beginning. Hydrogen as a carrier is a distracting niche at best. Let's not waste any more time to ponder what the ideal mix would be for the future; Use Hydro, Solar and wind where possible but ALWAYS and everywhere have a grid backbone of Nuclear energy to balance windfall moments. As for nuclear; we should now step over to the extremely safe Thorium LFTR reactor models. Unlike fusion, it is proven technology (we had a molten salt reactor up and running in Oakland Tennessee in the 60s!), has close to no waste and the little waste it still produces had a half-time of about 300 years. It is literally a no brainer, even though I realize that may still be a high bar for most politicians and NGO's....
Nice presentation. I worked for Air Products & Chemicals as a hydrogen plant operator back when we were producing all of the liquid hydrogen for the space shuttle program. We also filled hydrogen tube trailers for shipping gaseous hydrogen to food processing and semiconductor manufacturers that were filled to 5000psi. What you didn’t get into is the safety hazards of hydrogen fueled cars. Leaks are a real problem if you aren’t very careful and dealing with that makes things expensive. If you do get a leak, and you likely will because those tiny little buggers are very good at escaping, having your car in your garage can easily turn your garage into a bomb that is attached to your house. A little bit of static electricity is all it takes to ignite hydrogen. I’ve helped put out several hydrogen fires and let me tell you, they are not easy to extinguish unless you have large quantities of steam, nitrogen, and dry chemical fire extinguishers at your house.
MY BB GUN TAKES 325 BAR 4235 PSI, BRAND NEW HUNTING RIFLE.
Yes, odd she didn't even mention the Hindenburg
What could go wrong with a colorless, odorless explosive gas leak?
You can't really put out hydrogen fire with any of those chemicals. Hydrogen will burn until there is no more. The thing is since hydrogen is such a small bugger it's density is very low and it's buoyancy is very high thus if you have a small ventilation at the top of your garage it would be sufficient for it to not get concentrated enough to make an explosive concentration. This makes hydrogen relatively safe when compared to LPG types of gasses which are denser than air.
@@asdassdgfdf7509 we put them out all the time in the plant. Most of the time it was small leaks on valve packings and we used steam hoses to cut off the oxygen with steam. Whenever a vent stack would light off we had nitrogen piped into the stack that we opened up to put those out. And the toughest one was a 14’ diameter flange that was in a really tight place to reach and we used a team of 6-8 guys with steam hoses to push the flame back into a corner where we couldn’t reach any further from below then a guy from the next floor up could finish it off with a big 500# wheeled unit dry chemical fire extinguisher shooting it down through the steel grating.
Love that you included the full lifecycle of environmental impact. Powering our world is not a fad.
Coming to this a bit late, but one of the problems identified here in the UK - where it has been generally assumed that hydrogen can simply replace the domestic supply of natural gas - is that it leaks out of the pipes. Not only does this mean that much hydrogen is lost, but potentially pockets of the highly explosive gas can accumulate under our roads and pavements...
Coming to this even later - I find the green energy space has been infected a bit by the start up approach to business culture that pervades today - specifically that obvious problems like those you have raised will have a handwavy “we’ll find a solution if we just keep investing and believing enough” response.
Shout out to your co-host Mercury for explaining the pressure requirements
yeah, it was cool the first time, ok the second time... but using him so many times is cringe...
It was comedically successful
@@wisequigon Like Freddie, this joke never got old.
That makes it even funnier
Brian the Astrophysicist was unable to make comment.
a good vid on Hydrogen. As an engineer working in Power and compression in the Oil & Gas industry in Houston, I can add one more insight. Methane is easily transportable in pipleine. Easy still means you easily need a hundred Megawatts in a modern, large pipeline. The molewight of Mathane is 16+, most pipeliens have a methane mix slightly higher thn this. Hydrogen's moleweight is about 2. A factor of at least eight which increases the head and the power requirement by the same factor, everything else being the same this is linear. So now if we complete the back of the envelope calculation we need nearly a Gigawatt of energy instead of a 100 MW, increasing CO2(e) emissions significantly, so Hydrogen is effectively not transportable with any environmental effectiveness.
Reducing dependence on hydrocarbons requires an equally effective substitute, and that's not easy. We hear a lot about the negative impacts of oil and gas without recognizing the benefits. At this point, the only effective scalable substitute available is nuclear power.
@Dodie Wallace Thats a lie. There are a lot of sources of energy around besides nuclear. Fossil fuels are a source of energy, but if you add energy to a system, especially if that causes the sun to also add more energy, then that system is going to get hot. Talking about benefits when your species is headed for extinction is dumb. A few azolla species climate changed themselves off the face of the planet, its naive to think it cant happen to us.
@@dodiewallace41 true
Yes point well made 8-) methane has thr advantage of being useable with existing infrastructure, thus saving a huge amount of capital and offsetting conversion efficiency
@@wktodd but Methan leakage is even today a big contributing factor to GHG emissions already. Which is why we want to get away from it.
Thank you for your busy research work and a scientific view on the topic. Also your quiz is pure fun 😊
An additional issue regarding green hydrogen is that of efficiency. According to all sources I've seen, the electricity to H2 conversion, to transportation of H2, to fuel cell/electricity output yields about one third of the electricity used for electrolysis in the first place. This suggests that it would be more efficient to use battery-electric vehicles (BEV) in place of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), which is why BEVs are much more widely used these days. One exception applies in situations where it is impractical or cost ineffective to implement an electrical connection between a wind turbine and an electric grid. This is done is Scotland where some turbines are located on islands where the economies of scale don't justify installing a cable connecting the turbine to the grid. All in all, it seems to me that hydrogen has been massively overhyped, especially when many of our media platforms and much of the public is under the misimpression that hydrogen is an energy source.
A gas cylinder costs a lot less than a battery!
@@niklar55 Maybe so, but we would also need a lot more of them. The gas cylinder will wear out relatively quickly because of hydrogen embrittlement while lithium ion batteries that haven't been routinely overcharged or undercharged are almost like new at ten years old.
@@calamityjean1525 Agreed. maybe once cylinders are more widely used, ways to protect them from embrittlement will be found, or alternative materials.
@@niklar55 We can hope so, but don't hold your breath.
@@calamityjean1525 I would imagine that the best way to utilise H cylinders would be to change the whole cylinder, as is the practice with gas forktrucks, and similar. Then it will be the gas vendors responsibility to use non-destructive testing to be sure they are safe to reuse. .
I work as an engineer in a synchrotron, and various experimental gases are delivered. Hydrogen is one of them. A major issue with handling hydrogen is how broad a concentration it is explosive in. Interestingly it has a negative Joule-Thompson effect at room temperature ie actually heats when expanding into lower pressure. EDIT: Some comments correctly pointing out that negative JT won't push hydrogen to autoignition point. Edited to address this oversight (I deal with a lot of gases and got mixed up). The point is still broadly correct of H2 being a uniquely difficult gas from engineering compliance point of view.
Yep, not like LN2 at all. One spark (static electrical) and BOOM!
Yep. The first time I believed that hydrogen has big problems was when Kelly Johnson attempted to design a hydrogen-fueled aircraft and wound up pulling the plug on the project because the idea "just has no go". His propulsion chief that wound up taking over Skunk Works when Kelly retired concurred that it was just had too many inherent problems.
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy does anyone know how those American military killer drones are powered? I've a suspicion they might use a type of solid bound hydrogen, which was presented at the hannover fair around 10 years ago by a UK research institute, who have gone rather quiet soon after except an interview about their technology use for drones.. kzhead.info/sun/qN2Lp7ysqp2Kkn0/bejne.html kzhead.info/sun/o5qwodt5fomuY30/bejne.html
The autoignition point is far above the little trough in the JT koeff. This smells like BS.
@@stianyttervik9070 Depends what the pressure in the tank was. Considering he's saying it's a large scale business, these are likely industrial tanks of 10,000psi.
One important factor that has been overlooked in this video is the appalling efficiency of the "green hydrogen" production, transport and use cycle. According to the sources I've seen, total efficiency is more like 20% to 30% in the real world: - Electricity to hydrogen: yield 50% to 75% (= around 50% to 25% losses) - Compression, storage, transport, etc: yield around 80% (= around 20% losses - can be much more in some on sources or depending on the routes taken) - Hydrogen to electricity (fuel cell): yield 50% (= around 50% losses) ==> total efficiency: around 20% to 30% (= (50% to 75%) * 80% * 50%) This means that one needs 3 to 5 wind turbines to produce the "green hydrogen" needed for the equivalent of 1 wind turbine of final electricity... and this at an outrageous production cost! This also means that Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are a much better solution than Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Indeed, the equivalent electricity yield for BEVs is around 85% to 90%: - Electricity transport and distribution: yield around 90% (10% losses) - Lithium battery storage and release: yield around 90% to 95% (10% to 5% losses) So BEVs are about 3 to 4 times more efficient than FCEVs. Also, they are inherently far less expensive. And the whole electricity to electricity cycle is several tens of times less expensive for BEVs than for FCEVs! So why on earth hasn't this "green hydrogen" idea been dropped a long time ago? To me, the reason is simple: greens love it, and their ideology has taken over the western world...
Much of what you write is true. I was nodding my head often while reading your comment. However, the last paragraph quickly made me stop. That's populist bullshit.
@@Marcus_pePunkt if Amazon likes Plug Power, I’m in.
Amazing work as always! I would like a follow up including the LOHC, current development of the technology, pros and cons etc. Thanks in advance!
You've made a lot of good points, Sabine. Unfortunately, I haven't really learned anything new since I work for a glass company and we've done trials which attempt to burn hydrogen in our furnaces instead of LNG. Indeed, the UK government has put together funding for such projects, which enabled us to do the hydrogen trial, so that hydrogen is not just for cars but also used in the so-called 'foundation industries' like concrete, steel and in our case, glass. Glass furnaces run 24/7 for around 10-15years, constantly burning gas. There are usually around 6-8 gas ports in a furnace and the hydrogen trial only used one of ports while the others continued with gas. Even then, the trial could only be run for a few hours at a time since there was not enough hydrogen (we used largely grey hydrogen; blue is rare and green almost non-existent) i.e. we speak of hydrogen in the context of cars, but in the context of the most carbon-intensive industries, where we arguably need to decarbonise the most, there is simply not enough hydrogen, let alone green hydrogen. This is partly because of the energy difference with gas you mentioned, hence more hydrogen is needed, and also the fact that such 'foundation industries' are some of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and hence require the most fuel. Nuclear power is looking more and more like the only way forward, in combination with renewable energy.
Thanks for the insight. Given production of green hydrogen is a very young business, one can't really expect such hydrogen being abundantly available. Still your experiments are well done, because it confirms one can replace fossil gas without your industry collapsing. What I always miss in reports like this one of Sabine, is a projection into the future. Solar and wind are currently one of the most steeply growing industries, with growth rates like 30%/year. Given this, it isn't hard to imagine that there will be a whole lot of surplus electricity on windy and sunny days in a couple of years, and that's where green hydrogen will come from.
Yup, nuclear. Clean, safe, always on, renewable.
@@traumflug It's not just a matter of quantity of green electricity, it's also the infrastructure for hydrogen. How do you store it? Where is it being made? How do you transport it? The UK government has invested in something called HyNet which will attempt to do exactly what I've pointed out. However, this will only be based in north west England and it is for blue hydrogen, not green. Even then it looks like the hydrogen could only be a supplement to current fuel sources, rather than a replacement. We should aim for green hydrogen, but if we don't have a realistic view of hydrogen we will likely keep giving benefits to fossil fuel companies, as pointed out in Sabine's video.
Thing is ... Since to make Green Hydrogen you lose 50% of energy (electricity) just by the conversion. Could just use electricity to start with.
@@mitsterful So you do see a network for blue hydrogen being established, but can't imagine this blue hydrogen eventually being replaced by green hydrogen as renewables ramp up? Come on, such an imagination isn't that hard. Before the 1970s, a stuff called _Coal Gas_ or _Town Gas_ was widely established. This was some 50% hydrogen. Which pretty much answers how to handle hydrogen: just remember how we did it back then.
The overwhelming number of chemists who have been hearing hydrogen-research colleagues talking about the "hydrogen economy" have been rolling our eyes for decades. Very few chemists ever bought into the hype - you do a good job explaining why.
The same hefty skepticism is the same for fusion energy. The problem with “miracle” energy sources are all down on fundamental levels. So to the uninitiated, these miraculous energy sources seem like magical solutions, because that’s all they are is “magic”, nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to drive a narrative.
Yes...and many of those same chemists said you could never pack 100kWh charge into personal lithium-ion battery packs either. Then Elon Musk happened.
@@michaelangove9841 no one ever said this, it was just too expensive
@@lexus4tw of course. Cost is always the limiter. They (sort of) solved it with batteries but only with sig enginerring. Who's to say same won't happen w/H2?
@@michaelangove9841 No, those are two different groups of chemists. Materials chemists weren’t negative on the potential for Li ion batteries at all. I know this well since I went to the conferences where John Goodenough and Stan Whittingham presented their work on batteries (Elon Musk uses their work - he was smart enough to understand the potential it had, but did nothing fundamental in battery development). Materials chemists have been rolling their eyes over ‘hydrogen salesmen’ for a long time.
I appreciate you eloquence in explaining the huge issue with hydrogen. Thank you! 20+ years ago in a debate between 2 coworkers & myself, I argued that hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a volatile storage medium. My coworkers & I worked at a servo-control manufacturer and a small number of unites were going to the experimental EV efforts. I remember being so frustrated trying to get the point across that most hydrogen exists in a bound state, the "energy" exists in its electrical attraction to other elements. Like tiny magnets already in contact with other magnets, you have to pull them apart to realize the energy/work that can be done by their being drawn together again.... More energy is needed to pull them apart...
..I am working on projects here in Northern California whereby we plan to use Wind and Solar power plants to power hydrolyzers to create hydrogen. I am also working on hydrogen fueled backup generators. I worked in the petroleum industry, the renewable power industry, and the electric and gas industry. I also work in the reliability, resiliency and power quality industry. One of my peers in the petroleum industry and I had a conf call we discussed how the traditional fuels are "bridge fuels" into the 2050 and beyond whereby in the near future we will see the more advanced fuels start emerging as a result of scarcity, price, ESG, and market demands play a stronger role - for example, my team and I install large MW backup R99 Diesel but customers are already asking for hydrogen fueled backup generators.
This is a great example of why we should expect any problem to be more complex than it appears a first glance. Thanks.
Also why whenever the establishment tells you there's an easy band-aid fixture to a massive, multi-dimensional problem like climate change, you know they're pulling a fast one
I think these issues are more easily solvable than the same issues that lithium batteries have.
@@RPSchonherr if you think that then you don't know much about either hydrogen or batteries.
@@gasdive I probably know more than you, but why don't you regale me with your immense knowledge.
@@RPSchonherr I’m confident that the embrittlement problem alone means this technology is a niche one at best. Having to replace the tank and valves for containment systems will make this quite expensive, and the potential for a 700 bar bomb going off due to hydrogen embrittlement is one thing that insurers will charge handsomely for. Add to that the weight of the system and it’s essentially a non-starter for at least passenger vehicle applications. I can see potential for trains, ocean transport vessels and perhaps energy storage systems in place of lithium ion battery mega-pack type of solutions. Or for space applications, where the weight of a lithium ion battery is a prohibitive launch expense vis-a-vis the weight. The other thing that Sabine didn’t mention, and I’m not sure why, is that hydrogen will escape from any container that you store it in over time. It’ll leak around the valves and right through the metal skin of the container due to the size of the hydrogen molecules. So storing it for any length of time is not practical. The best hope for hydrogen is the possibility of a new intermediate form of storage (look up hydrogen grey goo) where it’s essentially combined into a gel / paste format that can be utilized. This still doesn’t solve the problems with PEM exchanger material rarity (for direct electricity generation), but maybe it could be directly combusted, that is something I’m not certain of. The one thing I am convinced is true is that BIG OIL is powering most of the discussion, research etc. on hydrogen in a failing attempt to keep themselves relevant and profitable. Trust me, I have a bunch of shares in Ballard Power (for probably going on 20 years now), which is a Canadian hydrogen fuel cell company so I wish this weren’t true, but I’m fairly certain that the hydrogen economy is something we’ll never see in our lifetime.
I worked with fuel cells for 10 years back in the 1990s. We were trying to developers alternative catalysts that could replace Pf. We failed. Work has proceeded with Pt and now high surface area catalysts require less Pt than ever. The downside is the high surface area is very energetic, so the Pt migrated to lower the energy, which reduces the activity of the catalyst. It’s a no win situation. For a long time savy FC engineers used to say, “Like Mexico, fuel cells will always have a bright future”
Where was it you worked?
@@abdell75roussos I worked for a small R&D company that was founded by a scientist who has worked for years for the fuel cell division of United Technologies. What’s your pedigree?
Small chemically made compartments limiting mixing of chemicals is key to limiting "migration" work on fencing in your livestock, so to speak.
@@karlstruhs3530 Dream on my friend, dream on
Just don't use fuel cells.
One thing I'd add regarding the storage problem is that there is substantial research funding currently going towards storing hydrogen either in sorbants or in the form of hydrides. Whether anything will come from that remains to be seen.
The only way it seems like is if some breakthrough happens in terms of fuel cell materials technology that makes platinum and iridium unnecessary.
Thanks for pulling all of this information together, Sabine. I've been trying to tell people for several years that Hydrogen is problematic because of its sources, production methods, transportation and storage, let alone because of the inefficiency of using it in fuel cells or in combustion engines. This video will be shared at every opportunity. A few more considerations are: 1) The Hydrogen storage vessels in cars have a life expectancy of only 5 years before they will need replacing for safety reasons. 2) When transferring H₂ to the vehicle, the speed of transfer is also constrained by thermal issues. 3) A storage tank at a filling station has to be larger and much more expensive than the tanks for storing gasoline or Diesel fuel. 4) The Oxygen used in fuel cells really needs to be very pure, but air is not pure Oxygen. This leads to accelerated degradation of the fuel cell membranes. 5) If the Hydrogen is burned in a combustion engine, the exhaust is not pure water; it also contains Nitrates, because of the Nitrogen in the air in the combustion chamber. 6) It's also worth remembering that water vapour is an efficient greenhouse gas. 7) Overall efficiency of the Hydrogen-powered car alone, ignoring all other stages of the Hydrogen processing, is only about 21%, comparable to the efficiency of a petrol car. But the efficiency of the systems in a fully electric car is roughly 71%. That inefficiency, coupled with the high costs of production and storage, along with the dubious sources of Hydrogen and of the catalysts, mean that Hydrogen can never replace fossil fuels or displace battery electric vehicles, unless drivers are willing to pay a much higher price for their fuel, and are prepared to continue to breathe polluted air which will shorten their lives.
1) 5 years life expectancy is not that bad 2) that is the same problem natural gas powered cars have, you get less mileage when its hot, and millions of people us it. 3, 4, 5 are right, but improvable 6) it is, but its also not that simple. water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere like CO2 or methane, it condenses back into rain, the amount of water vapor that can stay in the atmosphere before it gets saturated is actually directly related to temperature. 7)I would love to know where you got that number. from the estimations I've seem it can be anything from 30 to 50% depending on how you make the hydrogen, how you store it, and how efficient the fuel cells are. aren't you confusing with the loses from creating the hydrogen ? they are around 20%.
The nitrogen already exists, just in a different state. You aren't creating anything new. Source and means is where focus should be. The water vapor would not be nearly the problem if there was enough mature vegetation to absorb it. Take a good look at the virgin forest map from Columbus to today anywhere in the Americas and imagine what the rest of the world once looked like, and replantings do not have nearly the same effect. Life is going to continue to shorten until the numbers of people running around drops dramatically or mutation occurs where only that which adapts survives.
@@n0validusername no, there is more than enough earth for many times today's population to live sustainably. the problem is not overpopulation, its overconsumption and inefficient use of resources and space.
@@n0validusername "the nitrogen already exists, just in a different state". yes and the state - the molecule which is a part of - is exactly what matters. Nitrogen gas (N2) does nothing, Nitrogen oxides and Nitrogen-Hydrogen molecules do cause proplems.
kzhead.info/sun/fsyth82DcHNqqq8/bejne.html
Sabine, this video is such a marvelous example of when I didn’t realize a topic truly interested me until I listened to you talk about it. That’s a sign of a brilliant teacher. This has occurred a number of times with your extraordinary videos, and each time this happens you help to broaden my world beyond what I had ever conceived or considered. Thank you for sharing this rare and precious gift with us. 🙏
kzhead.info/sun/fsyth82DcHNqqq8/bejne.html
Why do you bother with this obsequious lathering on of worthless compliments? Try using that pea brain to generate a criticism.
well she left out two major details that make this video moot.
@@johnsmith1474 Why are you so consumed with ugliness and vitriol towards someone you have never met? You are clearly a very damaged man. I pity you.
@Frank Roidlight I’m really not sure what that means, but I do have a lot of respect and admiration for Professor Hossenfellder. I have learned a great deal from her. And I’m gay, so that is where my interest ends. Have a great day! 🙂
Thanks for that. Quite interesting. Be interested if you'd produce a video on Ammonia powered car engines.
Sabine, thank you for making this excellent, reasoning, factual and emotionally neutral video. Since I was in 8th grade, and during science class the teacher showed water electrolysis and separated it into hydrogen and oxygen gases, I understood the basic physics that heat losses required more energy input than the energy one would get from the pure helium and pure oxygen it was used to make. So, even if hydrogen is just used for energy storage, it is not only an increased ost, but as you explained, i difficult - and expensive - to contain, and awkward - and again, expensive - to transport. Those factors *add* to the initial disqualifier of getting less energy out than was put in. But then, you touched on another fine reason to stay away from using hydrogen gas as a climate-saving hero, the dependence on availability of precious metals needed to store it in fuel cells. Those metals would be very expensive to procure, the risk of supply interruptions would make fuel cell production highly vulnerable to material shortages. Variations in demand would make it prone to wildly volatile pricing. That alone would make it a technology to avoid. And yet another enormous burden to adopting hydrogen as a fuel or energy storage substance would be 1. the additional cost of a manufacturing facility - the land, buildings, machines, employees and all the overhead taxes, fees, maintenance and more. 2. Next, the cost of storage and transporting to reach the consumer or consuming site, which would mean creating equipment and infrastructure for storage and transport of the gas, and the same added costs of land, buildings, machines, people, taxes, fees, and more. And as you pointed out, hydrogen is nasty, causing hydrogen embrittlement in metals (I worked for many years in engineering with titanium in surgical instrument design and production, and hydrogen embrittlement was a factor to consider when using wire EDM in water to cut it. Back to my 8th grade science class... when the teacher burned the hydrogen collected in a test tube, he talked about heat losses that occured when making hydrogen by electrifying water. He said that due to those heat losses, you had to put more energy in than you got out. That one thing told me making hydrogen for fuel was a losing proposition, and for energy storage, fossil fuel was by far a better choice, even from an ecological view. I would like to know what entrepreneurs are investing their own money to develop hydrogen gas production. Of *course* governments will step up and spend taxpayer dollars on these type of losing propositions. They don't have their OWN money at risk, and can always get more when *this* money runs out. Just reach into the taxpayer pocket, their checkbook, or have the FED print money and give it to them. The state I live in is spending tens of millions of dollars annually on on hydrogen energy. I would like to call it production, or development, but I haven't seen anything material developed from the groups and committees there spending their money on. At this point it is just supporting many employees, with the only energy product being exhaled air warmed to the upper 90° F area. And that is being used to power nothing Beyond trying to justify their seat on those committees.
Thank you Sabine. You and anyone that is helping you put these videos together are ... , I have to say it, a treasure for the modern world. (Sorry for the element of schmaltz in that.) These videos cut through all the hype and salesmanship we get every day. I see so many people in lectures and videos stating "facts" that are not testable. It has to be detrimental to young people who are trying to learn and contribute to science and industry. I think most of us actually want to stay grounded and not get too distracted by entertainment and conjecture. Thanks again.
Not doubting the basics of this video, still 2 remarks. First you never touch the simple solution of using hydrogen as power source by simply burning it. Instead you only talk about fuel cells converting hydrogen directly into electricity. In my opinion a car with a gastank full of hydrogen wouldn’t be that different from the present ones driving on LPG or LNG. Secondly there is being worked on solar panels that produce hydrogen directly, instead of electricity. Which could change the green production figures.
@@alexhaerens6116 Lubrication of internal combustion hydrogen engines is difficult, because normal engine oil is chemically altered by hydrogen. Maybe you have heard of "hardened"/hydrogenated fat. You don't want to submit your engine oil to this process.
My own research shows Sabine’s video to be accurate. Almost whatever energy source you think of costs money to produce and distribute for use, and introduces complexity into the mix. I think two types of energy generators should be pursued, Nuclear, and Fusion. We can do nuclear now, but fusion will take more time, even with the breakthroughs seen recently - Yet well beyond my time on earth, I think Fusion is the one to pursue for future generations. IMHO.
I just saw a video that introduced the company called Plasma Kinetics that stores hydrogen not in pressurized tanks, but as a solid on film or CD-like disks. Maybe your next visit to this topic could look into this ... maybe. I video I saw was a quick introduction to the company and not a technical review. So details about capacities and cost were a little sparse. Thanks for your hard work Sabine.
Sabine, this was an excellent summary. I'd add: 1) Embrittlement concerns also prohibit/limit transportation by pipeline. It would be easier to convert it to ammonia for transport, but you won't easily get H2 back from NH3. 2) 700 bar is a nutty amount of pressure to put in a tank in your car, it is 10,000 psi or about 3x that of a welding cylinder. 3) LH2 is not mentioned here but is very impractical, needing to be within 20 C of absolute zero so liquid isn't the best plan either. 4) Burning (not fuel cell use) of H2 also releases NOx as any time you burn at high temperatures in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere (ie Earth) you get NOx as some of it combines, so the output is not JUST water. 5) You mentioned nuclear is by far the cheapest but the best way would be HIGH TEMPERATURE nuclear. The added heat improves the efficiency of making H2 from water, and if you do want ammonia, then it is also easily made from that extra heat. This is where molten salt reactors would shine, as well as several other designs such as HGTRs (including one in the UK). 6) If we think the lithium shortage is bad when it comes to electric cars just picture the shortage of Pt and Ir if we make a lot of fuel cells (these metals would become even rarer (ie EXPENSIVE) than they are now.
The whole idea is cartoonish!
Great follow up! I was going to mention the production of NOx when burning, but you already have.
(*HTGR?) (Excellent comment!)
The US already has 1000 miles of hydrogen pipelines. The world uses 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen each year. Clearly, it's possible to make pipes, tanks, valves, and other equipment to deal with hydrogen. I find the pearl clutching about hydrogen handling to be vastly overblown. Industry has been using hydrogen since the 19th century. It's not great for vehicles, but there are applications where it's very useful, even essential. Getting to a 100% renewable grid will likely greatly benefit from e-fuels like green hydrogen for rare event and possibly seasonal backup.
1) embrittlement, the reason existing pipelines can't be used, new pipelines would be only less subject to H penetration, not impervious. Rules out central production .
There is a polymer alternative to platinum and iridium proton exchange membranes, it’s just the problem of the solid electrolyte that still needs a solution. About energy density you need also to consider the fact that a hidrogen fuel cell is about 90% efficient while gasoline engines only 20%
Love your videos lovely Sabine - please keep em coming. Many thanks.
14:10 The platinum and iridium doesn't go into making the proton exchange membranes, but into the electrodes, where they catalyse the reactions.
Professor Hossenfelder: I am an old retired physicist (plasma and QED), yet despite continuing to study constantly, my wife and I learn so much from your cogent videos. No one else can do what you do each and every episode. With greatest respect, Dr. Gerlach
So are we goona have plasma guns like in star wars eventually or what?
If only hydrogen were the byproduct of sequestering carbon from atmospheric methane.😢
@@tomeubank3625 Using what form of energy?
How to become like you?
@@thefreemonk6938stay in school😅
Worked on this 20 years ago and as we have a massive wind resource. Around three speculative organisation approached us about creating and exporting hydrogen. However studies done by a major UK university citing storage problems, (they were using WW2 barrage balloon hydrogen tanks) poor electrolyser efficiency and the cost of Pt coupled with catalyst contamination scuppered these plans. Your video has reinforced our findings.
Not only that but you'd use up all the platinum on the planet in a year...
Is deuterium made or extracted?
@@breckfreeride what about carbon? (conductivity lacks in comparison to platinum) and how easy would it be to organize hydrogens electrons and neutrons?
@@jasonrichard7560 someone smarter than me could probably answer that one. All I know is the current fuel cells would deplete the world's supply of platnium quickly.
Add a safe additional step: Where you produce that , 'hydrogen with the color of your choice' combine it , the hydrogen with co2 from a convenient sorce, say from an intended sequestration plant, or better directly , apply the Sabatier reaction to, slightly exothermally produce fresh water and methane, also called natural gas, pipe it to existing consumers, or liquefy it at -162 into storage tanks slighly pressurized to ¼ atmosphere and export it on LNG ships . If you need to generate power with this RECYCLED co2 run combined cycle gasturbines with the really efficient aeroderivative high tecnlogy units built by General Electric, just like they do in España for decades. Here hydrogen plays the role of making co2 not cumulative but RECYCLABLE A win win situation. This is, by the way the in situ rocket fuel production for the Mars bound explorers The great Elon Musk is planning for that, in response of Dr Robert Zubrin, the originator as proved by NASA funded tests.
What happened with solid hydrogen compounds they showed on TV about 10 years ago ? Instead of storing it under pressure, can it be stored solid and be released by heating those chemicals compounds containing mostly hydrogen ?
I'm wondering if meta materials would be able to solve the cold start and hydrogen embrittlement problems. I have my doubts about a replacement for irridium though.
I'm in my 50's and I grew up thinking that Hydrogen was the way to go as an eco-friendly, yet energy rich solution to gasoline. This has been the best explanation I have heard to refute that and illustrate the problems that accompany any thoughts on hydrogen conversion. Thanks for the great videos and the simple truths put in layman terms.
I'm in my early 50s and I remember all the happy talk in the late 90s about the "hydrogen economy" that was everywhere. I thought to myself, self, hydrogen would make a great fuel if we actually had some. Shame we ain't got no hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be efficient if we could achieve >1 Q. And microfusion cells. Those stories we hear are speculated around this utopia. But Dr. Sabine talks about current capabilities, not possibilities. I've been following her for a while and noticed she is more realist than idealist. Nevertheless, we need realists to overcome other difficulties.
its still the way to go. but people just wont stop fearing nuclear powerstations to pruduce electricity and therefore also the menas to make hydrogen
@@XavierBetoN Some realism for you. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory. If you can believe the theory. If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.
@@msimon6808 Water molecule is reflective, not absorbant.
Well done. A sobering reminder of the realities of hydrogen. I was waiting on the discussion of storage leakage due to the small molecule, but it sounds like that's the least of the problems.
The stuff is ridiculously dangerous too. If you have a leak, it's almost guaranteed to go kaboom when it reaches the right mixture with air, and the only way you can get it into a liquid state is getting it really close to zero degrees Kelvin, otherwise it's very bulky and has low energy density. Just another example of an old niche technology suddenly being mainstreamed by people who aren't scientists. The old becomes new. The other problem is how it's marketed to normies in news media. I've had huge arguments with people who think that hydrogen cars "run on water" not understanding that the energy has to come from somewhere, and hydrogen is just a technically challenging, impractical and highly inefficient storage medium.
Hydrogen is a corporate push for rent seeking from civilization for another century. Fk em.
@@jaz4742 "You vill own nutzing und be happy. You vill eat ze bugs, you vill live in ze pod, you vill verk in ze wagie cagie und you vill like it or else" Klaus Schwab (probably) Notice they are putting DRM, remote killswitches and "AI drink driver detection" in cars now. Also the new traffic cameras being installed in my country have all kinds of currently untapped capabilities, like hypothetically charging drivers for being over their travel allotment, or the congestion charge they are already talking about. Not to mention average speed fines, and an insane level of surveillance. The fact that all speed cameras just got transferred from the police to our ministry of transportation speaks volumes about where this is going.
@@jaz4742 Also your comment is hidden, KZhead thinks you committed wrongthink.
Possibly the 2 glaring issues are the rare metals and embrittlement. I was somewhat unaware and they seem almost insurmountable for large scale. I'm surprised no government has followed form by suggesting more people as a form of medium-term carbon capture.
I am a mechanical engineer. I knew about most of the problems you mentioned years ago and I couldn't understand all the hype. I am glad someone is finally getting the information out.
This is an excellent presentation of this subject! One energy source I did not see in it, however, is geothermal which is virtually unlimited and could be used to generate hydrogen as a transportable energy source. Another, potentially important storage option could be metal hydrides which, although heavy, offers a way to store hydrogen gas at relatively low pressures and high volumetric density much more safely than high pressure systems. So I mention these two -- geothermal energy for generation and metal hydride storage -- because I wonder if they are being included in the analytical process.
Thanks for the comprehensive look at the hydrogen issues. I work in the RE branch, and have seen a few big companies trying really hard to incorporate H2 storage to replace Li-ion ones. As such, the cost and the H2 storage problem were already clear to me. But my ex-company was still convincing us saying it was worth it because of the blue hydrogen...now with the info in the section "the colours of Hydrogen" really shows that it was basically an attempt at green-washing! Thank you for the great video!
Blue washing? 😜 I was thinking the best grid scale application for hydrogen would be seasonal storage at relatively lower pressures. That or combine it with atmospheric carbon and just make methane from air and water. It'd be horribly energy inefficient but you can store the methane produced for years fairly easily and it's not too arduous to store enough for a worst case event. So given your Green Power network will inherently have significant periods of excess capacity even energy inefficient long term storage could well be useful. (Regular batteries aren't looking too viable as yet for storing a few weeks of excess in summer for cold still dark winters)
Hydrogen is easily stored as ammonia, where the storage costs are several orders of magnitude lower than battery equivalent.
@@tobyb4513 advantage of methane (especially in the short term) is there's already lots of equipment in place that can use it to make power
@@tobyb4513 But how to dissociate the nitrogen? I'm asking you, because ammonia novice at it. :)
@@gyrgrls there are a number of methods, such as solid state ammonia generation (SSAS), but the usual method is Haber-Bosch reformation.
My dad was a chemist at Arco Research in the 70's and they were working on ceramic based hydrogen fuel cells but the materials for the cells was just too expensive and it did not scale well. That said, I guess I just accepted it at face value when looking at hydrogen lately and if you had asked me before this video what I thought about alternative fuels I would have listed hydrogen at the top for transportation in the future, after seeing this video I realize that I need to do a little more digging to get a more accurate picture, your video was a great start to that and an eye opener. Thanks!
Best? M85.
It's the one topic I'll agree with Elon Musk. Hydrogen is one of the worst ideas for green transport. It's honestly not much better than just using compressed natural gas, which we already have lines for.
It is also insanely explosive. A tiny leak will blow up everything.
@@Skylancer727 I think he has now gone back on this and is now building a hydrogen car for 2024
@@jeffpinnock6862 Sure why not? As long as the government will give him lots of money to keep a bunch development and production engineers hanging around to be available for other purposes when they are not too busy, I'm sure it works for him.
Very comprehensive. Excellent summary. Two comments. First, there are plans for cars to consume hydrogen by burning (not in fuel cells). How likely is this to gain traction? Second, to note that that any hot flame, hydrogen or not, will produce nitrogen oxides in air.
Thank you, Sabine. I began studying hydrogen solutions in 1991. I agree with your conclusions. The oil and gas companies are spending a lot of money trying to turn hydrogen into a solution except it isn't. As you mentioned NASA started using hydrogen solutions in the 60's and here we are 60 years later trying to figure out how to make it work for transport....maybe not.
Dilithium crystals are more likely to power cars than hydrogen 😀.
Thank you for this very informative video! I learned many new things even though I am professionally working in the field of electric cars for a long time. Some more fun facts about hydrogen cars: As batteries have been improved dramatically over the last 10 years and hydrogen technology has not, a modern hydrogen car (Hyundai Nexo) is actually heavier than a comparable battery electric car (Tesla Model 3). Both cars have the same driving range but the Tesla has two electric motors while the Hyundai has just one. Of course, the battery car is also much cheaper. And the cost of hydrogen fueling stations is more than 10-times more than the cost of battery fast chargers while being much less reliable at the same time. These numbers are for electric chargers and hydrogen stations that can provide the same driving range per hour of operation. We have electric chargers and battery electric vehicles today, that actually charge faster in average than hydrogen cars (Hyundai Ioniq 6 for example).
How well made and well researched is the video. ChatGPT couldnt even scratch the surface when asked for similar information.
saya yakin dimasa depan ada seseorang penemu hydrogen pengamanan
Nextera Energy (Florida Power and Light) is building several Green Hyro plants trhoughout the US, using solar as the power source. BYW the color scale is based on the source of the energy, not the hydrogen.
I recently found your channel, and I'm loving it! I learn something new from every video I watch, and your snarky, no-nonsense style makes it even more enjoyable. This video on solar energy challenges is no exception. It's crucial to consider solar energy efficiency, cost, and the use of rare earth elements in solar panels. Developing more efficient solar cell technologies like perovskite or multi-junction cells could help improve energy conversion efficiency. Additionally, researching alternative materials for solar panels that don't rely on rare earth elements can make solar energy more sustainable and environmentally friendly. On a separate note, I've been exploring Fe-N-C catalysts as potential alternatives to noble metal catalysts like platinum and iridium for applications such as fuel cells. Although not mentioned in the video, their catalytic activity and stability might be lower, but the cost-effectiveness and sustainability advantages due to the scarcity and high cost of noble metals are significant. Further research into optimizing their structure, understanding aging mechanisms, and exploring new active site configurations can lead to advancements in sustainable energy solutions. Keep up the fantastic content! Your channel is a treasure trove of knowledge, and I can't wait for more insightful and engaging discussions on these important topics.
Thank you very much for this. Back in my nuclear days a hundred years ago (give or take) we had bulk hydrogen on site for our main generator. One night I saw the telltale glow of St. Elmo's Fire on the exhaust of the relief valve due to a small about of release. This is extinguished by a line of regulated helium to blow out the line. I followed the procedure and witnessed the biggest fireball of my multidecade power generation career. Lesson learnt: Hydrogen in the hands of Joe-sixpack is a BAD idea.
I quit riding motorcycles years ago because daily avoidance of death and dismemberment at the hands of the Average Motorist ceased to be fun or logical. The thought of those same drivers riding around with tanks of extremely high pressure hydrogen would be enough to convince me to never leave my house again.
@@joelcarson4602 The H2 fireball I unintentionally initiated was about the volume of a large, in ground swimming pool. It was big, bright and brief. I was later told the liquid H2 volume for such a reaction was between one teaspoon and one tablespoon. As a plant operator we were required to also qualify as structural firefighters. As such we interacted with offsite firefighters and coordinated pre-fire plans. We’re I an incident commander at a house fire and knew there was some quantity of compressed hydrogen in the building I would set up a perimeter and maybe a monitor stream whilst evacuating the neighborhood. I’m not sending a knockdown team nor search and rescue. A firefighter’s life is worth more than that house and it’s occupants. Think about that before parking this in your garage.
The suburban housewife that ran the alloy furnace in the wafer fab needed to light the 800c hydrogen where it mixed with atmospheric gasses to prevent the end cap from launching like a rocket into the puller instrument bank. Gary, my friend, saw this on several occasions, until they replaced the bic lighter with an imported spark plug. How they didn't explode the whole building i'll never know.
Drugs. Drinking. Remove that from society and watch joe-sixpack turn into Albert Einstein
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 I don't know what a water fab is but I can tell you that the definition of a house-wife is someone who does not work on a water fab, unless you are saying it was in her house.
I LOVE your video, straight forward SCIENTIFIC FACTS mixed with some really hilarious subtle humor. Thanks 😁
Unterhaltsame Fortbildung. Prof., Sie sind großartig!
I have got to hand it to Sabine. She has the most comprehensive assessments of technologies on the internet. Most cost/ benefit analyses don’t address the inherent issues of different technologies over the current ubiquitous technologies. Sabine does excellent breakdowns.
Hello and thanks Sabine, just a few corrections from me as may become usual. Hydrogen is stored in type 4 polymer tanks in vehicles, which are made from polymers without any metal. There is a big market for using it in buses as the tanks have a better weight to power ratio as they get bigger and are smaller and lighter than lithium batteries. (I guess a lower up front cost too). This looks like a good niche for them where they come out on top of competing tech. The idea is to uses excess wind and solar to create hydrogen to store and burn when we want instead of batteries. I think we have to start thinking of this as a two tier storage system for power grids. Much of grid power storage being done with lithium etc but emergency power being stored as hydrogen as infrequent (a few times a year) back up energy. For this it can be excellent. There is a massive 300 GIGAWATT hydrogen storage facility being built by Mitsubishi. It's another niche where it can win. Producing hydrogen makes nuclear / wind / solar much cheaper as the excess production is put to good use. There is some fake info around on hydrogen filling stations costing a lot. Believe it or not hydrogen transport can be done with normal gas lines, so it is an expense yes, but a few lines running up and down beside motorways is probably doable. Lastly it is worth looking at the German green power document which sees hydrogen as the future. Whether it will take off in any country is going to be largely due to investment or non-investment by the particular governments of those countries. Thanks for the article and thanks for your help last year Piers Newberry.
I'm glad someone else pointed out about heavy vehicles. Hydrogen for cars is probably not going to be practical but busses, trucks, trains, construction equipment etc. could use the large amount of energy that would make the tank and fuel cell worthwhile.
Thanks for pointing this caveats! There are also some news about using ammonia (?) as a storage system for Hydrogen. Would this work better? Do you have any info on that?
@@hyourinmaru69 this reduces efficience and causes a lot of waste, but it would allow to transport Hydrogene much safer, then the pure gas, which gets important for distances that cannot be covered via pipes. Some countries that could in theory produce HUGE amounts of solar energy could this way produce and ship Hydrogene to nations that have fewer abilities to produce renewable energy. There are certain social and environmental problems involved with that, but above anything else its not a viable solution for local energy production and storage.
It is important to understand though, that this "green power document" was written under a conservative government and was heavily influenced by lobbying of the gas industry. The idea is, that hydrogene allows for the usage of allready available infra structure, that just gets repurposed. Under this assumption it is a lot more viable then under the assumption that the structures all need to be build from scratch, as huge amounts of environmental impact and costs allways lie in the building of structures like storage facilities, pipes etc. Another approach were Hydrogen starts to get usage in Germany is as longterm storage for solar energy in private homes. If you place solar panels on a regular one or tow family home you produce a lot more energy, then you could use in spring and summer, combining a battery for short term storage (over night, and for a couple of rainy days) with a small hydrogene production and storage for longterm storage would allow private households of that size to heat their homes in winter with the energy they produced in summer in Germany. This is of course not necessarly an option for every region as average sun exposure and the number of days requiring heating are a hige factor. And it may not be an option for any housing that is more energy expensive then modern family homes. But for those it seems to work well, and pays itself of in a couple of years.
Your corrections are all accurate. I'd just like to add some: 1. Fuel cells don't use Iridium! PEM electrolyzers do, which can be paired with renewable most easily. But there are many alternatives (like alkaline electrolyzers). 2. There are innumerable alternatives to 700 bar tanks for storage. I'd argue for Ammonia as one of the best (carbon free, tech for large scale handeling & transport exists). 3. Transport should also be seen as a two-tiered system like the grid. Cars with (mostly) short run durations - batteries; Ships, planes and maybe heavy duty vehicles - hydrogen (or ammonia maybe). 4. The embrittlement problem is exaggerated. It can be dealt with by using polymers (as you already mentioned) or special steel alloys, developed for ammoinia plants, where polymers can't be used. Also: sodium batteries are becoming available at industrial scale. You don't have to argue the slightly problematic case (in terms of the environment) of lithium batteries.
Very interesting video and quite informative. There is much more to this topic than most will understand and depending on the region that is producing hydrogen at a commercial level and how their infrastructure is set up will dictate the feasibility of this product. Most provinces, states, countries etc will not have an industrial complex that has the correct infrastructure in place to make this work quite yet... Example is Natural Gas.. you can pull 4 hydrogen atoms off of Nat Gas to where you only get 2 pulled off of water. So if an area has abundant natural gas, the production of hydrogen becomes a little more financially viable..... Now take Vehicles for an example... HD trucks will fit the hydrogen profile quite well and we have many fleets looking at the retrofit add-on to their present Rigs as many are betting that the future of trucking will be around Hydrogen but light duty vehicles as mentioned in the video will have other problems specifically around weather temps and fill stations, and with next generation of batteries coming out soon, the cost of elect vehicles will be something to watch for sure. STATIONS - Building a network of stations I have come to the conclusion will take individual plants being set up in strategic transport corridor areas to where the hydrogen produced in a specific small city or municipality will be used commercially for their own buildings and blending with natural gas to residential homes while at the same time can be tied into putting up fill stations for vehicles... The trick is to get the cost of this fuel to the same price as Diesel...without depending on subsidies for too long.... Complex issue but does have great potential..
I appreciate the distinction between the costs associated with "the state of tech today" vs. "hard to imagine overcoming costs due to physical & chemical properties". The video would have benefited a lot from from a number for R.T. efficiency of kw-in vs. kw-out of a fuel cell with H2 at 700 bar. The storage & transport issues seem to squarely fall in the insurmountable, but it is not self evident to me that a fuel cell / PEM must necessarily involve platinum & iridium. Yeah, overall, where there is use for Hydrogen for it's chemical properties (eg. in reducing iron ore w/o carbon..or fertilizers, or chemical/industrial feedstock) it is fantastic to look for "green" ways to produce it. But as a "battery" for generic power it seems grim due to the compression & containment problems, at least. Admit that I'm a bit at a loss to understand the interest in a power route that already compares so poorly vs. an LFP battery.
Thanks Sabine! I knew most of this, but found expressing it in a logical way problematic. Now I don't have to embarrass myself so much! You are my favorite science communicator of all time! I especially enjoy your subtle dead pan humor!
What about the usefulness of hydrogen for remote places like Hawaii ?
@@jimcamp3464 The alternatives are still better ESPECIALLY in remote areas.
@@jimcamp3464 Build your self a small modular nuclear like RR produce , then make your own H2 on site . Energy independence will be yours
@@budbud2509 this is true I like this but the more convenient method to even bother messing with hydrogen as a practical way to store it in the problem is it's so light of a material it tends to seep out if I recall properly or correctly I imagine I don't know.. furthermore anyway what about a plasma containment device that could hold a vast amount of it
@@budbud2509 I agree with this
One major issue that wasn't mentioned was the huge energy loss from converting electricity to H2. In practice, it takes about 50kWh (and 9kg water) to make 1kg H2. In energy terms, this is equivalent to 4L of petrol (gas(oline)), if burnt directly (note: not used as a fuel cell). In a normal small car, typically 8-10L petrol per 100km, 1kg H2 would get you 50-60km. However, if you used the 50kWh directly to charge a battery, you could get around 250-300km range for a small car. This means you are sacrificing a factor of 4-6 in efficiency of use, simply for the convenience of delaying that use. Again, in practical terms, this means expanding the output of wind or solar (if you are stupid enough to use them, vs nuclear, hydro or gas, and our governments are, it seems) by a factor of 4-6 to account for the reduced capacity factor of H2 generation (never mind transport and storage) over direct charging. Of course , there are losses in direct charging as well, but the consensus seems to be that electrolytic H2 is only 25% as efficient as direct charging. The beautiful efficiency of energy-dense, easily transportable, liquid form fossil fuels, responsible for raising billions out of abject poverty and ending short lives, sure is hard to beat.
Fabulous summary, thank you Iain. And, indeed, oil has played a mammoth role in bringing the technological world this far. But it will, I believe, be dwarfed by what wind and solar will ultimately contribute.
> " In a normal small car, typically 8-10L petrol per 100km" A typical current small European of Japanese car is twice as efficient as that.
@@kwhitefo I think you're referring to diesel engines, and I don't have the comparative equivalence for that fuel. Euro 4 cylinder diesel hatchbacks can certainly get 4-5L/100km, very similar to hybrids, but petrol (gasoline, or gas in the US) is typically double that. My small Kia gets 9-10L/100km in short-haul city driving, and I got down to 7L/100km with 600km of non-stop highway driving recently with a medium sized petrol Subaru. Ironically, this latter case is the worst (apart from sub-zero temperatures) driving condition for EVs (most efficient for stop-start), but I haven't seen any data for direct H2 burn or fuel cell driving. Could 110km/h for 300km overwhelm the fuel cell with overheating or reagent diffusion starvation? Who knows in practice?
@@lighthousesaunders7242 Put a wind turbine in your backyard then get back to us in a year.
I'm glad you mention that. When we convert energy from one state to another (which has to happen a fair bit with hydrogen production) you lose efficiency. You cannot convert energy from one form to another at 100% efficiency so energy is lost at every stage of the process till it gets to your car wheels.
I realized H2 was a problem when as a kid I read about the airship fires: The following is a partial list of hydrogen-inflated airships that were destroyed by fire from accidental causes (the list does not include ships shot down in combat operations): LZ-4 (August 5, 1908) LZ-6 (September 14, 1910) LZ-12/Z-III (June 17, 1912) LZ-10 Schwaben (June 28, 1912) Akron (July 2, 1912) LZ-18/L-2 (October 17, 1913) LZ-30/Z-XI (May 20, 1915) LZ-40/L-10 (September 3, 1915) SL-6 (November 10, 1915) LZ-52/L-18 (November 17, 1915) LZ-31/L-6 and LZ-36/L-9 (September 16, 1916) LZ-53/L-17 and LZ-69/L-24 (December 28, 1916) SL-9 (March 30, 1917) LZ-102/L-57 (October 7, 1917) LZ-87/LZ-117, LZ-94/L-46, LZ-97/L-51, and LZ-105/L-58 (January 5, 1918) LZ-104/L-59 (April 7, 1918) Wingfoot Air Express (July 21, 1919) R-38/ZR-II (August 23, 1921) Roma (February 21, 1922) Dixmude (December 21, 1923) R101 (October 5, 1930) LZ-129 Hindenburg (May 6, 1937)
Hello! First time commenting on one of your videos. I've watched a few of them now and I'm glad I found this channel. To be clear from the start, I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist nor an economist. I specialize in machine learning, but I try hard to stay up-to-date on cybersecurity issues as well - a comment related to that in a latter paragraph. I'd like to hear your thoughts on a (globally) niche use of hydrogen energy. In Finland where I live, we've started to invest a lot in wind power. Particularly, we're looking to combine this with hydrogen electrolysis in a particular way: we've discovered that with a fairly modest investment, we could exceed the energy needs of our country with wind power tenfold, perhaps more. Forgetting vehicles for the moment (partially because it's quite cold here much of the time), we'd like to use this to power our electric grid, and store the excess as hydrogen through electrolysis. Once the infrastructure is in place, we'd like to end up in a place where we can produce a very large excess of energy through large windmill farms, and store much of it as hydrogen. Then we'd like to use this hydrogen as a battery of sorts when we inevitably hit the high pressure weather in the winter, when there is no wind and it's very cold. A large part of our energy consumption as a country is just heating. At this point it would hardly matter even if 90% of the energy is wasted, if we can produce tenfold the amount needed on average. Perhaps this excess could be utilized in manufacturing the needed infrastructure too. My main point here is I very much believed in this plan before. I'm starting to see cracks in it having watched this video, particularly when it comes to the scarcity of platinum and iridium. However much of your video criticizes using hydrogen as fuel for vehicles directly. If you have enough excess power from wind, could you not power electric cars with it? I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on these ideas. *BEGIN RANT* Coming back to my computer science background and cybersecurity in particular I take some issue with this video's sponsorship. I very much don't like to end a comment on a critical note so I'll try my best not to. Essentially, I'm very skeptical of the notion that services such as NordVPN can help with issues such as advertising companies knowing what you've researched recently. Advertising companies rely very little on your IP address - most of the information they use is based on cookies and fingerprinting, such as looking at your browser version or user-agent, but potentially even going as deep as analyzing your cursor movements and typing patterns. This means that generally they can't do much unless the website you're browsing co-operates with them. As such, a VPN is very much insufficient, and not even necessary (I'll be fair, they *can* help in very particular circumstances, if used right), in combating the attempt of large advertising companies to gain information about people. VPNs should not be advertised that way. It's a deceptive marketing technique that plays on people's irrational fears while selling a product that doesn't help with the problem without combining it with other more drastic measures and a decent amount of knowledge. I really can't stand for that type of advertising. To remain objective and to attempt to end the comment in a positive tone, VPNs can be very useful for circumventing geoblocking that some websites implement, although websites generally can detect VPN usage with moderate effort, and as such it's a rather fragile strategy if big powerful companies that host the geoblocked services decide to crack down on VPN usage. Regardless, I find this strategy of marketing a VPN to be honest and it lacks the predatory emotional manipulation that the "privacy" or "security" arguments for a VPN take advantage of. I've already started to respect your channel particularly as one that espouses intellectual integrity, and as such I'd love to see any further VPN service provider sponsorships focus only on the geoblock circumvention aspect of VPNs, as it's the one thing they can potentially do very well. Although I must address the fact that if you specifically know what you're doing with a VPN, it may be a part of your legitimate privacy and security routine in specific circumstances. :)
Nothing messes up my morning commute more than some jerk dragging a zeppelin behind him.
Nice to see that you’re on a learning journey too, and not afraid to change your mind when the data points the other way. Great video!
well stated.
So kewl that the glaciers are all made of fresh water ice, so all th that water can be captured and turned into hydrogen. Maybe Britian will sell more than a dozen H cars nxt yr.
Makes you wonder why climate catastrophism is still a thing doesn’t it .
Great video thanks. I'm really interested in a discussion about when we will run out of fossil fuel. Is there a video about that. Yes I was a little disappointed in the conclusion about hydrogen.
Thank you for this interesting video. I have 2 questions about the production of green hydrogen: At the beginning of the video you say that hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy store. The fluctuating energy production with renewable energy shouldn't be a problem then, should it? The wind turbines in Germany only produce 20% of their capacity for the grid. Why can't the 80% be stored in hydrogen? Why is the production of H with renewable energy sources more expensive than with others? Because the cost per kWh of renewable energy is higher? That would be a problem with photovoltaics and wind generators, and nothing to do with hydrogen, right?
If you REALLY think about it, every molecule is a store of energy. It's all about electrons and bonds. Sugars and petroleum have covalent bonds, while metals have ionic bonds. Each molecule is a step in the overall process of moving energy from high to low and the usual increase in entropy. Water is lower in energy than hydrogen/oxygen separately in a fuel cell...as is carbon dioxide when burning stuff. The sun via plants reverses that to recreate the higher energy molecules. In batteries, cathodes and anodes exchange electrons that produce the electrical current that gives us energy to use. To get the starting materials back, you have to ADD energy. Where does that come from? This video gave you the usual list of where humans currently get energy. It's all really the same problem at the end of the day. We get away with fossil fuels because HUGE amounts were created millions of years ago that are there for the taking by digging it out of the ground. We don't have to create anything except the infrastructure. Time already did the work for us. Solar/wind/hydro take the sun's energy we receive today and we can use it up almost immediately...which we can definitely do. There is no long term anymore. I've even read that the Earth won't produce new carbon fuels for us even in millions of years because life has evolved new enzymes (ligninases for example) that degrade plant material so fast that coal formation is no longer possible.
Outstanding presentation. I had no idea how complicated producing Hydrogen is. It changed my "easy" view on the subject.
I don't know your line of work. But those of us working in science (not hydrogen) know that nothing is easy and there're always multiple reasons why things don't get done as easily as they first seem.
I love people who get into the details like this. I am weary of those who address the issue without bothering with the facts.
...the facts, ALL the facts and NOTHING BUT the facts. Selective facts are as near to outright lies as one can get.
"I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" would, I imagine, be her response to any of the hype merchants
If it was easy it would have been done long ago when it's the only real long term solution they will find better solutions we can't have nuclear planes and buses
That's very german of her and I like it
@@French20cent Germany lol stuck in the dark ages no innovation the UK is the place for that sadly it's Germanys fault the biggest market in the world the eu isn't in the global trade war between China and the USA. The eu is a customer losing relevance each year as real growth it's outside the eu
Platinum is also used in diesel cars and trucks for decades. It may be rare, but that is a known issue and industries have dealt with it through recycling.
THANK YOU FOR THE LESSON. WHAT YOU DO IS IMPORTANT. ENLIGHTENMENT ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF OUR SPECIES
A brilliant analysis of this topic. It is amazing how Sabine manages to explain a complicated scientific topic for a broader non-scientific audience and I appreciate your efforts very much. Ty very much, Sabine.
Yeah, plus, she's hot!😛
Something major you missed/omitted/didn't mention (I say this because it affects the conclusion arguements a little) are solid hydrogen storage solution (metal hydride tanks). They are pumped at low pressure into tanks with a metal lattice which breaks hydrogen into atoms and stores it. These are leak resistant even over months, operate at low pressure, volumetrically are ~3x as energy dense as gas-pressure tanks and significantly less heavy, though not super lightweight still. Of course, they do not affect the rest of the conclusion, but as far as storage solutions go, this one was a pretty nice development. I was recently looking into using hydrogen for power backup in homes and seems the cost of such a backup system with a best case scenraio is 50,000 to 80,000 euros for a meagre 7kWh/day setup, ignoring recurring costs of using distilled water.
Thanks for highlighting this. We might talk more about this in a future video. It's always difficult to decide where to draw the line.
@@SabineHossenfelder Magnesium hydride paste is the most commonly deployed solution. It's primary competitor is NH3/ammonia. Hydrogen combustion, fuel cell and gas storage tanks are simply not part of any serious general purpose solution I know of. What you covered is simply obsolete.
@@crhu319 hydrogen combustion has been pushed as a path to decarbonisation in Australia over the last few years. Most of the pushing has come from the gas industry lobby, who surprise surprise favour blue hydrogen, and using existing and new natural gas combustion plants. It's almost like they have a financial interest in maintaining demand and infrastructure dependant on natural gas. Unfortunately many politicians have a financial interest in keeping the gas lobby happy.
This presentation combines two of my favorite things, Queen concerts and hydrogen comedy -- thanks as always Sabina!
It's important to note that car companies are also trying to make hydrogen combustion vehicles happen. These have tremendous NOx emissions. Only the fuel cells have no negative emissions at the point of use
Excellent analysis. The need for platinum and iridium wasn't something I heard discussed before, but it's very relevant.
It's very similar to the lithium and cobalt concerns around Bev's. All these new technologies have expensive components. There's a reason we ended up using combustion engines, they were cheap to make with the resources we knew how to make cheaply. We've done some patchup jobs where it's been easier (catalytic converters use platinum too! But those were only bolted on after the fact, and only when they were forced to)
@@meateaw Plenty of lithium is available to be mined, so it isn't going to be a concern once production facilities are ramped up. Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries don't require cobalt and they're going to be the most commonly used battery, so cobalt won't be much of an issue either. Platinum and iridium are much more expensive and rarer than either of these, and there's no good workaround for them, so they present a much bigger issue for hydrogen fuel cells.
One thought I have is that the auto industry already uses lots of platinum for catalytic converters. A push towards electric vehicles, and away from conventional ICE, would mean that platinum would be freeing up over the next decade.
@@sswpp8908 I believe the auto industry is using less than 10% of the platinum it was when catalytic converters were first being used. If it's accessible, it will just as easily be stolen, in fact even more likely if the price goes up
@@ralphwagenet852 Lithium is also supposedly the best material to make anodes for electrolysis.
I work for a industrial gas turbine company and there’s lots of focus and push for hydrogen usage. The more I learn about it, the more I see that it’s just a way for the industry to keep doing what they are currently doing and not actually solving the overall issue
In psychology that behavior is called "fleeing forward". 😏
The industry gets incentives from the EU, the state, interest groups from the oil industry etc. Of course they are interested to continue their work. The daughters of their CFO's wait for their new stallion. That does not finance itself.
The overall issue? Allow me: 8,000,000,000 humans
I have been working on a research project at school of how we could use an anaerobic fermenter and food waste to produce methane, and then use methane pyrolysis to produce hydrogen. And therefore have a cleaner way of producing hydrogen while also reducing the need to store food waste. This video has been interesting because I now understand, that there are also problems with actually using the hydrogen too and I will use this to improve our project: so thank you!
The carbon in your methane is just a temporary sequestration product. Why not use the produced methane directly as a fuel? This would be a carbon neutral process and methane used directly will be much easier and cheaper than adding a hydrogen step. Also, methane -> power is known current technology; no new science or expensive handling and use processes are needed.
Or, you could use a Fischer tropsch synthesis of the gas to create a heavier hydrocarbon, which could more easily be liquefied and which burns cleaner, like propane or butane. The issue is getting a higher amount of carbon monoxide into the input stream, but charcoal from the dried material from a digester that's pyrolyzed, then do your F-T synthesis for any wanted product, just keep it at the right ratios.
I think you might have missed something on Hydrogen combustion. We don't mix Hydrogen with pure Oxygen, that would be prohibitively expensive. We burn Hydrogen in air, and the Nitrogen in the air happily makes NOx when hydrogen is combusted. It actually makes quite a bit more NOx that methane. Hydrogen is not cleaner to burn for NOx.
Thank you Sabine. finally a solid walk over of this hydrogen trend. Being a thermodynamic engineer it has been and is a pain to see how the decision makers are running with a half wind.
It is always painful to see decision makers debate over a topic you are closely familiar with. But it is not necessary their fault, they can't know everything and rely on experts opinions, who seldom come to the same conclusions.
Decision makers need to study STEM subjects before making decisions. Hahaha. Too many decision makers do not have STEM understanding.
@@gknucklez There are experts and there are professional experts. The ones in the 2nd group deliver any desired out come for a cost.
Kind of like most environmentalists...
@@ChianTheContrarian wouldn't the world be a different place if that were the case. Maybe they should also have experience in small business or growing.
I was aware of some of those problems with hydrogen power but you did a great job explaining the range of issues and how difficult they are to mitigate.
literally just do trains holy moly
@@introprospector how do trains adress the energy storage question?
Trains address the transport issue through having electric trains
Trains are energy efficient in moving cargo. We're cargo too .other than that,
@@tristanbeal261 Electric trains, trams, and buses can be built with wired connections to power, but they can’t reach every location where people live, work, and enjoy recreation. Some type of portable energy storage will be required for travel to more remote locations.
Greetings from Turkiye. This is the first video I've watched on your channel and I have to say it is the most entertaining and exciting scientific presentation I've ever seen. You have a gift. Well done. I've put my bathers on and I'm about to dive into your video library.
Excellent presentation that’s of information, not commonly given out when people discuss hydrogen
Thanks a lot for the explanations Sabine. I would like to add that molecular hydrogen (H2) does not produce embrittlement on steels and other metals per se. Only monatomic hydrogen (H) does. Hydrogen embrittlement is a complex topic since there are many different cases and mechanisms... In this case, the dissociation of molecular hydrogen on the steel surface is an essential step in the embrittlement process. Not sure how engineers deal with this issue in pre-existing infrastructure design for storage and transport of natural gas
That's a great point! So which form of H is used to produce power: the monatomic or the molecular? If it's monatomic, it means we need to break the molecular connection inside the power cell, right? So more energy. I'm a bit confused already. How stable is monatomic H? I guess the molecular state is more stable, so it would naturally tend to bond into molecules? You wrote: «the dissociation of molecular hydrogen on the steel surface is an essential step in the embrittlement process». Could you please explain more about this?
@@LyopsiK Most of the times, whenever we refer to any non water liquids/gases. Such as hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are indeed talking about molecular or diatomic forms of them. I recently looked up the same thing few days ago. As I got too excited by hydrogen's potential. It is hard to gauge it's potential honestly. Sorry for the rambling. H2/molecular hydrogen is indeed the form of hydrogen, used to generate. I suspect that even that must have an affect on metals. Thus embrittlement. Or maybe h2 is unstable and keeps switching between h and h2... Or maybe a few unbonded h caused embrittlement. Who knows.
They might use aluminum.
@@yasirrakhurrafat1142it's extremely good in your car, mixed with the gasoline 😊
Carbon fiber tanks have been developed which solve the weight and embrittlement issue.
About 15 years ago I talked to an engineer who was working on a fuel cell program. He was tired of it and hoping his company would give it up.
Wow, what an enthusiastic look on the topic!
Fuel cells have come a long way. High temp fuel cells are expensive but quite efficient. Rare earths are the future for electrodes and electrolytes
@@janami-dharmam High temp, meaning high temperature? So, a pre-heating needed like on EVs battery packs?
@@Sekir80 When people know their project is going nowhere, they lose enthusiasm. BTW, did you even watch the video? If you did, you might understand why lack of enthusiasm is warranted.
@@janami-dharmam I feel like you didn't fully comprehend the substance of this video.
Hi Sabine. Almost all of the issues you mention (save maybe the catalyst, I have not kept up to date with development) have been solved if one considers a chemical carrier of the hydrogen, such as methanol. Direct methanol fuel cells were championed by George Olah (Nobel Laurate, chemistry) quite a while back, and is a real alternative. More popular with chemists than politicians seemingly. Pure H2 is clearly problematic, but maybe make an episode on alternative hydrogen carriers (notably MeOH)? Also: maybe mention there is a big difference between combustion reactions and electrochemical reactions - the latter is considerably more efficient. Thx for great content.
Methanol is great and I agree that putting P2G into more stable forms for transport and storage is the way to go but that only makes the economics of it all harder as it further decreases efficiency and needs more steps in all of the infrastructure. And economics and large scale production is the main problem at this point. Since you are also German I see such a high disparity between the planned economy goals that want to push production of Green Hydrogen from solar/wind as the solution to our long term problems and reality. The problems of fluctuation of energy supply are obvious and without a solution on the horizon. Meanwhile the whole hydrogen future would work if electricity truly becomes super abundant and extremely cheap. Yet Germany has shown that this promise of electricity getting cheaper and more abundant with solar and wind has exactly NOT happened. And its not changing in the coming years either production costs of getting wind/PV plants up are already increasing and there is resource and cost inflation issues while grid services cost are going up all the time. And power from natural gas as the best peak plant complement to solar/wind has become even more expensive than it already was by recent geopolitics. I really want us to arrive in a low energy price future but I don't see how we get there without some fundamental new miracle breakthroughs which unfortunately are not guaranteed.
Did not mention H2 produced from hydroelectricity….or from tidal power. Thank you for the still comprehensive report.
I was so enthousiastic about H² before i watched your video... You killed my joy! Great video as usual, thank you, keep up the good works!
I would have liked if you had also talked about the industrial uses of hydrogen, like steel and ammonia production. I knew that hydrogen was overhyped for transport and energy storage applications. But my understanding is that there might be some genuine potential for industrial processes, mostly since there aren't many alternatives.
Hydrogen can be used as a fuel or as a chemical agent. As a fuel, it has the problems as described in this video. As a chemical agent many of these problems are mitigated due to the hydrogen being produced much closer (typically onsite) to where it is consumed - that is, very little storage and transport.
@@Obscurai As a fuel, the video primarily focuses on fuel cells that generate electricity, but there are many industrial uses where hydrogen fuel can simply be burned to produce heat, and you don't need any fancy metals for that.
One example is the possibility of using hydrogen instead of coal for steel production, the so called green steel.
Hydrogen is used in high amounts in oil refining and processing. But if you have been paying attention to the video you noticed that most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which I would say is plenty abundant in a oil refinery, there is no point on useing different coloured hydrogen there.
Yes hydrogen can be burned as fuel, but burning hydrogen for heat at large scale inherits the issues of transport and storage, since burning it is less efficient than burning the original energy source that was used to create the hydrogen and because of that inefficiency larger quantities are needed. At industrial scale, efficiency means money and unless there is a very specific need that burning hydrogen provides, it does not make financial sense to burn hydrogen.
I have done work over the last 12 months on hydrogen production. One feasibility study has been a mega-wind farm off Shetland, another is the use of electrolysers for hydrogen manufacture. There are significant technical challenges using large-scale wind energy, mainly intermittency. Electrolysers have low efficiency and do not like being 'turned down'' when the wind dies. (Turn down is to 60% of capacity, or production dies). So back up fossil fuels are needed for power generation which defeats the object of reducing CO2. I think hydrogen is not a viable fossil fuel replacement.
Thank you Sabine, very informative.
I love this content so much. The little jokes here and there make this 10 times more entertaining. One of the best science channel on the YT.
In the UK we can't keep water in the pipes!
That is because meth pipes are not meant to hold water
😆
That's deliberate ... They're hoarding it to make lots of hydrogen! 🤔🙄😁😁😁
Considering some of those old mains supplies are Victorian , they haven’t done that badly .
@@area51z63 do u mean meth the high or methane ?
At last! Hard awakening truth, neatly condensed in a video. Thank you Sabine, I can now back up my opinion during arguments, with as easy as a "share video" button press!
My friends father was a german inventor in Australia and in 1982 i travelled in a ford converted to run off water into hydrogen using electrolysis. Ford has the patent and buried it. I hope they can find and revisit it.
I'm rubbing my hands in excitement as Sabine has finally covered hydrogen "energy", one of the most overhyped "solutions" postulated these days.
LOL so you are spending your life waiting for Sabine to speak. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Tards are everywhere
hydrogen isnt an energy source ifs a storage medium. It makes more sense than electric batteries because existing engines can be converted to burn hydrogen, no long charging times, fuel density comparable to fossil fuels, and ao on. If we had nuclear reactor based energy grid we could use the waste heat to make hydrogen like the Japanese proposed recently.
@@ilyarepin7750 How can you come to this conclusion after watching this video? Your first sentence is right tho.
@Ilya Repin Battery tech is already more efficient than engines and hydrogen fuel cells. The overwhelming majority of EVs are charged at home, its like having a petrol pump at your house and you wake up with a full tank. Besides battery tech is improving charging speeds, density and cost. The potential of hydrogen fuel efficiency is 40% max.
I read about another possibility by a company called Proton Technologies in which depleted oil wells or coal mines make hydrogen by partial combustion deep underground using air pumped from the surface and keeping the CO, CO2 underground. The costs they project are a small fraction of other methods.
An option not mentioned is to make h2 using wind or solar and then use it to make ammonia for transport in ships, rail tanks, truck tanks or pipelines. The ammonia can then be burned to make energy, for example to power cargo ships. Wind h2 production can be maintained using some of the h2 stored to level the ammonia making process. Fuel cell issue are distinct from the h2 as energy issue.
Precisely. She's taken the absolute worst use case that at this point is known to not be viable and built the whole argument around it, as if that's the only use for hydrogen. Hydrogen in cars. It's a straw man more or less. We know hydrogen isn't viable for that. It's why almost no vehicle manufacturers pursue it at this point. Surely generates engagement though.
@@randomculprits Directly into pipelines to replace methane seems the best case, although it would be less efficient than using the electricity directly. Ammonia is a practical first multi-use h2 based product, but will not a major dent in the total co2 picture.
@@randomculprits problem is, car manufacturers are still coming out with both fuel cell and even Hydrogen combustion engine cars, and touting it as the future.
@@Validole isn't that only Toyota? VW group, Ford, GM, Kia-Hyundai and others have gone BEV and have already models they sell in volume and many more in the pipelines. Even BMW that used to try ICE H2 vehicles is now making BEVs.
I love the knowledge!!❤️ Sabine you are true educator!! You bring a certain joy in the way you narrate the facts!!😵💫
Thank you for the video. >10:30 Any observation on hydroelectric plants?
My two young sisters are working on solutions to the two major problems you raised in the video. One is developing a more efficient process of extracting hydrogen from water (I'm not sure I'm allowed to share the numbers because it's a private company but they are pretty good). The other just started researching (in the Technion in Haifa) looking for ways to decrease the amount of platinum needed in fuel cells. They're tweens and I love this kind of cooperation between them (though we all have our doubts about the practicality of Hydrogen as a fuel, especially for private cars)
for car I think methanol is a good candidate for fuel: methanol- fuel cell- electric motor
Even if you could extract hydrogen from anything without cost and repercussions it would still not be a viable alternative to using solar power directly. We need hydrogen for producing fertilizer and some industrial processes like steel reduction. Billions of tons every year for sure. But nowhere else.
kzhead.info/sun/fsyth82DcHNqqq8/bejne.html
@@janami-dharmam tht produce more potant green house gas than fossile fues methane.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 not really solar power doesn't for Cars. Nuclear ios the only viab;e power sources currently
13:20 Because you were just talking about Australia: if you leave beer in your car in winter here, it'll usually still be too warm to drink.
But do your beer cans explode when left in the car?
@@stapleman007 Maybe in summer
Part of the problem is that anyone with incendiary rounds could literally cause serious damage. Not to mention if there's a serious accident another risk of explosion.
The energy in one kilogram of hydrogen is 120 Mj (33.33333 kwh) Gasoline is 13% hydrogen. One US gallon of gasoline has a mass of 2.85769 kg, so the energy in one gallon of gasoline would be 44.58 Mj (120 x 2.85769 x 13%) 44.58 Mj is equal to 12.3833 kwh. 2.85769 kg of gasoline contains 0.3715 kg of hydrogen. Again 120 x 0.3715 equals 44.58 Mj.
Thank you. I didn't know Iridium was going to be another problem as well. Hydrogen power didn't need another show stopper. It's got enough already.
It is still better than gasoline
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 really, it's not.
Yes. You changed my mind about hydrogen. The Iridium Platinum problem is a huge issue.
Go and get an asteroid. Also the whole world has iridium in the form of the geological boundary from when the dinosaurs went extinct
@@savagesarethebest7251 I thought about the asteroid. I think that is likely to far off into the future to relieve us of the climate mess we have left for ourselves. The KT-boundary is thinned out all over the globe as you point it. This makes it far to expensive to mine.
Hydrogen is needed for the energy transition. No fuel cells and Platinum required.
@@gerbre1: Do you mean for direct burning, like as a substitute for using coal to melt iron to produce steel?
@@patricklincoln5942 Yes, direct burning in a combined heat and power plant or in a jet engine. Airbus together with CFM is developing such a jet engine for the A380. But Airbus is also considering the fuel cell, no final decision yet.
As a chemical engineer I've been telling people this for decades, and lacking understanding they just argued maintaining that I was wrong, or protecting the oil industry, etc.However, they see a youtube video and suddenly they are experts. I fear for the future of humanity.