It’s a shame that i get my info about renewable energy plans in my country(Aus) from a UA-cam channel instead of the news or the government. Thanks for the info👍
I have been educating myself of the state of renewables around the world, and Australia especially. I have to say the grip the coal industry has on the govt over there is a mess. Now, here in America its no better, so this isnt the pot calling the kettle black. The Big Oil lobby pretty much controls the Republican party. But its a shame because Australia has SO MUCH potential to become a Hydrogen Superpower.
Nick the government will be putting out press releases. But main stream media know most people are not that interested, and at best it will be a footnote on page 20, if you’re lucky. Science stories don’t sell newspapers or get eyes in front of screens, except for a small minority which you and I belong to.
Australia for generations has led the world at shooting ourselves in the foot whilst dreaming of grandiose schemes instead of just looking after ourselves. This really used to be "The Lucky Country" but we and by we I mean our lazy spineless politicians have pissed away every natural advantage that we were blessed with without any thought for our financial security or sovereignty and here we go yet again.
Our land has turned to the Lucky Land for the huge corporations who buy the corrupt government and abuse our resources and rob our people blind. Just look at how our gas industry is performing. They come to our property without permission, destroy the land and water sources, they massively overprice the gas for Australians and in the end pay no tax.
News for ya. It's no different in Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter. A very small number make off with an obscene amount of loot, and the rest of us live with the wreckage while trying to figure out what next to cut in order to pay the bill. And it's the politician's (and civil servant's) job to keep the public compliant with the carrot and stick. Can't wait to pick up the cheque for Covid19 after being told the bill is "only x-billion/trillion" and not the "y-billion/trillion" that been "projected". Of course, they're not about to tell you that "x" equals your retirement...
Down to earth, back to basics ... And those “lazy spineless politicians” were voted into government by lazy spineless voters. The voters seem to want to blame the very people they vote into power.
What is it with people? Lazy spineless politicians are only in office because the people won't vote them out. IMO it's not the lazy spineless politicians but the people that put them there and let them stay there that are the problem.
Producing hydrogen with solar power & using it as energy storage is an incredible idea. I think hydrogen could also make a huge impact on moving the shipping industry away from fossil fuels. I don't think hydrogen will end up being common in cars (imho battery electric is just too far along & is also making incredible strides every year), but hydrogen still has an extremely bright future & a LOT of great uses to help us become more sustainable.
Whatever you are snorting, needs to be passed around. Energy density and cost of said energy density... and you claim to be a "dr." ... of what? Ignorance of physics?
@@davesmith3289 Yes it takes a few minutes to refill them,but the cost of the fuel cells is very very expencive,because they use very expencive metals like platinum,so they are more suitable for trucks or may be trains ,or ships
On Q&A last night I understood Finkel to say basically three things (summarizing part of the COAG briefing report): 1. Combining consumption of natural gas with renewables makes sense as a transitional situation since, unlike coal, gas powered turbines can be ramped up and down far more quickly. Hence gas can be used as a supplement to renewables rather than renewables supplementing fossil fuel; 2. Natural gas can be seen as an interim measure, over a 10 to 30 year timescale, while efficient production of green hydrogen is improved to replace it. Infrastructure supporting the use of natural gas - pipelines, turbines etc. can be switched easily to using green hydrogen; 3. Green hydrogen is potentially sourced from water and from hydrocarbons involving low carbon dioxide emissions some of which includes carbon dioxide capture and storage. I think this was a useful contribution to the public discussion.
I'm so glad I found your channel. Here's a girl from India who wakes up in the morning and turns on your channel for her morning dose of knowledge while preparing for the day ahead.
Hydrogen strategies for cars or export are invariably a delay tactic by fossil fuel and conservative interests. The only useful thing to do with Hydrogen in Australia would be direct reduction of Iron ores, entirely a consumption at point of use industry which eliminates the horrible storage and transport costs of Hydrogen. The export of this 'Green Steel' would be the effective way to de-facto export energy, much the way Iceland exports Aluminum as a means to export its hydro and geothermal energy. The market is assured because the Asian importing nations that already buy Australian Iron and Coal will increasingly not want the polluting smelting processes done in their backyards.
One likely source of hydrogen will be commercial nuclear reactors out at sea - away from populated areas and right in the middle of endless water. As nuclear reactors are becoming cheaper to build and maintain, and as public nuclear reactors are being shut down meaning uranium/thorium will become cheaper due to less demand, it seems like a no-brainer.
Have a look at Seaborg Technologies from Denmark, Rolls Royce from UK They are making small nuclear reactors. Small enough to fit a 20' container. That would power up a town of 50 000 thousand people. I beleive South Korea have ordered severel thousands from Seaborg. Very interesting! They use melted salt...well, you do the reading at their website!
I am Australian and often watch you channel to keep up to date with global trends. But I do not use this channel primarily for this channel. There are Australian sources for good info on Australian. The Climate council, Renewable Economy and 3 Solar quotes with Finn Peacock. So despite the poor record by our conservative government, much is happening despite out deplorable conservative government. I appreciate your channel !
Finkel & the CSIRO are class acts, but the current government is owned by fossil fuel companies. If the CSIRO can scale up it's production of Graphair filters, using seawater won't be an issue, and though batteries may be more economical for vehicles, hydrogen is so abundant it's availability cancels out a lot of efficiency concerns. Plus, coal powered power stations can be converted to running off hydrogen.
Apparently it can be stored, transported and recovered again quite efficiently in the form of ammonia. www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-01-link-solar-hydrogen-ammonia.amp
An interesting video. I understand JCB in the UK has recently signed a deal to buy Australian green hydrogen. This was surprising as it seems odd to ship hydrogen half way round the world, when it could be made in the UK. If the large sunny land areas are a significant factor in the cost, then Spain or Morocco perhaps are closer. Given that hydrogen has a very low density even when compressed of liquified, it requires large, high pressure or cryogenic transport tanks which will weigh much more than the contents. I would love to hear more on the ecconomics of this. There is much evidence that Oz is going green, despite rather than because of its government, which is promising.
Hydrogen is going to be more important than most people think in the future. As it’s actually a battery and not a fuel it will be useful for firming up intermittent renewable energy and provide the “base load” for when solar and wind aren’t operating and allows excess renewable energy to be “stored” without having to use truckloads of lithium ion batteries.
You are very correct. Not sure how far hydrogen will percolate down into road traffic but as a base load power role there is a place. Ideally renewable power capacity should be many times the current fossil fuel based limited level. Ten, twenty. fifty times current levels. It should be abundant and cheap. At those levels only a fraction of it would require buffering via storage technology. It does not all need to be stored - the rest could be utilized literally for making hay while the sun shines. There is a huge demand for water in Australia. Desalination plants could run on excess generated electricity, winding down overnight and when the wind stops blowing then powering up again each morning supplying towns and farms. There is nothing impossible to overcome, mostly vested interests fighting to maintain the status quo.
As an Aussie I am not hopeful of this technology with the current government. I would love to see it developed here, I just can't realistically see it happening at the moment. Thanks for your interest in our projects 😊
As with many things it'll happen despite the government, the driver will be economics. Although of course it would help if the government wasn't so protectionist about the fossil industry.
@@turningpoint4238 I'd like to 2nd Jake's comment, and hopefully make Dillon feel a bit better about our future. I currently work for a large contractor that provides services to both the O&G sector and mineral sector. I work in the latter. However, even our company can see how the future is going, and has now got a renewable energy division. And we aren't the only one. I think any company in mining/energy that is looking towards the future is hedging their bets towards renewable energies or low carbon emissions industry.
You do not want this project because it is already dead in the water. H2 for just about any purpose is a waste of time. The presenter did not mention anything about the inherent losses with H2 production. You need 2 -3 times the input to get the same amount of output if you were to just store in batteries. Battery production is increasing in an unimaginable way all thanks to Tesla. It truly is inconceivable the amount of batteries that will be available in just a few short years. The cost of H2 mentioned here will seem horrendously expensive compared to renewable and battery storage. you could even run a cable between Australia and asia to transport energy if thats what you wanted to do. compressing H2 is just really wasteful and really dumb.
@@s4098429 Don't forget the 100's of Billions of dollars in subsidies they've given the rich, tax refunds for (rich shareholders that pay no tax) mining and fossil fuel companies taking 90% of the profits offshore with no resource taxes and 80 billion to the military when they thought labor would get in just to muck up their budget, and the selling of revenue generating assets. not funding gonski education to help kids learn in underfunded schools, and crippling our countries fibre network so rupert murdoch can control the minds of dopey boomers with his news papers and pay tv pro mining anti - green / labor propaganda. All of this prior to the virus. Frankly, we should of let Germany / Japan invade us, they would of treated us better than these greedy religous muppets
A small state park in Florida had set up a small example of a fuel cell to operate some of it's lights. The hydrogen was produced by electrolysis during the day, using solar panels as the electric source. Then the lights could operate after sunset, using power from the fuel cells. It looked like a perfect solution until I saw the cost of the facility. This was about 15 years ago. Thankfully the cost of these products is falling quickly. But I wonder if it has now dropped low enough to make it feasible.
Batteries will always be cheaper. They also become more efficient and cheaper over time. Hydrogen is useful as a secundairy option where batteries aren't possible. Like aviation and extreme long haulage etc. For normal day to day energy it is a non starter.
I've lived in five countries. The last twenty in Australia. So, I can compare. I've not been in a country with so many local, mostly medical but also other scientific breakthroughs on the news so often. As can be expected, they mostly fizzle out. Australia had a TV program called, Beyond 2,000 here from 1985 - 1999. It featured expected breakthroughs that should have eventuated after 2,000. Many of these were Australian breakthroughs. Sadly, I can't recall one that happened off the top of my head. Beyond 2,000 Revisited will be a very interesting TV program. I will watch it. The original was well done. I know about Cochlear and Helicobacter Pylori which were truly Australian breakthroughs. Like much of the West, Australia is also terminally ill with political correctness. Nuclear energy is Satan and solar and wind are in their pantheon of gods. Australia has the biggest storage battery in the world powered by the sun. Here is what it really can do: chrismalan.blogspot.com/2019/10/jamestown-south-australia-grid-battery.html You won't see these real-world figures touted about. I suspect greenies may make pilgrimages to the thing to pray to it. The answer is nuclear energy. But just the word, nuclear is enough to make a greenie prolapse her uterus or twist his spermatic cord. This video was highly speculative. I'd bet against hydrogen being available cheaply. My advice to Just Have a Think is to stay in the real world and steer clear of pie in the sky.
Good observations Chris. One thing we all know is that money buys politics. Right now, the fossil fuel industry has the financial means to determine energy policy in all western "democracies", and they will not give this up easily. I personally don't think that nuclear will play a significant role in cleaner energy - even with the emerging science involving thorium, etc. One advantage of course is the possibility of small-scale reactors that could "supplement" wind and solar, help with grid balancing, and provide a relatively "steady" flow of electrons into large battery (and other) storage facilities. As pointed out by many observers, hydrogen is still "atoms", and therefore requires sophisticated and extremely costly physical infrastructure to manufacture, store and transport. Even with the most efficient extraction methods, the energy required to produce it does not yet match the cost-efficiency of solar and wind. Hornsdale seems to be showing us a viable and cost-effective combination of clean generation, storage and grid balancing. Additionally, the cost of wind and solar (the infrastructure) is declining rapidly, and the technology is getting more efficient and reliable. The point of price-parity is being lowered, and hydrogen is not keeping pace. H2 seems it will forever be more expensive than solar+wind+battery - so it will be very unlikely that H2 will become a predominant energy source.
@@brunosmith6925 It was nice to find a sensible comment. Electrons are the densest energy store, and wires beat pipes every time. SMALL LFTRs are safe and easy, once the chemistry has been mastered. The high temperatures make LFTRs the powerhouses of organic chemistry, decarbonising the atmosphere and desalinating seawater. It's an opportunity which mustn't be spoiled by the ignorance and greed of the power lobby - but will be.
You're spot on, Chris. Even CSIRO and Finkle are away with the fairies, so what hope is there for the even less enlightened? I feel so sad for our grandchildren having to carry the millstone we are creating for them, with the FF companies backing up intermittent sources as the way to keep their noses in the trough.
The purpose of the "Tesla Big Battery" was not to supply volumes of power, but to help keep the grid stable in a world of variable renewable energy, and in the case of Australia, a fragile grid resulting from lack of investment over the past two decades since the conservative government sold it off to the private sector. The Hornsdale Power Reserve (as it is officially named) does this very well, and also lowers the cost of power to consumers by breaking up the cartels of fossil fuel generators that game the Australian electricity market to force up power prices and increase their profits. reneweconomy.com.au/sa-big-batteries-again-steer-state-through-interconnector-dramas-28099/ reneweconomy.com.au/hornsdale-big-battery-doubles-savings-to-consumers-and-keeps-lights-on-85139/ reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-renewables-grid-separates-from-nem-lights-dont-go-out-14232/ reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-tesla-big-battery-kept-the-lights-on-in-south-australia-20393/ As for nuclear power, that is the worst answer. It will take years to build, it is inflexible (even worse than coal in its ability to ramp up and down to meet the needs of a modern grid), and if it is ever actually finished it will generate the most expensive power in the grid. And the mythical SMR? It don't seem to be much closer to reality than it was a decade ago, and as for the cost of the power generated, I'd be more inclined to take Hinkley C as a guide than the claims of SMR proponents. And would you be happy to have the nuclear waste disposed of in your back yard? www.bbc.com/news/business-49823305 arena.gov.au/blog/aemo-and-csiro-report-finds-renewables-cheapest/
@@candmlucanus8419 Alan Finkel did say publicly that Australia should look at nuclear. But if he upsets the politicians too much he's out of his job. Tony Abbott decreased the number of scientists drastically. So, better tell them what they want to hear. The present energy minister is anti-nuclear and has no scientific training. Arts and humanities monkeys hate science. At university, the students in scientific fields make fun of them and they don't forget it. So, when they get into a position where they can call the shots it's out with facts and reason and in with BS and total nonsense. Listen to a politician speaking and reduce it to the information it contains. Strange, isn't it, that bullshitters control the world.
The interesting thing about putting that facility in Dongara, is that it is the site of a number of depleted natural gas sites and has a pipeline to Perth, which was used for natural gas transport, and could easily be repurposed of transporting hydrogen. There are also, in those depleted gas sites, ready made storage by injection for hydrogen gas storage. Couple that with CSIRO’s patented technology to quickly and easily convert hydrogen gas to ammonia (which is much easier to transport in liquid form) and back again at the receiving point (more detail, here www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Renewable-and-low-emission-tech/Hydrogen/Hydrogen-membrane ) and Western Australia is in a solid position to be an exporter of clean hydrogen. Other sites under consideration for deploying that technology also line up with existing gas pipelines for the gas fields in the north west of Western Australia.
Just wish they picked the correct gas for our gas led recovery : S Maybe under Turnbull it could work but our current PM sees any kind of gasbag as a leadership challenge.
The purpose of the fossil fuel industry is not to pollute the environment, it’s to make money. A fact that is often purposely forgotten in this community. Attributing morals to a amoral entity is not helpful. If there is more money to be made doing the ‘right thing’ than otherwise, that’s what company’s will do. The same could also be said, unfortunately, to describe most people.
John Neomaster Country1 buy US$ to pay for goods from country2 while country2 buy US$ to pay for goods from country1 or countryX. Most importantly industrialized countries needs fuel from oil countries must pay in US$. Which country has the most reserve on US$? Indirectly all nations serve for USA who generate the most US$. Some of the US$ spend in military to stabilize oil countries in return for all oil must be paid in US$. If that isn’t world dominance what is?
That's why government policy should primarily focus on the the market context: 1. Funding of fundamental research in a variety of alternative energy technologies to counter the technological lock-in. 2. Open the market place by reducing regulation and force natural gatekeepers to the energy market like grid operators to allow anyone to buy and sell energy at market prices. 3. Tax technologies with unwanted side effects at the most fair and simple point in the supply chain. Tax the extraction of carbon from the earths crust directly and let the market figure out how to use the more expensive carbons best or to use alternatives. 4. Counter international forces that try to control the domestic markets. For example tax foreign co-operations that use subsidies in their home country to compete with non-subsidized domestic companies.
The BIG problem with H2 production in Oz is water. Thus was mentioned in the video. But what was it mentioned was that for every tonne of H2 produces multiple tonnes of concentrated brine will need to be pumped back into the sea - killing everything over large distances from the exit point in the ocean.
I just discovered your channel and think it’s awesome. Surprised you didn’t cover or don’t know about the CSIRO’s ammonia to hydrogen metalic membrane technology. There is minimal information about it, was shown for the first time about two years ago possibly more. It is only the huge amount of respect i have for the CSIRO that makes me give credence to the claims. Hopefully you can find out more about it and establish if feasible.
The absolute precision of manufacturing technology combined with the exotic materials required to contain, pressurize, and transport this smallest of naturally occurring elements, makes hydrogen unlikely to be suitable for domestic or transportation fuels. And as you imply, developing the technology of using unprocessed seawater as a feed stock is critical to achieving production at scale. As for the potential of carbon capture and storage, it holds the promise of containing CO2 nearly as effectively as recycling technology has kept plastic pollution out of the oceans.
As an Australian I’m both disappointed and embarrassed by Dr. Finkel on his hydrogen position. I find it very difficult to take any of it seriously and suspect that the oil and coal industries here have managed to compromise him. Right now a $300M+ project is being stood up in Victoria to make hydrogen from coal of all things. As a fuel for transport, hydrogen makes very little sense and will cost at least 2-3x that of using a pure EV since it is 1/3 as energy efficient, and that’s before putting margins on to sell the stuff, or building the multi-billion dollar infrastructure to be able to refuel all around the country. A hydrogen fuel station is at least 10x that of a high speed DC charger for starters, and the electricity grid already exists. As a consumer, as I type this my car is ‘refuelling’ from the solar panels on my roof - now that the house battery is full I set the car charging to use up the excess rather than export it to the grid. I’m sceptical that Japan will buy it’s hydrogen from someone else when they have a few real advantages in producing their own. Firstly, they have an established nuclear power industry that could produce hydrogen very cheaply from excess power, but also importantly Japan sits as an island with potentially huge untapped offshore wind resources of their own. With the costs for wind also dropping dramatically why wouldn’t Japan make it’s own hydrogen - or just start powering EVs directly from the grid? The only thing that comes to mind for this is that I suspect the heavy industry in Japan that manufacture cars have as strong grip on their government as the fossil fuel industry does on ours here in Australia. While the rest of the world’s car manufacturers are moving towards pure EVs, the Japanese have stuck with hybrids or talked a lot of nonsense about hydrogen. The only case that I can see for hydrogen is in industrial processes, and if we can avoid making it from fossil fuels then zero emission steel is possible. Exporting it in the form of Ammonia etc makes it even less efficient and there are currently projects looking to provide electricity directly to Asia using very long ultra high voltage undersea transmission cables. Once again, hydrogen’s inherent inefficiency and the huge infrastructure costs are a problem for it’s credibility. I’m not a scientist, nor an economist, but am not an idiot either but none of this stacks up to me. We’ve seen battery prices steadily falling while density increases and simultaneously other energy storage technology coming along. Even with stupidly cheap renewable energy the efficiency starts to bite. In the medium term the choice will be - Power your home and car using solar on the roof and a home battery that costs peanuts, or buy your power from someone else for money and pay a huge amount to the hydrogen seller to fill your car up each week. Drive for free or pay to drive? To put all of this into perspective, I was spending $100 per week on fuel before buying an EV. Shortly and EV will be at price parity with ICE - it already is in some vehicle segments. When an EV costs the same as a petrol car you’d have to be a numpty to drive the petrol one.
Good man Alan Finkel. He's really up against it though, when the government (either main 2 parties) takes so much campaign money from the fossil fuel industry.
Did you see him fudge, stutter and twiddle his thumbs in the Senate enquiry into C02 warming the planet with the end result of CSIRO not stating that C02 is causing dangerous climate change as they can not produce any evidence for C02 warming the planet. But Hydrogen is very good but at a huge cost, I just don't want the poor, old and sick to foot the bill with a Carbon tax, lets us better-off in society pay for it somehow, like Super investment as well.
@@peterjohnstaplesHe probably had his life threatened by the fossil fuel companies. I don't see how a carbon tax would ever work, they would just pass the tax onto the consumer and continue business as normal. There just needs to bigger subsidies for renewable energy than there is for fossil fuels.
@@coolhandluke1503 If they pass it onto the consumer, then companies that can produce products with less carbon emissions will be able to produce the end product at a lower price making their product more competitive. The carbon tax we had for 2 years really worked in measurably reducing CO2 emissions and the consumers weren't hurting. What's really hurt them has been the flip-flopping from the government producing uncertainty in industry.
Calculations on the back of an envelope: 1 ton of H2 production per year requires about 10 solar panels or about 4 windmills. If the energy production is split 75 vs 25 % between solar & wind sources, 100,000 ton plant may require 750,000 panels and 100,000 windmills. If larger wind mills of 5 MW capacity are used, wind mills needed will be reduced to 50,000. Assuming: 1 solar panel = 17 kwh/day; 2.4 mw windmill = 10 kwh/day; 1 ton H2 production needs 55000kwh
I'm all for a genuinely green Hydrogen Industry if it's truly economically viable and not yet another case of fossil fuel companies trying to remain relevant by diverting attention away from real meaningful action to transition to renewable energy. Many of us remain highly sceptical and for very good reasons. CCS has never been economically viable for coal. It was always a delay tactic by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Why will CCS be any different for Hydrogen production from steam reforming? Further, nobody can guarantee sequestered CO2 will remain permanently safely contained underground. Western Australia has an appallingly bad record in transitioning to renewable energy. We have an abysmal 11% renewable energy. South Australia is at well over 50%. Tasmania close to 100%. Why don't we build what would be the cheapest solar and wind power in the world to power our own grid before we plan a Hydrogen export industry.
This. Most CCS are hopelessly expensive and un-scalable. Many are actually engineered to drive fossil fuel usage up. I know of only 2 anywhere realistic : ocean fertilizing, enhanced rock weathering.
It’s also worth noting that hydrogen can be reacted with nitrogen using the Haber process to produce ammonia which can be used for fertiliser but also as a easier way to store and transport energy as the reaction can be reversed back into hydrogen and nitrogen. But as far as I know this is relatively new research and I am not sure if it would be economically viable before hydrogen transportation anyway.
I wish there was more discussion/awareness about anhydrous ammonia. As far as I can tell it can be combusted directly in atmosphere, with either the assistance of a bit of lower-ignition temperature fuel or after passing over a ruthenium catalyst to liberate a bit of hydrogen. Sharing some LPG properties, I imagine there's a huge market for retrofitting combustion fleets. The information is there, pros and cons; probably conspiracy to keep it quiet.... hang on, somebody knocking on my door.
Yes Hydrogen has a habit of reacting with the Carbon in Steel to create Methane. This is the process known as 'Hydrogen embitterment' as it creates tiny cracks in the pressure vessel over time. Internal coatings may help somewhat but I have not heard about any breakthrough in this storage technology.
Still, there are pros & cons with everything and nothing lasts for ever and it all comes down to relative quantities, which is essentially person-hours & land surface area (ocean for a few things). "Cost" is the negotiation/arbitration/dealing of those things.
I remember thinking hydrogen power was just around the corner. That was 1976.....and hearing the same for every year after that. So any decade now, right after fusion and flying cars.
I remember watching a Tomorrows World programme featuring a hydrox fuel battery. It was broadcast over 50 years ago. At the time the cost was prohibitive because the electrodes were made of platinum. The battery demonstrated was about the size of a 12volt car battery and could power a trolleybus.
I love the idea of storing green energy in the form of hydrogen, but hydrogen has a tiny little molecule compared to other elements. Leakage must be an issue. It is certainly a problem in military avionics cooling systems using much bigger molecules.
@@erdelegy Ammonia would be feasible. With an on board cracker using exhaust heat we could produce a gas mixture that would power an internal combustion engine.
@@vincentconti3633 of course it's factured in... And "some say" Some? Everyone. It's responsible for like 90% of the green house effect. That's welll established in the scientific literature
Water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere can be turned into usable power and drinkable water. Nature does it all the time, and we can imitate nature. We can even improve upon nature. That untapped resource easily dwarfs all other forms of energy, save sunlight, and it is renewed constantly, thanks to sunlight and evaporation. All we have to do is think a little outside the box, and the entire planet becomes our _pre-built for free_ solar energy collector.
Amazing how small this facility talked about here will be compared to the Asia Renewable Energy Hub planned for the Pilbara region of Western Australia. I hope they can get the planned 15GW of renewable energy generation built. Interesting note, the planned sale cost of electrolysis hydrogen from that plant is $2/kg H2. For reference most fossil fuel equivalents range from $8-10/kg of H2
HFC vehicles don't make much sense when you compare their overall efficiency with BEVs. You need to use electricity to make H2, compress it, transport it, etc. In the end a HFC vehicle has an overall efficiency on par with an ICE vehicle (approx. 20%). For a BEV you can start with the same electricity, send it to a charging station and charge its battery directly. The overall efficiency is about 90%.
Hydrogen has tons of advantages in terms of renewability. Net energy losses due to ineffeciency in electrolysis, gas leakage, transportation and fuel cells make H2 far less effeceint that direct e- storage in batteries. It makes sense for airplanes now due to H2s energy density, but in the long run, batteries will win that too. 30 years ago, I would have agreed that H2 was the way to go. Now I'm convinced it's in direct storage due to the shortcomings listed above. Thank you for your insight.
Here we have such influences called Oil Companies. They lobby for Hydrogen with 60 Million euro at the EU. Why? They want to sell that Grey Hydrogen so badly. They don't want emissions to go down. They want MONEY. And hydrogen is their new way to fool people, without contributing ANYTHING to reducing carbon emissions. Hydrogen is not the solution, it's a solution made up again by Oil companies. Follow the money, the only solution is Solar + Wind + Batteries + Nuclear Power. Combined in a smart grid.
Well one think for sure, here in Western Australia we have huge stretches of unused land, heaps of sunshine and areas of low quality water. So set up solar systems and remote harvesting locations, with reasonable transportation means, able to use low quality water would be amazing. However Australia does suffer under the lucky country syndrome and likely miss opportunities again
The energy-equivalent of 1000 g of H2 would be 2400 g of methane. Combustion of 2400 g of methane (~natural gas) produces 6600 g of CO2. Hydrogen from steam reformation of natural gas emits even ~10 kg of CO2 per kg of hydrogen by production. 800 g of CO2 per kg of hydrogen would be very good, comparable to renewable energy sources regarding CO2 per kWh. A FCEV would achieve ~8 grams of CO2 per km with such hydrogen. Normal gasoline cars: ~160 grams of CO2 per km.
There seems to be a lot of focus on energy production and storage whether it is oil, gas,nuclear,wind or solar. However nobody have mentioned how we are going to substitute a lot of other products that comes from the petrochemical industry. Most machinery is dependent of some sort of lubricant in order not to break down. All over the world most roads with some traffic has a surface with asphalt. If you look in your wardrobe most of the clothes contain a certain amount of synthetic fabrics. Then you have all the other plastics we all have laying around the house from cling film in the kitchen to garden hoses. All the raw material of these comes from petrochemical processing. So even is all our power production and transportation systems were running on clean sustainable energy we still be dependent of the oil industry for a long time.
"Pure" water can be obtained through evaporation/condensation under the blazing sun. Using the input water for cooling to drive condensation (which will release more heat into the system). Resultant brine would need to be sent deep offshore and gradually diluted along the way.
Carbon capture isn't that hard (like in: It is know how to do it and the technology exists), but it costs money to do it, and strangely it is much cheaper not to do it. We ditched a large project here in Norway for carbon capture and depositing in old oil wells basically because it couldn't be made cheap enough. Which brings us to the real problem: Economy isn't linked with sustainable.
Every coal plant built in Australia and most the world is 100% tax payer funded and subsidised, why? because they're super expensive to build. Mean while solar and wind are almost 100% privately funded and still cheaper to run. Batteries have reduced in price ten fold in the last ten years as has solar and wind. And they aren't slowing down as economies or scale, cheap and more efficient methods of production and cheaper materials are constantly being discovered. Tesla is about to announce making money from their cars supplying energy to the grid in peak demand as an additional way to make money with their autobidding system. Not sustainable? Only your old thinking is not sustainable.
Check out Hazer process. Has ability to be carbon negative using biogas from water treatment plants and turning the carbon into high grade graphite that can be used in batteries. Currently have $10m ARENA grant to build demonstration plant in Western Australia. Can also use natural gas. Place for both applications due to Australia's abundance in natural gas. We have other great technologies here in Aus. Let's get the industry going!
Graham Luell Australia should get cracking building several nuclear power plants right now! We can supplement nuclear power with renewables but nuclear is the key 21 century power for Australia and just about every other country.
Not a mention of demand reduction, with much enthusiasm in direct return or subsidised carbon capture and storage, by Governments and commentators alike. In just the same way that driving our plug-in cars came about through knowledge of responsible lifestyle choices and minimising waste (of food, fuel, power, water and other resources), our demand for the exclusively renewable energy we consume dropped because we know the planet has more than enough clean energy and resources to share fairly. Thanks for another well-presented product, based on awareness of respectable source material by, in this case, Australian and other Australasian energy and policy agencies.
I live just 80km from Dongara (Pronounced Don-g-ra) And everyone I know in my region of Western Australia wants more renewable energy. My town has a large power distributing facility and also the town and region has massive salt lakes. (mostly caused by land degradation) If we got large scale solar and wind farms we could use them to not only produce more hydrogen but also convert those salt lakes into extremely high quality fertiliser and get all the necessary minerals to produce huge quantities of batteries. (The state government predicts we could produce up to 40% of the worlds batteries) The only thing stopping this from happening is the federal government who are convinced that natural gas, "clean" coal and "clean" nuclear are what we should invest in. (Most of which is foreign owned and costs the Australian tax payer billions) All that being said, the Western Australian government is fighting back; not only did the state ban nuclear technology (after the shock of British nuclear weapons tests) but also it's already made it's own plans by creating the "Future battery Industry Strategy." Plus, the state plans on investing heavily in hydrogen and the state owned power company has also put forward targets on ending reliance on "Out of state" energy sources. All that being said, the Federal Government and coal lobby are pretty annoyed at this. They believe that Western Australia producing cheep, clean energy and building new industries is unfair to Queensland coal miners and mining companies... But the state government doesn't care, if the federal government won't do it, the state will do it themselves!
Another great video showing how renewables and hydrogen are symbiotic in the reduction of fossil fuel use. If solar and wind produced hydrogen can undercut steam reforming then that’s another nail in the coffin for gas, along with peaker batteries. If rising demand for hydrogen leads to more solar and wind building then the price of the technology will fall further. This is a really intriguing proposition which completes the roadmap to replacing fossil fuels in heavy transportation, industrial processes and even perhaps aviation.
The elephant in the room with hydrogen is that it wastes energy. For example, even using renewable sources like wind or solar for electrolysis, it would take about ~60 kWh to produce the 6.62 kg of H2 to drive a Hyundai Nexo fuel cell vehicle its full range of 370 miles. That amount of electricity could power Hyundai's Ioniq electric vehicle for… 1,353 miles! As the old adage says: "waste not, want not."
Mark D Larsen Hydrogen is incredibly important for the chemical industry. Basically everything can be synthesized out of hydrogen. Today fossil hydro-carbos are used for that. Also the steel industry has to have a way to produce steel without coal. Hydrogen can step in there.
Problem here is hydrogen production inefficiency. You are wasting 2/3 of energy. E.g. if solar/wind farm produces 10GWh of electricity and you make hydrogen with it, you get ~4 GWh from that hydrogen from fuel cells, and you wasted 6 GWh. Does not make much sense.
Except that in many cases, the distribution capacity of that cheap, renewable, and intermittent energy to the consumer is limited. Already we are seeing many renewable power facilities that often need to throttle production because they have reached the capacity of their distribution connections. Battery storage of electricity will always quickly become uneconomic for longer durations of storage as batteries are best used for short term energy storage. Using synthetic fuels and hydrogen for medium and longer term energy storage can become a much better option. So, pairing a renewable, or a network of renewable energy facilities together with a green fuel plant will likely be an excellent way to achieve higher levels of renewable development, as their development and placement will no longer be so dependent upon the robustness of the energy grid.
There are other methods of efficient production like that of the H2IL technology. I read that Japan is considering producing their own hydrogen via onsite production adopting the H2IL method. Makes sense as there is not shipping and transportation of the gas needed. Green hydrogen using sea or rain water in any part of the world without tapping into fossil fuel or renewables....
Ah, but all that mining for those solar panels/structures, wind towers, concrete etc is "renewable" ..... oh right, its not. Nuclear is only way forward to anyone with a brain, but the green crowd is allergic to a calculator and a physics/chemistry books.
Petrol cars are only about 30% efficient, so replacing them with more efficient, renewable hydrogen cars that don't pollute the air makes a lot of sense to me,
@@w8stral _"but the green crowd is allergic to a calculator and a physics/chemistry books."_ Interestingly enough there is NOT ONE company in this world that is willing to stemm the cost of insurance and waste treatment for nuclear on its own. They all rely on massive government subsidies to maintain "cheap running costs".
We really, in the UK, should be leading in this Technology. We, like Japan are net importers of Oil and Gas to run our economy. This is not to say we necessarily process the hydrogen for the world, but we can lead on the technology!
Hydrogen is a Fallicy , building Renewables + Battery storage is Cheaper and can installed in 100 Days. TESLA Latest battery , the MEGAPACK can Deliver 3 MW each and can be Directly connected to Renewables and the GRID.
These are definitely exciting! Especially as an Australian, but I'm not hopeful with some of these projects being kickstarted or receive much help from the actual government. Would be nice to see Hydrogen really takeoff here, definitely going to help drive down to cost to be cost-comparable with BEVs!
Love the show, but I'm a hydrogen skeptic. Carbon capture hasn't proven viable and is more likely one more red herring to keep the fossil fuel addiction going. As far as hydrogen from green sources, the inefficiency of electrolysis is a major drawback.
@@AkaiKA4K I'm pretty sure hydrogen beats all of those for specific energy(energy per mass including storage device). On an energy density (energy per volume), hydrogen is not too bad, but hydrogen stored as ammonia beats all of the above. It really depends on whether you are exporting electrons across a grid or material across an ocean.
@k halliday Typically, carbon capture refers to absorbing and storing carbon in man made processes. When people refer to storing carbon in the biosphere from the atmosphere instead of straight out of an exhaust stream, they call it carbon fixation. Carbon fixation is totally viable and desired by environmentalists. Carbon capture is the uneconomical bit that fossil fuel producers talk a lot about but don't want to pay for.
@k halliday I'm in favor of all of that. But, it will not sufficiently mitigate the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels. However, my point was the about plans to capture CO2 at the source and pump it into the ground. That would be more expensive than switching to renewables and reducing energy consumption.
As I understand it. The Australian government actively tries not to do environmental positive activities. On last day of Kyoto agreement they strong armed a Australian clause that set their base pollution level far higher than it actually was. This meant a few years later even though they had increased pollution output by 25% they were still below what the Kyoto agreement base level they had negotiated, so they got Kyoto credits. They have agreed to stop using those credits this Year, several years after other governments had agreed to do this. Australia is the highest per Capita polluter in the world from what I've read. They are actively pursuing new coal and taxing electric cars as well
@@turningpoint4238 Similarly, invoking the future to change present reality can't be done. Only fools do it. But fools love to speculate. So, take it away...
@@grasonicus Only fools ignore the scientific and technological progress we have made. And ignoring the how they progress from the past to the present and on into the future. It's a surprisingly accurate way of seeing what the most likeliest futures are. Check out Tony Seba and his predictions from past to present.
@@JustHaveaThink I have an Idea . As soon as Covid dies a persistent death. We need to get you to come to Toronto and speak on all your work. Could take some time, your work that is. But we can pick a snippet or two. My agenda is to get some media attention here in Canada as we are shamelessly falling behind in the Hydrogen sector. Also it would be great to meet you in person. Now I just have to figure out how to raise the funds to get you here. Just Have a Think,,, about it. Stay well all the best. Tony Germin.
A chief scientist's job is to inform, direct and stratigize. It requires a wide skill set. The most brilliant scientist is better left focusing in his area. So yes I am glad they didn't waste a top scientist in the chief scientist's role.
I suspect hydrogen is being overhyped. The big problem with hydrogen is that producing and using it can waste 60% per to 70% of the energy used to generate it. Battery technology on the other hand for cars and trucks seems quite viable. Rail can be further directly electrified, aircraft may use hydrogen but there are problems with containing it. If battery energy density can increase about ten fold as with lithium air for example, battery powered planes would be an alternative. So that only leaves ships which may be able to use hydrogen. I think storing hydrogen as liquid ammonia on a large scale and indeed hydrogen on a large scale may turn out to be far more dangerous than anticipated. Liquid ammonia is very nasty stuff, explosive, extremely corrosive and in tanker accidents injures large numbers of people. Remember we were told how safe nuclear reactors were, but there have been accidents. In summary I suspect hydrogen may have a niche role in our energy future but it is energy inefficient and dangerous in its various forms. Hydrogen is being overhyped by its proponents and government.
Pft, we can produce as much renewable energy as we want. That is not the constraint. The constraint is making the whole system profitable. Efficiency is only one factor, but profitability takes all factors into account.
@@jimj2683 I agree, but, since both technologies hydrogen and battery consume electricity, and one wastes 60 to 70% of the energy in a production process requiring additional manufacturing plant and distribution which is likely to be cheaper?
@@fredturk6447 The battery EV will likely be more expensive to buy, but slightly cheaper to run. Hydrogen can be produced in remote places with no electricity lines/grid to transport the electricity. How would you transport the super cheap wind energy from South Chile to North America? Even power lines would lose 50% of the energy at those distances. The electricity there is 10-20x cheaper than the grid electricity in the USA, so exporting it as hydrogen might be competitive with simply recharging your BEV, despite the inefficiencies. It doesn't matter what we say though. There are many companies working on all of these technologies, so the market will decide what is best in the end. Most likely there will be different solutions for different applications. Batteries will likely never power long distance jets for example. E-kerosene or hydrogen is much better for that.
@@jimj2683Hydrogen is likely to have a role in the energy future, but I suggest not in passenger vehicles. I checked on the cost of a Toyota Miria and it costs as much to lease one for three years as it does to buy a Tesla model 3. I gather CATL has a sodium ion technology in first generation production. I gather it’s 160 Wh/kg and they claim the next version will be 200 Wh/kg. I am not saying this will be the next battery tech just suggesting there is room for batteries to improve and be lighter, cheaper, faster to recharge and with longer life. So BEV prices should fall. When you look at the difference between a BEV and a hydrogen powered vehicle it largely comes down to the cost of a fuel cell, small battery and hydrogen pressure vessel compared to a big battery. I think if a sodium or aluminium battery technology is developed it’s going to be as cheap or cheaper than a hydrogen vehicle. I agree that using hydrogen as a means of shifting energy around is likely. I just don’t think there will be a mass hydrogen passenger car market for the efficiency reasons I outlined earlier. It will be interesting to see.
6:17 1kg of hydrogen = 40kWh so 25 tons = 1Gwh With 85MW of solar and 75MW of wind (30% FC), you produce less than 1GWh per day. There is a problem here.
The Hazer Process is a very compelling technology that seems to be overlooked in this otherwise excellent contribution. Particularly when Australia has lots of natural gas, this emerging tech could be game changing for hydrogen.
You might want to do a video on the efficiency of using hydrogen as a battery. At first glance, it seems as if it might be 100% efficient, as every electron that goes into the water goes into a released hydrogen atom. Then, every hydrogen atom that joins with an oxygen in a fuel cell releases an electron. However, is that really the case?
All energy loss is in the form of either heat or transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER). Offhand I don't recall processes that "waste" energy by emitting unwanted TER (well I do, such as welding & others but the electrolysis/fuel cell seems unlikely for that). This means that a 100% efficient system that has a purpose other than heating (probably always being the purpose of making kinetic energy, electrical energy , potential energy, pressure or TER) generates no heat. If the system can be closed then it could be assessed that way, the amount of heating as a proportion of the total energy is its inefficiency. It has to be closed to provide thermal insulation & to convert sound & mechanical/kinetic energies to heat so it can all be measured as the final energy loss, which is heat. The pressure change would also need to be measured. My point is that if "it might be 100% efficient, as every electron that goes into the water goes into a released hydrogen atom. Then, every hydrogen atom that joins with an oxygen in a fuel cell releases an electron" is correct then no heat is made (Law of Conservation of Energy). Does electrolysis run without causing heating ? Does a fuel cell run without causing heating ? Did I forget anything ?
@@grindupBaker Yes, I know the basic laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy. However, there may be electrons that go straight through the water to the other electrode. So the only result is heat. But, if that heat is contained, does it eventually contribute to making it easier for some OTHER electron to release a hydrogen atom? That "unproductive" electron still had to travel through all the wires going out to the solar panels, so we can't trap ALL it's wasted energy in the water. And we can't "imagine a spherical cow" by pretending we can even keep all the heat that was created in the water actually IN the water. Heat is also released by fuel cells. If that is trapped inside the fuel cell, does it make the fuel cell more efficient, or less? If we choose to transfer that heat to the original water (perhaps by immersing the fuel cell into the water) does that eventually make the hydrolysis more efficient? What if we allow the water to get so hot it converts to stream? Do we use that to drive a turbine to reclaim some of that "wasted" energy? What about the water vapor from the fuel cell. As vapor, that contains energy. Do we condensed that water to replenish the water in the original tank? Where do we put the heat that was extracted from there water vapor? Do we release it or use the water tank as a means of condensing the vapor. We could just literally bubble the vapor from the fuel cells through the water to directly transfer the heat and water vapor molecules into the water in the tank. We can tell if all the energy is going into the tank because no bubbles would reach the surface. So, we could design such a system to use as few additional pumps, etcetera as possible for maximum efficiency. All the pumps and hydrogen/oxygen storage tanks could be sealed and immersed in the water tank to keep all the heat inside the system. From the outside, it would look like just a big, insulated tank of water with two terminal posts sticking out of it. Like a giant car battery. My question is: Is anyone doing that? Has anyone made these calculations? Has anyone even considered using such a closed system ONLY as a battery for intermittent alternative energy sources? Would it be more efficient than a bank of lithium ion batteries? More environmentally friendly? What about energy density? But would that matter in this situation? What about cost per amp hour stored? Would this be a nonstarter based on that alone? I have no clue. Someone could build these systems to fit into the space of a standard shipping container. Then just stack them up and connect the wires, just like giant batteries.
@@jimgraham6722 Thanks. I'm assuming that is backed up by decent research. Prepaid that is why they are only looking at H2 for long term storage. Batteries are far less efficient for long term storage. But, once hydrogen is in a tank, it pretty much will just sit there forever.
@@GrantSR H2 + O fuel cells have been around for quite a while, they provided the power for the Apollo spacecraft. The main problem as ever has been the high cost of the fuel cells, particularly the expensive platinum catalysts and the cost of H2 generation and storage. Most fuel cell vehicles use a Li ion battery as the main propulsion due to intermittent high current draw such as taking off from lights. The battery also allows some limited regenerative braking. The fuel cell acts like a range extender continually charging the battery to give the vehicle decent range. The problem for H2 proponents is that the batteries used in BEVs have improved substantially in recent years undercutting the need for range extension. Most Tesla's for example have better than 500 km range, the model S goes further than 600km. This together with fast charging has undermined the case for hydrogen vehicles. Hydrogen might be useful for static power, but even there it has to compete with fluid batteries such as vanadium and liquid sodium. All in all green H2 looks too troublesome as an energy storage medium and will likely only feature in niche applications such as steel making and the chemicals industry.
How about doing a vid about Carbon Negative Algea Bio Fuel, that permanently removes 10 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of Algea fuel!. I have been researching alternative fuels for decades, and I strongly believe we not can use Algea Bio Fuel. But we need to use it, then we don’t need to waste valuable energy and resources making millions of new vehicles. Instead we use the ICE Vehicles we already have in effect as Carbon Capturing machines, 45 millions metric tons p/a could be permanently removed just in the UK!. Also Algea is grown in Photo Bio Reactors( PBR) that are easy, cheap and quick to build, and could be rolled out country wide in 5-10 years. As I said I truly and strongly believe we need to use our ICE to sequester Carbon, as we have no other way to sequester enough CO2 in next 10 years. And no other alternative fuel can transition as fast as Algea Bio Fuel, let alone be Carbon Negative. Also the Algea can be fed Landfil runoff, industrial gasses, Waste water etc. So helping the environment and saving energy while it grows, and would create millions of local Green jobs, and keep fuel money locally for other transitional projects.
You raise an interesting subject. Second generation Carbon Negative Algae Biofuel offers the various benefits of producing oil for fuel as well as enriching soils along with carbon sequestration.. As with everything cost is a big consideration. Producing energy by solar panels and wind turbines is becoming more economical every day. Could algae biofuels compete in price? Electric motors offer so many advantages over internal combustion engines. They have far fewer moving parts and as well as being much more efficient at converting energy without wasting it as heat. I think the mass conversion to electric vehicles has begun and will become an unstoppable force. Thank you for bringing Carbon Negative Algae Biofuels to our attention.
There is no such thing as carbon negative or neutral. Its a catch phrase for those who don't understand chemistry or biology. Mostly missing is the understanding of applied thermodynamics. And besides, why are you trying to starve plant's of co2. Do you have any idea of how gasses balance out on this planet. Theories based on erroneous assumptions. Science , contrary to popular belief ,is not a consensus of opinions.
And all your are doing is spewing erroneous opinions. Science is not a consensus of opinions. It need to be based on repeatable evidence supported by data and observable facts .
I produced a lot of Hydrogen in 1970's whilst cleaning metal jobs for electroplating with 4-5 volts & v.low amps. It's easy to do very cheap and most abundant element in the universe. Cathode to anode!
Store and ship the hydrogen as ammonia then filter the hydrogen from the ammonia at the point of use or distribution. CSIRO have demonstrated this idea using its own developed membrane filter. There is a clean ammonia plant under development near Port Lincoln in South Australia. Ammonia is the most energy dense form of hydrogen and can even be used as fuel for the ships doing the transporting. Worth investigating? Just have a think.
Just repeating what I posted on another of your recent videos, have a look at the prototype Hazer process being developed by a company of the same name in Western Australia. Unlike the Steam reforming process for methane that releases carbon dioxide, the Haver variation employs an iron ore catalyst to produce hydrogen gas and synthetic graphite, which is a useful product as well.
If you are stupid enough to believe in renewable power generation, you can go that way on your own. You don't need the government to subsidise you, get on with it, the technology is available. Waste your own money on the myth of saving the planet if you are serious but don't urge the government to waste mine too.
The Hydrogen Age Started in 1996 , since that time many many deployment and infrastructure has been built, Australia is so far behind it is foolist to think they can can compete. Japan has Steel mill town and infrastructure on Hydrogen only since 2000, 20 years late Australia is now considering a start, Australian needs to x 10 all plans if they even want to be on the map, the adjacents markets of China and Korea are already going to take all the business, Australia will end up a late played with no production or production line capacity of h2 using devices. Like a nice Mueseum Australian will be johny come lately. www.secure-supply.com www.hot-rod-usa.com ps this channels is very good but unforntunatley the aussie media is so far behind and false that the people are not even aware of the size of the gap
I read that Japan is considering producing their own hydrogen via onsite production adopting the H2IL method. Makes sense as there is not shipping and transportation of the gas needed. Green hydrogen using sea or rain water in any part of the world without tapping into fossil fuel or renewables....
Nice video. A few points: Hydrogen (H2) is not a fuel, since we can not find unoxidized hydrogen on the Earth (except in the form of oil, or natural gas). It is an energy storage medium. Energy is pumped into water to break it into O2 and two H2, and then that H2 can be burnt in air to get the energy back. However, Hydrogen is a TERRIBLE form of energy storage. -- It is the smallest molecule in existence and leaks thru rubber gaskets, valves, welds, or even solid steel (making the metal brittle in the process). Many other molecules (such as ammonia or methanol don't have this problem). -- Hydrogen has such a low density that it must be liquified (to hard cryogenic temperatures), or compressed, both of which waste the energy that hydrogen is supposed to be storing. -- Unpressurized hydrogen has fewer hydrogen molecules per volume, than other hydrogen rich molecules such as ammonia or methanol. Methanol actually has a higher energy density than pure H2, at atmospheric pressure. It would be more economic to ship methanol than hydrogen, and methanol can be created out of plant waste products far cheaper than creating hydrogen from solar or wind. -- Hydrogen is highly explosive at a wide range of partial pressures, when mixed with our atmosphere. -- Japan, if it wants hydrogen, can make it with nuclear power using the iodine cycle far cheaper than buying it from Australia. China is going to more than triple all the nuclear power in the world by about 2050. They will be able to undercut the price of solar H2, IF hydrogen is the preferred form of energy imports that Japan wants. (Which I doubt.) -- No study has been made to show how long sequestered CO2 stays underground. Carbon Capture and Sequestration, is a totally unproven technology as far as lowering carbon dioxide in the air. It is a talking point by fossil fuel industries to encourage people to keep using them as long as possible. The fact that the fossil fuel industries are pushing hydrogen technology, (when they know that hydrogen produced by methane steam reforming is 1/5 the price of solar hydrogen), should make us all pause. I think that Hydrogen is NOT the way to go. Warm regards, Rick.
Liquid Sunshine Robert F. Service Science 13 Jul 2018: Vol. 361, Issue 6398, pp. 120-123. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis and transported long-distance as ammonia (NH3). Those molecules are larger, slightly polar, and have less leakage than H2. Producing H2 from hydrocarbons is counterproductive but perhaps the CO2 can be a raw material for building materials.
chile is one of the world leaders in renewable energy and a potencial green hydrogen production giant. like australia, chile have deserts (the driest desert in the world, with the highest solar radiation almost every day of the year), but also, this giant solar capacity camps are just in front of the ocean (so have all the water needed), also near huge wind energy fields and the best lithium deposits and of course cooper, all the ingredients for future electromobility. 52% of Chile's electricity is already produced by renewable sources, and it is intended to reach 100% long before 2050. even the problem of generating renewable energy at night already has possible solutions. A very interesting one is the "valhalla project", where solar energy is used to extract water from the sea to a reservoir located on a cliff at 800 meters high, so, during the night, that same water is returned to the sea, generating electricity right in the hours when the solar plant does not produce. Of course, this is possible given the unique geography of the Chilean desert (just in front of the sea, high above sea level, with greater radiation and with natural basins capable of serving as reservoirs). I don't know if this could be emulated in Australia, but it is an example of a solution without co2 emitions. in fact, it has been internationally calculated that Chile would imply the lowest costs of green hydrogen production on the planet (less than 1.3 dollars per kilogram by 2030 and falling) Chile has already started to produce green hydrogen and green ammonia, also beginning to massively change the use of fossil fuels in sectors such as mining and transportation. this as part of a national green hydrogen plan driven by the state and the private sector. and in parallel / synergy with the development of electromobility through lithium. Chile has already captured investments in renewable energy worth 25 billion dollars in the last 2 years alone, and a similar figure is expected only in green hydrogen. the possible world market is so vast that surely no nation will be able to monopolize its generation. Considering the excellent relations between Chile and Australia even as virtual allies in the pacific region, we could be facing a future conglomerate of the South Pacific as the axis of the world's energy generation. australia can be the asian hub for chilean green hydrogen per example, and chile the same for australia in america. a sinergy between chilean and australian minning and energy industries, can be a excellent combination.
Addition of fueling stations and vehicles that use the fuel. Like electricity. Making everything run on electricity? Take everything that uses gas or diesel and grind it then just build everything new. Just like that.
I think green hydrogen would work great as a battery in a renewable energy hub: Excess Solar+Wind used to make H2 through electrolysis, stored on site and returned to the grid with fuel cells on demand. That would make a useful 24 hour supply. I think the technology is heading in the right direction and by 2030 there will be a lot more H2 Fuel Cell vehicles (cars, trucks, trains, ships and planes).
It’s a shame that i get my info about renewable energy plans in my country(Aus) from a UA-cam channel instead of the news or the government. Thanks for the info👍
It was in the news last week but no one was shouting about it.
I have been educating myself of the state of renewables around the world, and Australia especially. I have to say the grip the coal industry has on the govt over there is a mess. Now, here in America its no better, so this isnt the pot calling the kettle black. The Big Oil lobby pretty much controls the Republican party. But its a shame because Australia has SO MUCH potential to become a Hydrogen Superpower.
Nick the government will be putting out press releases. But main stream media know most people are not that interested, and at best it will be a footnote on page 20, if you’re lucky. Science stories don’t sell newspapers or get eyes in front of screens, except for a small minority which you and I belong to.
@@guringai yeah, I quite like ReNew too
Hi Nick, read the articles and podcasts from Reneweconomy, there is a lot of industry information and analysis there.
Australia for generations has led the world at shooting ourselves in the foot whilst dreaming of grandiose schemes instead of just looking after ourselves. This really used to be "The Lucky Country" but we and by we I mean our lazy spineless politicians have pissed away every natural advantage that we were blessed with without any thought for our financial security or sovereignty and here we go yet again.
Our land has turned to the Lucky Land for the huge corporations who buy the corrupt government and abuse our resources and rob our people blind.
Just look at how our gas industry is performing. They come to our property without permission, destroy the land and water sources, they massively overprice the gas for Australians and in the end pay no tax.
News for ya. It's no different in Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter. A very small number make off with an obscene amount of loot, and the rest of us live with the wreckage while trying to figure out what next to cut in order to pay the bill. And it's the politician's (and civil servant's) job to keep the public compliant with the carrot and stick. Can't wait to pick up the cheque for Covid19 after being told the bill is "only x-billion/trillion" and not the "y-billion/trillion" that been "projected". Of course, they're not about to tell you that "x" equals your retirement...
Down to earth, back to basics ... And those “lazy spineless politicians” were voted into government by lazy spineless voters.
The voters seem to want to blame the very people they vote into power.
What is it with people? Lazy spineless politicians are only in office because the people won't vote them out. IMO it's not the lazy spineless politicians but the people that put them there and let them stay there that are the problem.
@@drpk6514 I think it's only if you rub it yourself that it causes blindness.
Producing hydrogen with solar power & using it as energy storage is an incredible idea. I think hydrogen could also make a huge impact on moving the shipping industry away from fossil fuels.
I don't think hydrogen will end up being common in cars (imho battery electric is just too far along & is also making incredible strides every year), but hydrogen still has an extremely bright future & a LOT of great uses to help us become more sustainable.
Whatever you are snorting, needs to be passed around. Energy density and cost of said energy density... and you claim to be a "dr." ... of what? Ignorance of physics?
Hydrogen cars can be refilled in three minutes and can use petroleum infrastructure that already exists.
@@davesmith3289 it can also be used to improve natural gas as a bridge technology.
@@davesmith3289 Yes it takes a few minutes to refill them,but the cost of the fuel cells is very very expencive,because they use very expencive metals like platinum,so they are more suitable for trucks or may be trains ,or ships
@@davesmith3289 no it cannot it needs to be stored in tanks under massive pressure
On Q&A last night I understood Finkel to say basically three things (summarizing part of the COAG briefing report):
1. Combining consumption of natural gas with renewables makes sense as a transitional situation since, unlike coal, gas powered turbines can be ramped up and down far more quickly. Hence gas can be used as a supplement to renewables rather than renewables supplementing fossil fuel;
2. Natural gas can be seen as an interim measure, over a 10 to 30 year timescale, while efficient production of green hydrogen is improved to replace it. Infrastructure supporting the use of natural gas - pipelines, turbines etc. can be switched easily to using green hydrogen;
3. Green hydrogen is potentially sourced from water and from hydrocarbons involving low carbon dioxide emissions some of which includes carbon dioxide capture and storage.
I think this was a useful contribution to the public discussion.
Refreshing to listen to someone so well articulated without having to cut every 5 seconds.
Go Australia go, you have all the ingredients necessary to make it happen.
Sure, they have all the water in the Gibson Desert.
This channel is the closest we have now to the much loved Tomorrow's World. Well researched, informative, pros and cons explained.
This channel is great, thanks for the great work!
I'm so glad I found your channel. Here's a girl from India who wakes up in the morning and turns on your channel for her morning dose of knowledge while preparing for the day ahead.
It's like you are planning for going to Australia?
Hydrogen strategies for cars or export are invariably a delay tactic by fossil fuel and conservative interests.
The only useful thing to do with Hydrogen in Australia would be direct reduction of Iron ores, entirely a consumption at point of use industry which eliminates the horrible storage and transport costs of Hydrogen. The export of this 'Green Steel' would be the effective way to de-facto export energy, much the way Iceland exports Aluminum as a means to export its hydro and geothermal energy. The market is assured because the Asian importing nations that already buy Australian Iron and Coal will increasingly not want the polluting smelting processes done in their backyards.
Excellent comment!
FMG.
is doing that
One likely source of hydrogen will be commercial nuclear reactors out at sea - away from populated areas and right in the middle of endless water.
As nuclear reactors are becoming cheaper to build and maintain, and as public nuclear reactors are being shut down meaning uranium/thorium will become cheaper due to less demand, it seems like a no-brainer.
Have a look at Seaborg Technologies from Denmark, Rolls Royce from UK They are making small nuclear reactors. Small enough to fit a 20' container. That would power up a town of 50 000 thousand people. I beleive South Korea have ordered severel thousands from Seaborg. Very interesting! They use melted salt...well, you do the reading at their website!
I am Australian and often watch you channel to keep up to date with global trends. But I do not use this channel primarily for this channel. There are Australian sources for good info on Australian. The Climate council, Renewable Economy and 3 Solar quotes with Finn Peacock. So despite the poor record by our conservative government, much is happening despite out deplorable conservative government. I appreciate your channel !
Why do I just LOVE the good doctor's term, "a twenty first century fuel"?
Because it provides something novel.
You forgot 'Hungry'
Because he’s not talking about the biggest problem in hydrogen fuel.
Because it’s BS😀😀😀
Finkel & the CSIRO are class acts, but the current government is owned by fossil fuel companies. If the CSIRO can scale up it's production of Graphair filters, using seawater won't be an issue, and though batteries may be more economical for vehicles, hydrogen is so abundant it's availability cancels out a lot of efficiency concerns. Plus, coal powered power stations can be converted to running off hydrogen.
the hardest thing about hydrogen is in fact storing it. the smallest atom our universe presents is not easy feat to store.
The larger the containment vessel the less of an issue.
Apparently it can be stored, transported and recovered again quite efficiently in the form of ammonia.
www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-01-link-solar-hydrogen-ammonia.amp
There's also the Chiyoda Spera Hydrogen hydrogen transport process:
www.chiyodacorp.com/en/service/spera-hydrogen/innovations/
Just subscribed. I absolutely love the way you communicate. Thank you!
An interesting video. I understand JCB in the UK has recently signed a deal to buy Australian green hydrogen. This was surprising as it seems odd to ship hydrogen half way round the world, when it could be made in the UK. If the large sunny land areas are a significant factor in the cost, then Spain or Morocco perhaps are closer. Given that hydrogen has a very low density even when compressed of liquified, it requires large, high pressure or cryogenic transport tanks which will weigh much more than the contents. I would love to hear more on the ecconomics of this. There is much evidence that Oz is going green, despite rather than because of its government, which is promising.
Absolutely true. It would be more logical to make ammonia or, with carbon capture, methane or methanol
Excellent and lucid comments and analysis
I'm from the land down under. I hold out no hope with the current bunch in Government.
And there is nothing you can do about it. Your vote won't change anything. Democracy: shysters taking suckers for a ride.
G'day cobber. I, sadly, can only agree with you. But it doesn't matter who's runs things, they're all useless. Democracy is BS, I voted for Whitlam.
Conservatism really does suck😏
@@grasonicus While the Socialists riot and cause havoc, bashing old ladies in the street.
Hydrogen is going to be more important than most people think in the future. As it’s actually a battery and not a fuel it will be useful for firming up intermittent renewable energy and provide the “base load” for when solar and wind aren’t operating and allows excess renewable energy to be “stored” without having to use truckloads of lithium ion batteries.
You are very correct. Not sure how far hydrogen will percolate down into road traffic but as a base load power role there is a place. Ideally renewable power capacity should be many times the current fossil fuel based limited level. Ten, twenty. fifty times current levels. It should be abundant and cheap. At those levels only a fraction of it would require buffering via storage technology. It does not all need to be stored - the rest could be utilized literally for making hay while the sun shines.
There is a huge demand for water in Australia. Desalination plants could run on excess generated electricity, winding down overnight and when the wind stops blowing then powering up again each morning supplying towns and farms. There is nothing impossible to overcome, mostly vested interests fighting to maintain the status quo.
As an Aussie I am not hopeful of this technology with the current government. I would love to see it developed here, I just can't realistically see it happening at the moment. Thanks for your interest in our projects 😊
As with many things it'll happen despite the government, the driver will be economics. Although of course it would help if the government wasn't so protectionist about the fossil industry.
@@turningpoint4238 I'd like to 2nd Jake's comment, and hopefully make Dillon feel a bit better about our future.
I currently work for a large contractor that provides services to both the O&G sector and mineral sector. I work in the latter. However, even our company can see how the future is going, and has now got a renewable energy division. And we aren't the only one. I think any company in mining/energy that is looking towards the future is hedging their bets towards renewable energies or low carbon emissions industry.
The government is not going to have any money to do anything meaningful in this space. Thanks covid.
You do not want this project because it is already dead in the water. H2 for just about any purpose is a waste of time. The presenter did not mention anything about the inherent losses with H2 production. You need 2 -3 times the input to get the same amount of output if you were to just store in batteries. Battery production is increasing in an unimaginable way all thanks to Tesla. It truly is inconceivable the amount of batteries that will be available in just a few short years. The cost of H2 mentioned here will seem horrendously expensive compared to renewable and battery storage. you could even run a cable between Australia and asia to transport energy if thats what you wanted to do. compressing H2 is just really wasteful and really dumb.
@@s4098429 Don't forget the 100's of Billions of dollars in subsidies they've given the rich, tax refunds for (rich shareholders that pay no tax) mining and fossil fuel companies taking 90% of the profits offshore with no resource taxes and 80 billion to the military when they thought labor would get in just to muck up their budget, and the selling of revenue generating assets. not funding gonski education to help kids learn in underfunded schools, and crippling our countries fibre network so rupert murdoch can control the minds of dopey boomers with his news papers and pay tv pro mining anti - green / labor propaganda.
All of this prior to the virus.
Frankly, we should of let Germany / Japan invade us, they would of treated us better than these greedy religous muppets
Dear sir! Your energy videos are highly interesting! Thank you!
Great for the use in all the Australian car brands... oh wait...
Wait what? What is it?
@@cake0214 Australia doesn't have domestic car production anymore since several years...
So they just import them instead?
haha yeah right lol 💯 that went over another's head 😂😂😂
I just don't know what kids will be singing for Xmas. They won't know what a hq Holden ute is and this makes me sad
About time !!!
Best of luck with that 👍
"Can Australia lead the world?" It already does! It is SUNDAY in Australia long before it is Sunday in the States!
A small state park in Florida had set up a small example of a fuel cell to operate some of it's lights. The hydrogen was produced by electrolysis during the day, using solar panels as the electric source. Then the lights could operate after sunset, using power from the fuel cells. It looked like a perfect solution until I saw the cost of the facility.
This was about 15 years ago. Thankfully the cost of these products is falling quickly. But I wonder if it has now dropped low enough to make it feasible.
Batteries will always be cheaper. They also become more efficient and cheaper over time.
Hydrogen is useful as a secundairy option where batteries aren't possible. Like aviation and extreme long haulage etc. For normal day to day energy it is a non starter.
I've lived in five countries. The last twenty in Australia. So, I can compare. I've not been in a country with so many local, mostly medical but also other scientific breakthroughs on the news so often. As can be expected, they mostly fizzle out. Australia had a TV program called, Beyond 2,000 here from 1985 - 1999. It featured expected breakthroughs that should have eventuated after 2,000. Many of these were Australian breakthroughs. Sadly, I can't recall one that happened off the top of my head. Beyond 2,000 Revisited will be a very interesting TV program. I will watch it. The original was well done. I know about Cochlear and Helicobacter Pylori which were truly Australian breakthroughs.
Like much of the West, Australia is also terminally ill with political correctness. Nuclear energy is Satan and solar and wind are in their pantheon of gods. Australia has the biggest storage battery in the world powered by the sun. Here is what it really can do: chrismalan.blogspot.com/2019/10/jamestown-south-australia-grid-battery.html You won't see these real-world figures touted about. I suspect greenies may make pilgrimages to the thing to pray to it.
The answer is nuclear energy. But just the word, nuclear is enough to make a greenie prolapse her uterus or twist his spermatic cord.
This video was highly speculative. I'd bet against hydrogen being available cheaply. My advice to Just Have a Think is to stay in the real world and steer clear of pie in the sky.
Good observations Chris. One thing we all know is that money buys politics. Right now, the fossil fuel industry has the financial means to determine energy policy in all western "democracies", and they will not give this up easily.
I personally don't think that nuclear will play a significant role in cleaner energy - even with the emerging science involving thorium, etc. One advantage of course is the possibility of small-scale reactors that could "supplement" wind and solar, help with grid balancing, and provide a relatively "steady" flow of electrons into large battery (and other) storage facilities.
As pointed out by many observers, hydrogen is still "atoms", and therefore requires sophisticated and extremely costly physical infrastructure to manufacture, store and transport. Even with the most efficient extraction methods, the energy required to produce it does not yet match the cost-efficiency of solar and wind.
Hornsdale seems to be showing us a viable and cost-effective combination of clean generation, storage and grid balancing. Additionally, the cost of wind and solar (the infrastructure) is declining rapidly, and the technology is getting more efficient and reliable. The point of price-parity is being lowered, and hydrogen is not keeping pace. H2 seems it will forever be more expensive than solar+wind+battery - so it will be very unlikely that H2 will become a predominant energy source.
@@brunosmith6925 It was nice to find a sensible comment. Electrons are the densest energy store, and wires beat pipes every time. SMALL LFTRs are safe and easy, once the chemistry has been mastered. The high temperatures make LFTRs the powerhouses of organic chemistry, decarbonising the atmosphere and desalinating seawater. It's an opportunity which mustn't be spoiled by the ignorance and greed of the power lobby - but will be.
You're spot on, Chris. Even CSIRO and Finkle are away with the fairies, so what hope is there for the even less enlightened? I feel so sad for our grandchildren having to carry the millstone we are creating for them, with the FF companies backing up intermittent sources as the way to keep their noses in the trough.
The purpose of the "Tesla Big Battery" was not to supply volumes of power, but to help keep the grid stable in a world of variable renewable energy, and in the case of Australia, a fragile grid resulting from lack of investment over the past two decades since the conservative government sold it off to the private sector. The Hornsdale Power Reserve (as it is officially named) does this very well, and also lowers the cost of power to consumers by breaking up the cartels of fossil fuel generators that game the Australian electricity market to force up power prices and increase their profits.
reneweconomy.com.au/sa-big-batteries-again-steer-state-through-interconnector-dramas-28099/
reneweconomy.com.au/hornsdale-big-battery-doubles-savings-to-consumers-and-keeps-lights-on-85139/
reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-renewables-grid-separates-from-nem-lights-dont-go-out-14232/
reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-tesla-big-battery-kept-the-lights-on-in-south-australia-20393/
As for nuclear power, that is the worst answer. It will take years to build, it is inflexible (even worse than coal in its ability to ramp up and down to meet the needs of a modern grid), and if it is ever actually finished it will generate the most expensive power in the grid. And the mythical SMR? It don't seem to be much closer to reality than it was a decade ago, and as for the cost of the power generated, I'd be more inclined to take Hinkley C as a guide than the claims of SMR proponents. And would you be happy to have the nuclear waste disposed of in your back yard?
www.bbc.com/news/business-49823305
arena.gov.au/blog/aemo-and-csiro-report-finds-renewables-cheapest/
@@candmlucanus8419 Alan Finkel did say publicly that Australia should look at nuclear. But if he upsets the politicians too much he's out of his job. Tony Abbott decreased the number of scientists drastically. So, better tell them what they want to hear.
The present energy minister is anti-nuclear and has no scientific training. Arts and humanities monkeys hate science. At university, the students in scientific fields make fun of them and they don't forget it. So, when they get into a position where they can call the shots it's out with facts and reason and in with BS and total nonsense. Listen to a politician speaking and reduce it to the information it contains. Strange, isn't it, that bullshitters control the world.
The interesting thing about putting that facility in Dongara, is that it is the site of a number of depleted natural gas sites and has a pipeline to Perth, which was used for natural gas transport, and could easily be repurposed of transporting hydrogen. There are also, in those depleted gas sites, ready made storage by injection for hydrogen gas storage.
Couple that with CSIRO’s patented technology to quickly and easily convert hydrogen gas to ammonia (which is much easier to transport in liquid form) and back again at the receiving point (more detail, here www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Renewable-and-low-emission-tech/Hydrogen/Hydrogen-membrane ) and Western Australia is in a solid position to be an exporter of clean hydrogen.
Other sites under consideration for deploying that technology also line up with existing gas pipelines for the gas fields in the north west of Western Australia.
Just wish they picked the correct gas for our gas led recovery : S Maybe under Turnbull it could work but our current PM sees any kind of gasbag as a leadership challenge.
The purpose of the fossil fuel industry is not to pollute the environment, it’s to make money.
A fact that is often purposely forgotten in this community. Attributing morals to a amoral entity is not helpful. If there is more money to be made doing the ‘right thing’ than otherwise, that’s what company’s will do.
The same could also be said, unfortunately, to describe most people.
Yes, to make money at face value, behind it ? World domination.
That's the same for any industry, not just fossil fuel industry. Just have a look at windmill industry.
John Neomaster
Country1 buy US$ to pay for goods from country2 while country2 buy US$ to pay for goods from country1 or countryX. Most importantly industrialized countries needs fuel from oil countries must pay in US$. Which country has the most reserve on US$? Indirectly all nations serve for USA who generate the most US$. Some of the US$ spend in military to stabilize oil countries in return for all oil must be paid in US$. If that isn’t world dominance what is?
That's why government policy should primarily focus on the the market context:
1. Funding of fundamental research in a variety of alternative energy technologies to counter the technological lock-in.
2. Open the market place by reducing regulation and force natural gatekeepers to the energy market like grid operators to allow anyone to buy and sell energy at market prices.
3. Tax technologies with unwanted side effects at the most fair and simple point in the supply chain. Tax the extraction of carbon from the earths crust directly and let the market figure out how to use the more expensive carbons best or to use alternatives.
4. Counter international forces that try to control the domestic markets. For example tax foreign co-operations that use subsidies in their home country to compete with non-subsidized domestic companies.
The BIG problem with H2 production in Oz is water. Thus was mentioned in the video. But what was it mentioned was that for every tonne of H2 produces multiple tonnes of concentrated brine will need to be pumped back into the sea - killing everything over large distances from the exit point in the ocean.
Patrick Degenaar Yep i would imagine the brine creation happens at the desalination plants as well?
I just discovered your channel and think it’s awesome. Surprised you didn’t cover or don’t know about the CSIRO’s ammonia to hydrogen metalic membrane technology. There is minimal information about it, was shown for the first time about two years ago possibly more. It is only the huge amount of respect i have for the CSIRO that makes me give credence to the claims. Hopefully you can find out more about it and establish if feasible.
You are so interesting, thank you for another great video.
The absolute precision of manufacturing technology combined with the exotic materials required to contain, pressurize, and transport this smallest of naturally occurring elements, makes hydrogen unlikely to be suitable for domestic or transportation fuels. And as you imply, developing the technology of using unprocessed seawater as a feed stock is critical to achieving production at scale.
As for the potential of carbon capture and storage, it holds the promise of containing CO2 nearly as effectively as recycling technology has kept plastic pollution out of the oceans.
I think Australia has already solved the risks & practicality in transporting pure hydrogen by transporting it in solid state ammonia borane.
@@mikeharrington5593 Thanks, I'll look into that.
As an Australian I’m both disappointed and embarrassed by Dr. Finkel on his hydrogen position. I find it very difficult to take any of it seriously and suspect that the oil and coal industries here have managed to compromise him. Right now a $300M+ project is being stood up in Victoria to make hydrogen from coal of all things.
As a fuel for transport, hydrogen makes very little sense and will cost at least 2-3x that of using a pure EV since it is 1/3 as energy efficient, and that’s before putting margins on to sell the stuff, or building the multi-billion dollar infrastructure to be able to refuel all around the country. A hydrogen fuel station is at least 10x that of a high speed DC charger for starters, and the electricity grid already exists.
As a consumer, as I type this my car is ‘refuelling’ from the solar panels on my roof - now that the house battery is full I set the car charging to use up the excess rather than export it to the grid.
I’m sceptical that Japan will buy it’s hydrogen from someone else when they have a few real advantages in producing their own. Firstly, they have an established nuclear power industry that could produce hydrogen very cheaply from excess power, but also importantly Japan sits as an island with potentially huge untapped offshore wind resources of their own. With the costs for wind also dropping dramatically why wouldn’t Japan make it’s own hydrogen - or just start powering EVs directly from the grid? The only thing that comes to mind for this is that I suspect the heavy industry in Japan that manufacture cars have as strong grip on their government as the fossil fuel industry does on ours here in Australia. While the rest of the world’s car manufacturers are moving towards pure EVs, the Japanese have stuck with hybrids or talked a lot of nonsense about hydrogen.
The only case that I can see for hydrogen is in industrial processes, and if we can avoid making it from fossil fuels then zero emission steel is possible. Exporting it in the form of Ammonia etc makes it even less efficient and there are currently projects looking to provide electricity directly to Asia using very long ultra high voltage undersea transmission cables. Once again, hydrogen’s inherent inefficiency and the huge infrastructure costs are a problem for it’s credibility.
I’m not a scientist, nor an economist, but am not an idiot either but none of this stacks up to me. We’ve seen battery prices steadily falling while density increases and simultaneously other energy storage technology coming along. Even with stupidly cheap renewable energy the efficiency starts to bite. In the medium term the choice will be - Power your home and car using solar on the roof and a home battery that costs peanuts, or buy your power from someone else for money and pay a huge amount to the hydrogen seller to fill your car up each week. Drive for free or pay to drive?
To put all of this into perspective, I was spending $100 per week on fuel before buying an EV. Shortly and EV will be at price parity with ICE - it already is in some vehicle segments. When an EV costs the same as a petrol car you’d have to be a numpty to drive the petrol one.
Good man Alan Finkel. He's really up against it though, when the government (either main 2 parties) takes so much campaign money from the fossil fuel industry.
Did you see him fudge, stutter and twiddle his thumbs in the Senate enquiry into C02 warming the planet with the end result of CSIRO not stating that C02 is causing dangerous climate change as they can not produce any evidence for C02 warming the planet. But Hydrogen is very good but at a huge cost, I just don't want the poor, old and sick to foot the bill with a Carbon tax, lets us better-off in society pay for it somehow, like Super investment as well.
@@peterjohnstaplesHe probably had his life threatened by the fossil fuel companies. I don't see how a carbon tax would ever work, they would just pass the tax onto the consumer and continue business as normal. There just needs to bigger subsidies for renewable energy than there is for fossil fuels.
@@coolhandluke1503 If they pass it onto the consumer, then companies that can produce products with less carbon emissions will be able to produce the end product at a lower price making their product more competitive.
The carbon tax we had for 2 years really worked in measurably reducing CO2 emissions and the consumers weren't hurting. What's really hurt them has been the flip-flopping from the government producing uncertainty in industry.
Calculations on the back of an envelope: 1 ton of H2 production per year requires about 10 solar panels or about 4 windmills. If the energy production is split 75 vs 25 % between solar & wind sources, 100,000 ton plant may require 750,000 panels and 100,000 windmills. If larger wind mills of 5 MW capacity are used, wind mills needed will be reduced to 50,000.
Assuming: 1 solar panel = 17 kwh/day; 2.4 mw windmill = 10 kwh/day; 1 ton H2 production needs 55000kwh
But what other than hydrogen shall power aeroplanes?
I'm all for a genuinely green Hydrogen Industry if it's truly economically viable and not yet another case of fossil fuel companies trying to remain relevant by diverting attention away from real meaningful action to transition to renewable energy. Many of us remain highly sceptical and for very good reasons. CCS has never been economically viable for coal. It was always a delay tactic by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Why will CCS be any different for Hydrogen production from steam reforming? Further, nobody can guarantee sequestered CO2 will remain permanently safely contained underground. Western Australia has an appallingly bad record in transitioning to renewable energy. We have an abysmal 11% renewable energy. South Australia is at well over 50%. Tasmania close to 100%. Why don't we build what would be the cheapest solar and wind power in the world to power our own grid before we plan a Hydrogen export industry.
This.
Most CCS are hopelessly expensive and un-scalable. Many are actually engineered to drive fossil fuel usage up.
I know of only 2 anywhere realistic : ocean fertilizing, enhanced rock weathering.
Good for transition bad as a replacement for other renewables.
It’s also worth noting that hydrogen can be reacted with nitrogen using the Haber process to produce ammonia which can be used for fertiliser but also as a easier way to store and transport energy as the reaction can be reversed back into hydrogen and nitrogen. But as far as I know this is relatively new research and I am not sure if it would be economically viable before hydrogen transportation anyway.
I wish there was more discussion/awareness about anhydrous ammonia. As far as I can tell it can be combusted directly in atmosphere, with either the assistance of a bit of lower-ignition temperature fuel or after passing over a ruthenium catalyst to liberate a bit of hydrogen. Sharing some LPG properties, I imagine there's a huge market for retrofitting combustion fleets. The information is there, pros and cons; probably conspiracy to keep it quiet.... hang on, somebody knocking on my door.
I thought that hydrogen was hard to store, as the H2 molecule is small and seeps out of almost any storage medium?
Finally a sensible response. Thank you
I thought the same, although storage bound as ammonia ( I believe I have heard) may be more viable.
Yes Hydrogen has a habit of reacting with the Carbon in Steel to create Methane. This is the process known as 'Hydrogen embitterment' as it creates tiny cracks in the pressure vessel over time. Internal coatings may help somewhat but I have not heard about any breakthrough in this storage technology.
Still, there are pros & cons with everything and nothing lasts for ever and it all comes down to relative quantities, which is essentially person-hours & land surface area (ocean for a few things). "Cost" is the negotiation/arbitration/dealing of those things.
I remember thinking hydrogen power was just around the corner. That was 1976.....and hearing the same for every year after that. So any decade now, right after fusion and flying cars.
I remember watching a Tomorrows World programme featuring a hydrox fuel battery. It was broadcast over 50 years ago. At the time the cost was prohibitive because the electrodes were made of platinum.
The battery demonstrated was about the size of a 12volt car battery and could power a trolleybus.
Thank goodness platinum's gone real cheap since The Beatles stopped making LPs.
I love the idea of storing green energy in the form of hydrogen, but hydrogen has a tiny little molecule compared to other elements. Leakage must be an issue. It is certainly a problem in military avionics cooling systems using much bigger molecules.
It is, but when stored in larger amounts the surface area decreases in proportion and therefore the issue becomes manageable.
@@erdelegy Ammonia would be feasible. With an on board cracker using exhaust heat we could produce a gas mixture that would power an internal combustion engine.
Great update
Thanks for sharing 👍😁
Fascinating insight into the real world issues. Thank you.
Why haven't I (an Australian) ever heard of this guy? I guess our media doesn't care too much for science.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere
and?
@@Dundoril it is usually not factured in the co2 climate change models. Some say it is more important than co2.
@@vincentconti3633 of course it's factured in... And "some say" Some? Everyone. It's responsible for like 90% of the green house effect. That's welll established in the scientific literature
Water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere can be turned into usable power and drinkable water. Nature does it all the time, and we can imitate nature. We can even improve upon nature. That untapped resource easily dwarfs all other forms of energy, save sunlight, and it is renewed constantly, thanks to sunlight and evaporation. All we have to do is think a little outside the box, and the entire planet becomes our _pre-built for free_ solar energy collector.
@@YodaWhat sounds great, though I take don't know how you convert humidity to electricity.
Amazing how small this facility talked about here will be compared to the Asia Renewable Energy Hub planned for the Pilbara region of Western Australia. I hope they can get the planned 15GW of renewable energy generation built. Interesting note, the planned sale cost of electrolysis hydrogen from that plant is $2/kg H2. For reference most fossil fuel equivalents range from $8-10/kg of H2
How does that compare to the cost of fossil gas or coal? I think we will need a carbon tax to make it work.
well done, curious if they'll be able to get that cost down to make sense for HFC vehicles
ua-cam.com/video/xU-LDZ0HTGc/v-deo.html
Ummm, its called KFC.
I don't want hydrogen cars; leave more H2 for airliners and trains, please.
HFC vehicles don't make much sense when you compare their overall efficiency with BEVs. You need to use electricity to make H2, compress it, transport it, etc. In the end a HFC vehicle has an overall efficiency on par with an ICE vehicle (approx. 20%). For a BEV you can start with the same electricity, send it to a charging station and charge its battery directly. The overall efficiency is about 90%.
@@موسى_7 I certainly do. The second generation Toyota Mirai takes only 5 minutes to refuel and has a range of 660 kilometres.
Hydrogen has tons of advantages in terms of renewability. Net energy losses due to ineffeciency in electrolysis, gas leakage, transportation and fuel cells make H2 far less effeceint that direct e- storage in batteries. It makes sense for airplanes now due to H2s energy density, but in the long run, batteries will win that too. 30 years ago, I would have agreed that H2 was the way to go. Now I'm convinced it's in direct storage due to the shortcomings listed above. Thank you for your insight.
These are the sorts of "influencers" we desperately need.
Here we have such influences called Oil Companies. They lobby for Hydrogen with 60 Million euro at the EU. Why? They want to sell that Grey Hydrogen so badly. They don't want emissions to go down. They want MONEY. And hydrogen is their new way to fool people, without contributing ANYTHING to reducing carbon emissions. Hydrogen is not the solution, it's a solution made up again by Oil companies. Follow the money, the only solution is Solar + Wind + Batteries + Nuclear Power. Combined in a smart grid.
Well one think for sure, here in Western Australia we have huge stretches of unused land, heaps of sunshine and areas of low quality water. So set up solar systems and remote harvesting locations, with reasonable transportation means, able to use low quality water would be amazing. However Australia does suffer under the lucky country syndrome and likely miss opportunities again
The mining companies own the govt lol
Stoked on the seawater hydrogen extraction 👌
This is where it’s at. I predict the world’s 1st trillionaire solves this problem at scale
At 9:04 Alan Finkel (Australia's Chief Scientist) says: "For every 1000g of H2 produced, *only* 800g of CO2 is produced."
Only?
Says it all. The plan is to make from coal.
The energy-equivalent of 1000 g of H2 would be 2400 g of methane. Combustion of 2400 g of methane (~natural gas) produces 6600 g of CO2. Hydrogen from steam reformation of natural gas emits even ~10 kg of CO2 per kg of hydrogen by production.
800 g of CO2 per kg of hydrogen would be very good, comparable to renewable energy sources regarding CO2 per kWh.
A FCEV would achieve ~8 grams of CO2 per km with such hydrogen. Normal gasoline cars: ~160 grams of CO2 per km.
its not the co2 you need to worry about, methane is 84x more destructive in the atmosphere than co2
There seems to be a lot of focus on energy production and storage whether it is oil, gas,nuclear,wind or solar. However nobody have mentioned how we are going to substitute a lot of other products that comes from the petrochemical industry. Most machinery is dependent of some sort of lubricant in order not to break down. All over the world most roads with some traffic has a surface with asphalt. If you look in your wardrobe most of the clothes contain a certain amount of synthetic fabrics. Then you have all the other plastics we all have laying around the house from cling film in the kitchen to garden hoses. All the raw material of these comes from petrochemical processing. So even is all our power production and transportation systems were running on clean sustainable energy we still be dependent of the oil industry for a long time.
I push like right away. Figur it's a safe bet 😉
"Pure" water can be obtained through evaporation/condensation under the blazing sun. Using the input water for cooling to drive condensation (which will release more heat into the system). Resultant brine would need to be sent deep offshore and gradually diluted along the way.
Carbon capture isn't that hard (like in: It is know how to do it and the technology exists), but it costs money to do it, and strangely it is much cheaper not to do it. We ditched a large project here in Norway for carbon capture and depositing in old oil wells basically because it couldn't be made cheap enough.
Which brings us to the real problem: Economy isn't linked with sustainable.
Every coal plant built in Australia and most the world is 100% tax payer funded and subsidised, why? because they're super expensive to build. Mean while solar and wind are almost 100% privately funded and still cheaper to run.
Batteries have reduced in price ten fold in the last ten years as has solar and wind. And they aren't slowing down as economies or scale, cheap and more efficient methods of production and cheaper materials are constantly being discovered.
Tesla is about to announce making money from their cars supplying energy to the grid in peak demand as an additional way to make money with their autobidding system.
Not sustainable? Only your old thinking is not sustainable.
@Wolfgang Preier sure does and by a factor of many thousands
0ctatr0n Any proof for anything you said? Solar heavily subsidised in Australia
Check out Hazer process. Has ability to be carbon negative using biogas from water treatment plants and turning the carbon into high grade graphite that can be used in batteries. Currently have $10m ARENA grant to build demonstration plant in Western Australia. Can also use natural gas. Place for both applications due to Australia's abundance in natural gas. We have other great technologies here in Aus. Let's get the industry going!
Renewable Hydrogen although a worthy goal will never be able to compete with Nuclear Hydrogen. Electrolysis is just too inefficient.
Graham Luell Australia should get cracking building several nuclear power plants right now! We can supplement nuclear power with renewables but nuclear is the key 21 century power for Australia and just about every other country.
Not a mention of demand reduction, with much enthusiasm in direct return or subsidised carbon capture and storage, by Governments and commentators alike.
In just the same way that driving our plug-in cars came about through knowledge of responsible lifestyle choices and minimising waste (of food, fuel, power, water and other resources), our demand for the exclusively renewable energy we consume dropped because we know the planet has more than enough clean energy and resources to share fairly.
Thanks for another well-presented product, based on awareness of respectable source material by, in this case, Australian and other Australasian energy and policy agencies.
I live just 80km from Dongara (Pronounced Don-g-ra) And everyone I know in my region of Western Australia wants more renewable energy. My town has a large power distributing facility and also the town and region has massive salt lakes. (mostly caused by land degradation) If we got large scale solar and wind farms we could use them to not only produce more hydrogen but also convert those salt lakes into extremely high quality fertiliser and get all the necessary minerals to produce huge quantities of batteries. (The state government predicts we could produce up to 40% of the worlds batteries) The only thing stopping this from happening is the federal government who are convinced that natural gas, "clean" coal and "clean" nuclear are what we should invest in. (Most of which is foreign owned and costs the Australian tax payer billions)
All that being said, the Western Australian government is fighting back; not only did the state ban nuclear technology (after the shock of British nuclear weapons tests) but also it's already made it's own plans by creating the "Future battery Industry Strategy." Plus, the state plans on investing heavily in hydrogen and the state owned power company has also put forward targets on ending reliance on "Out of state" energy sources.
All that being said, the Federal Government and coal lobby are pretty annoyed at this. They believe that Western Australia producing cheep, clean energy and building new industries is unfair to Queensland coal miners and mining companies... But the state government doesn't care, if the federal government won't do it, the state will do it themselves!
Nice to see another Australian doing quality videos.
Another great video showing how renewables and hydrogen are symbiotic in the reduction of fossil fuel use. If solar and wind produced hydrogen can undercut steam reforming then that’s another nail in the coffin for gas, along with peaker batteries. If rising demand for hydrogen leads to more solar and wind building then the price of the technology will fall further. This is a really intriguing proposition which completes the roadmap to replacing fossil fuels in heavy transportation, industrial processes and even perhaps aviation.
The elephant in the room with hydrogen is that it wastes energy. For example, even using renewable sources like wind or solar for electrolysis, it would take about ~60 kWh to produce the 6.62 kg of H2 to drive a Hyundai Nexo fuel cell vehicle its full range of 370 miles. That amount of electricity could power Hyundai's Ioniq electric vehicle for… 1,353 miles! As the old adage says: "waste not, want not."
Mark D Larsen thanks for the numbers
But the hydrogen allows the energy to be exported
Mark D Larsen
Hydrogen is incredibly important for the chemical industry. Basically everything can be synthesized out of hydrogen. Today fossil hydro-carbos are used for that.
Also the steel industry has to have a way to produce steel without coal. Hydrogen can step in there.
Problem here is hydrogen production inefficiency. You are wasting 2/3 of energy. E.g. if solar/wind farm produces 10GWh of electricity and you make hydrogen with it, you get ~4 GWh from that hydrogen from fuel cells, and you wasted 6 GWh. Does not make much sense.
Except that in many cases, the distribution capacity of that cheap, renewable, and intermittent energy to the consumer is limited. Already we are seeing many renewable power facilities that often need to throttle production because they have reached the capacity of their distribution connections. Battery storage of electricity will always quickly become uneconomic for longer durations of storage as batteries are best used for short term energy storage. Using synthetic fuels and hydrogen for medium and longer term energy storage can become a much better option.
So, pairing a renewable, or a network of renewable energy facilities together with a green fuel plant will likely be an excellent way to achieve higher levels of renewable development, as their development and placement will no longer be so dependent upon the robustness of the energy grid.
There are other methods of efficient production like that of the H2IL technology. I read that Japan is considering producing their own hydrogen via onsite production adopting the H2IL method. Makes sense as there is not shipping and transportation of the gas needed. Green hydrogen using sea or rain water in any part of the world without tapping into fossil fuel or renewables....
Ah, but all that mining for those solar panels/structures, wind towers, concrete etc is "renewable" ..... oh right, its not. Nuclear is only way forward to anyone with a brain, but the green crowd is allergic to a calculator and a physics/chemistry books.
Petrol cars are only about 30% efficient, so replacing them with more efficient, renewable hydrogen cars that don't pollute the air makes a lot of sense to me,
@@w8stral
_"but the green crowd is allergic to a calculator and a physics/chemistry books."_ Interestingly enough there is NOT ONE company in this world that is willing to stemm the cost of insurance and waste treatment for nuclear on its own. They all rely on massive government subsidies to maintain "cheap running costs".
We really, in the UK, should be leading in this Technology. We, like Japan are net importers of Oil and Gas to run our economy. This is not to say we necessarily process the hydrogen for the world, but we can lead on the technology!
Hopefully this will grow. Hydrogen could be one of the big roads to fossilfree energy...
See my Twitter page under the same name as this comment to see some more of what many nations are doing with Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a Fallicy , building Renewables + Battery storage is Cheaper and can installed in 100 Days.
TESLA Latest battery , the MEGAPACK can Deliver 3 MW each and can be Directly connected to Renewables and the GRID.
Hydrogen only over-complicates matters while decreasing efficiency.. Better to put that energy straight in a powerpack and put it to good use.
These are definitely exciting!
Especially as an Australian, but I'm not hopeful with some of these projects being kickstarted or receive much help from the actual government. Would be nice to see Hydrogen really takeoff here, definitely going to help drive down to cost to be cost-comparable with BEVs!
Love the show, but I'm a hydrogen skeptic. Carbon capture hasn't proven viable and is more likely one more red herring to keep the fossil fuel addiction going. As far as hydrogen from green sources, the inefficiency of electrolysis is a major drawback.
Its something to do with all the extra solar power during peak generation periods. Once the batteries are full its all extra export dollars.
SocialDownclimber What about more Li ion batteries, flow batteries, compressed air/water facilities for energy storage?
@@AkaiKA4K I'm pretty sure hydrogen beats all of those for specific energy(energy per mass including storage device). On an energy density (energy per volume), hydrogen is not too bad, but hydrogen stored as ammonia beats all of the above. It really depends on whether you are exporting electrons across a grid or material across an ocean.
@k halliday Typically, carbon capture refers to absorbing and storing carbon in man made processes. When people refer to storing carbon in the biosphere from the atmosphere instead of straight out of an exhaust stream, they call it carbon fixation. Carbon fixation is totally viable and desired by environmentalists. Carbon capture is the uneconomical bit that fossil fuel producers talk a lot about but don't want to pay for.
@k halliday I'm in favor of all of that. But, it will not sufficiently mitigate the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels. However, my point was the about plans to capture CO2 at the source and pump it into the ground. That would be more expensive than switching to renewables and reducing energy consumption.
As I understand it. The Australian government actively tries not to do environmental positive activities. On last day of Kyoto agreement they strong armed a Australian clause that set their base pollution level far higher than it actually was. This meant a few years later even though they had increased pollution output by 25% they were still below what the Kyoto agreement base level they had negotiated, so they got Kyoto credits. They have agreed to stop using those credits this Year, several years after other governments had agreed to do this. Australia is the highest per Capita polluter in the world from what I've read. They are actively pursuing new coal and taxing electric cars as well
Hydrogen has been just around the horizon for decades!!
Just because something hasn't been possible (economically) in the past does not mean it won't be feasible in the future.
@@turningpoint4238 Similarly, invoking the future to change present reality can't be done. Only fools do it. But fools love to speculate. So, take it away...
Just like CCS!!
@@grasonicus Only fools ignore the scientific and technological progress we have made. And ignoring the how they progress from the past to the present and on into the future. It's a surprisingly accurate way of seeing what the most likeliest futures are. Check out Tony Seba and his predictions from past to present.
Yes Dave. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. One of your best Videos ever. Hydrogen a Breath of Fresh Air.
Cheers TG. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
@@JustHaveaThink I have an Idea . As soon as Covid dies a persistent death. We need to get you to come to Toronto and speak on all your work. Could take some time, your work that is. But we can pick a snippet or two. My agenda is to get some media attention here in Canada as we are shamelessly falling behind in the Hydrogen sector. Also it would be great to meet you in person. Now I just have to figure out how to raise the funds to get you here. Just Have a Think,,, about it. Stay well all the best. Tony Germin.
Australia has a large number of brilliant scientists, Finckle is not one of them.
A chief scientist's job is to inform, direct and stratigize. It requires a wide skill set. The most brilliant scientist is better left focusing in his area. So yes I am glad they didn't waste a top scientist in the chief scientist's role.
I suspect hydrogen is being overhyped. The big problem with hydrogen is that producing and using it can waste 60% per to 70% of the energy used to generate it. Battery technology on the other hand for cars and trucks seems quite viable. Rail can be further directly electrified, aircraft may use hydrogen but there are problems with containing it. If battery energy density can increase about ten fold as with lithium air for example, battery powered planes would be an alternative. So that only leaves ships which may be able to use hydrogen. I think storing hydrogen as liquid ammonia on a large scale and indeed hydrogen on a large scale may turn out to be far more dangerous than anticipated. Liquid ammonia is very nasty stuff, explosive, extremely corrosive and in tanker accidents injures large numbers of people. Remember we were told how safe nuclear reactors were, but there have been accidents.
In summary I suspect hydrogen may have a niche role in our energy future but it is energy inefficient and dangerous in its various forms. Hydrogen is being overhyped by its proponents and government.
Pft, we can produce as much renewable energy as we want. That is not the constraint. The constraint is making the whole system profitable. Efficiency is only one factor, but profitability takes all factors into account.
@@jimj2683 I agree, but, since both technologies hydrogen and battery consume electricity, and one wastes 60 to 70% of the energy in a production process requiring additional manufacturing plant and distribution which is likely to be cheaper?
@@fredturk6447 The battery EV will likely be more expensive to buy, but slightly cheaper to run. Hydrogen can be produced in remote places with no electricity lines/grid to transport the electricity. How would you transport the super cheap wind energy from South Chile to North America? Even power lines would lose 50% of the energy at those distances.
The electricity there is 10-20x cheaper than the grid electricity in the USA, so exporting it as hydrogen might be competitive with simply recharging your BEV, despite the inefficiencies.
It doesn't matter what we say though. There are many companies working on all of these technologies, so the market will decide what is best in the end.
Most likely there will be different solutions for different applications. Batteries will likely never power long distance jets for example. E-kerosene or hydrogen is much better for that.
@@jimj2683Hydrogen is likely to have a role in the energy future, but I suggest not in passenger vehicles. I checked on the cost of a Toyota Miria and it costs as much to lease one for three years as it does to buy a Tesla model 3. I gather CATL has a sodium ion technology in first generation production. I gather it’s 160 Wh/kg and they claim the next version will be 200 Wh/kg. I am not saying this will be the next battery tech just suggesting there is room for batteries to improve and be lighter, cheaper, faster to recharge and with longer life. So BEV prices should fall. When you look at the difference between a BEV and a hydrogen powered vehicle it largely comes down to the cost of a fuel cell, small battery and hydrogen pressure vessel compared to a big battery. I think if a sodium or aluminium battery technology is developed it’s going to be as cheap or cheaper than a hydrogen vehicle. I agree that using hydrogen as a means of shifting energy around is likely. I just don’t think there will be a mass hydrogen passenger car market for the efficiency reasons I outlined earlier. It will be interesting to see.
6:17 1kg of hydrogen = 40kWh so 25 tons = 1Gwh
With 85MW of solar and 75MW of wind (30% FC), you produce less than 1GWh per day.
There is a problem here.
The Hazer Process is a very compelling technology that seems to be overlooked in this otherwise excellent contribution. Particularly when Australia has lots of natural gas, this emerging tech could be game changing for hydrogen.
Hazer is effectively CCS but the output is solid carbon as graphite
You might want to do a video on the efficiency of using hydrogen as a battery. At first glance, it seems as if it might be 100% efficient, as every electron that goes into the water goes into a released hydrogen atom. Then, every hydrogen atom that joins with an oxygen in a fuel cell releases an electron. However, is that really the case?
All energy loss is in the form of either heat or transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER). Offhand I don't recall processes that "waste" energy by emitting unwanted TER (well I do, such as welding & others but the electrolysis/fuel cell seems unlikely for that). This means that a 100% efficient system that has a purpose other than heating (probably always being the purpose of making kinetic energy, electrical energy , potential energy, pressure or TER) generates no heat. If the system can be closed then it could be assessed that way, the amount of heating as a proportion of the total energy is its inefficiency. It has to be closed to provide thermal insulation & to convert sound & mechanical/kinetic energies to heat so it can all be measured as the final energy loss, which is heat. The pressure change would also need to be measured. My point is that if "it might be 100% efficient, as every electron that goes into the water goes into a released hydrogen atom. Then, every hydrogen atom that joins with an oxygen in a fuel cell releases an electron" is correct then no heat is made (Law of Conservation of Energy). Does electrolysis run without causing heating ? Does a fuel cell run without causing heating ? Did I forget anything ?
@@grindupBaker Yes, I know the basic laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy. However, there may be electrons that go straight through the water to the other electrode. So the only result is heat. But, if that heat is contained, does it eventually contribute to making it easier for some OTHER electron to release a hydrogen atom? That "unproductive" electron still had to travel through all the wires going out to the solar panels, so we can't trap ALL it's wasted energy in the water. And we can't "imagine a spherical cow" by pretending we can even keep all the heat that was created in the water actually IN the water.
Heat is also released by fuel cells. If that is trapped inside the fuel cell, does it make the fuel cell more efficient, or less? If we choose to transfer that heat to the original water (perhaps by immersing the fuel cell into the water) does that eventually make the hydrolysis more efficient? What if we allow the water to get so hot it converts to stream? Do we use that to drive a turbine to reclaim some of that "wasted" energy?
What about the water vapor from the fuel cell. As vapor, that contains energy. Do we condensed that water to replenish the water in the original tank? Where do we put the heat that was extracted from there water vapor? Do we release it or use the water tank as a means of condensing the vapor. We could just literally bubble the vapor from the fuel cells through the water to directly transfer the heat and water vapor molecules into the water in the tank. We can tell if all the energy is going into the tank because no bubbles would reach the surface.
So, we could design such a system to use as few additional pumps, etcetera as possible for maximum efficiency. All the pumps and hydrogen/oxygen storage tanks could be sealed and immersed in the water tank to keep all the heat inside the system. From the outside, it would look like just a big, insulated tank of water with two terminal posts sticking out of it. Like a giant car battery.
My question is: Is anyone doing that? Has anyone made these calculations? Has anyone even considered using such a closed system ONLY as a battery for intermittent alternative energy sources? Would it be more efficient than a bank of lithium ion batteries? More environmentally friendly? What about energy density? But would that matter in this situation? What about cost per amp hour stored? Would this be a nonstarter based on that alone? I have no clue.
Someone could build these systems to fit into the space of a standard shipping container. Then just stack them up and connect the wires, just like giant batteries.
The round trip efficiency of H2 is no better than 50%, compared to batteries typically 80%+.
@@jimgraham6722 Thanks. I'm assuming that is backed up by decent research. Prepaid that is why they are only looking at H2 for long term storage. Batteries are far less efficient for long term storage. But, once hydrogen is in a tank, it pretty much will just sit there forever.
@@GrantSR H2 + O fuel cells have been around for quite a while, they provided the power for the Apollo spacecraft.
The main problem as ever has been the high cost of the fuel cells, particularly the expensive platinum catalysts and the cost of H2 generation and storage.
Most fuel cell vehicles use a Li ion battery as the main propulsion due to intermittent high current draw such as taking off from lights. The battery also allows some limited regenerative braking. The fuel cell acts like a range extender continually charging the battery to give the vehicle decent range.
The problem for H2 proponents is that the batteries used in BEVs have improved substantially in recent years undercutting the need for range extension. Most Tesla's for example have better than 500 km range, the model S goes further than 600km. This together with fast charging has undermined the case for hydrogen vehicles.
Hydrogen might be useful for static power, but even there it has to compete with fluid batteries such as vanadium and liquid sodium. All in all green H2 looks too troublesome as an energy storage medium and will likely only feature in niche applications such as steel making and the chemicals industry.
Very useful information. Energy Green storage is critical. Hydrogen provides reliable power.
How about doing a vid about Carbon Negative Algea Bio Fuel, that permanently removes 10 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of Algea fuel!. I have been researching alternative fuels for decades, and I strongly believe we not can use Algea Bio Fuel. But we need to use it, then we don’t need to waste valuable energy and resources making millions of new vehicles. Instead we use the ICE Vehicles we already have in effect as Carbon Capturing machines, 45 millions metric tons p/a could be permanently removed just in the UK!. Also Algea is grown in Photo Bio Reactors( PBR) that are easy, cheap and quick to build, and could be rolled out country wide in 5-10 years. As I said I truly and strongly believe we need to use our ICE to sequester Carbon, as we have no other way to sequester enough CO2 in next 10 years. And no other alternative fuel can transition as fast as Algea Bio Fuel, let alone be Carbon Negative. Also the Algea can be fed Landfil runoff, industrial gasses, Waste water etc. So helping the environment and saving energy while it grows, and would create millions of local Green jobs, and keep fuel money locally for other transitional projects.
You raise an interesting subject. Second generation Carbon Negative Algae Biofuel offers the various benefits of producing oil for fuel as well as enriching soils along with carbon sequestration.. As with everything cost is a big consideration. Producing energy by solar panels and wind turbines is becoming more economical every day. Could algae biofuels compete in price? Electric motors offer so many advantages over internal combustion engines. They have far fewer moving parts and as well as being much more efficient at converting energy without wasting it as heat. I think the mass conversion to electric vehicles has begun and will become an unstoppable force. Thank you for bringing Carbon Negative Algae Biofuels to our attention.
There is no such thing as carbon negative or neutral. Its a catch phrase for those who don't understand chemistry or biology. Mostly missing is the understanding of applied thermodynamics. And besides, why are you trying to starve plant's of co2. Do you have any idea of how gasses balance out on this planet. Theories based on erroneous assumptions. Science , contrary to popular belief ,is not a consensus of opinions.
And all your are doing is spewing erroneous opinions. Science is not a consensus of opinions. It need to be based on repeatable evidence supported by data and observable facts .
I produced a lot of Hydrogen in 1970's whilst cleaning metal jobs for electroplating with 4-5 volts & v.low amps. It's easy to do very cheap and most abundant element in the universe. Cathode to anode!
Somebody has to take the lead, and Australia has that huge outback.
Alain Archambault Australia is like an old one legged dog it’s owner drags around on a chain.
@@shiraz1736 And China's ambition is to take it over by any means it can.
Australia has huge and sustainable source of artisan fresh water inland which can be used for this purpose.
How is it green when it has such a high carbon footprint from start to finish.
produced using renewables
It's not.
Good work, thanks
Pronounced Dongeeeeeeeeeeeera👍
Store and ship the hydrogen as ammonia then filter the hydrogen from the ammonia at the point of use or distribution. CSIRO have demonstrated this idea using its own developed membrane filter. There is a clean ammonia plant under development near Port Lincoln in South Australia. Ammonia is the most energy dense form of hydrogen and can even be used as fuel for the ships doing the transporting. Worth investigating? Just have a think.
Yeah... as soon as I hear "carbon capture and storage" I know that bullshit is about to be perpetrated.
Just repeating what I posted on another of your recent videos, have a look at the prototype Hazer process being developed by a company of the same name in Western Australia. Unlike the Steam reforming process for methane that releases carbon dioxide, the Haver variation employs an iron ore catalyst to produce hydrogen gas and synthetic graphite, which is a useful product as well.
With a conservative government in Australia i fear we will be hooked on fossil fuel for a long time yet
Allowing politicians to make decisions is a provable bad idea. Just look at the AU internet. My view is that allowing politicians is a bad ideas. ;)
Yeah this will go the way of the NBN
@@Graeme_Lastname Anarchy is better?
If you are stupid enough to believe in renewable power generation, you can go that way on your own. You don't need the government to subsidise you, get on with it, the technology is available. Waste your own money on the myth of saving the planet if you are serious but don't urge the government to waste mine too.
I certainly hope so!
Nice presentation
The Hydrogen Age Started in 1996 , since that time many many deployment and infrastructure has been built, Australia is so far behind it is foolist to think they can can compete. Japan has Steel mill town and infrastructure on Hydrogen only since 2000, 20 years late Australia is now considering a start, Australian needs to x 10 all plans if they even want to be on the map, the adjacents markets of China and Korea are already going to take all the business, Australia will end up a late played with no production or production line capacity of h2 using devices. Like a nice Mueseum Australian will be johny come lately. www.secure-supply.com www.hot-rod-usa.com ps this channels is very good but unforntunatley the aussie media is so far behind and false that the people are not even aware of the size of the gap
Most Aussie media is unfortunately controlled by Murdoch.
This is a better source reneweconomy.com.au/
The Germans were using hydrogen to fly around the world in the late 1930's.
I read that Japan is considering producing their own hydrogen via onsite production adopting the H2IL method. Makes sense as there is not shipping and transportation of the gas needed. Green hydrogen using sea or rain water in any part of the world without tapping into fossil fuel or renewables....
what a fantastic channel. Please keep it up 👍
Australia should run like fxxx into this technology.
Wind and solar to hydrogen would be a winner
Nice video.
A few points:
Hydrogen (H2) is not a fuel, since we can not find unoxidized hydrogen on the Earth (except in the form of oil, or natural gas). It is an energy storage medium. Energy is pumped into water to break it into O2 and two H2, and then that H2 can be burnt in air to get the energy back.
However, Hydrogen is a TERRIBLE form of energy storage.
-- It is the smallest molecule in existence and leaks thru rubber gaskets, valves, welds, or even solid steel (making the metal brittle in the process). Many other molecules (such as ammonia or methanol don't have this problem).
-- Hydrogen has such a low density that it must be liquified (to hard cryogenic temperatures), or compressed, both of which waste the energy that hydrogen is supposed to be storing.
-- Unpressurized hydrogen has fewer hydrogen molecules per volume, than other hydrogen rich molecules such as ammonia or methanol. Methanol actually has a higher energy density than pure H2, at atmospheric pressure. It would be more economic to ship methanol than hydrogen, and methanol can be created out of plant waste products far cheaper than creating hydrogen from solar or wind.
-- Hydrogen is highly explosive at a wide range of partial pressures, when mixed with our atmosphere.
-- Japan, if it wants hydrogen, can make it with nuclear power using the iodine cycle far cheaper than buying it from Australia. China is going to more than triple all the nuclear power in the world by about 2050. They will be able to undercut the price of solar H2, IF hydrogen is the preferred form of energy imports that Japan wants. (Which I doubt.)
-- No study has been made to show how long sequestered CO2 stays underground. Carbon Capture and Sequestration, is a totally unproven technology as far as lowering carbon dioxide in the air. It is a talking point by fossil fuel industries to encourage people to keep using them as long as possible. The fact that the fossil fuel industries are pushing hydrogen technology, (when they know that hydrogen produced by methane steam reforming is 1/5 the price of solar hydrogen), should make us all pause.
I think that Hydrogen is NOT the way to go.
Warm regards, Rick.
Thanks Rick for some facts!
Unfounded lol. Yeah I trust oil and gas companies to do the right thing. /s
Mathis218337 if they make more money on this then they will change to it
Liquid Sunshine Robert F. Service Science 13 Jul 2018: Vol. 361, Issue 6398, pp. 120-123. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis and transported long-distance as ammonia (NH3). Those molecules are larger, slightly polar, and have less leakage than H2. Producing H2 from hydrocarbons is counterproductive but perhaps the CO2 can be a raw material for building materials.
Hydrogen as a clean fuel has been debunked time and again.
The issues and inneficiencies/losses in conversions aren't worth it
chile is one of the world leaders in renewable energy and a potencial green hydrogen production giant.
like australia, chile have deserts (the driest desert in the world, with the highest solar radiation almost every day of the year), but also, this giant solar capacity camps are just in front of the ocean (so have all the water needed), also near huge wind energy fields and the best lithium deposits and of course cooper, all the ingredients for future electromobility. 52% of Chile's electricity is already produced by renewable sources, and it is intended to reach 100% long before 2050.
even the problem of generating renewable energy at night already has possible solutions. A very interesting one is the "valhalla project", where solar energy is used to extract water from the sea to a reservoir located on a cliff at 800 meters high, so, during the night, that same water is returned to the sea, generating electricity right in the hours when the solar plant does not produce. Of course, this is possible given the unique geography of the Chilean desert (just in front of the sea, high above sea level, with greater radiation and with natural basins capable of serving as reservoirs). I don't know if this could be emulated in Australia, but it is an example of a solution without co2 emitions.
in fact, it has been internationally calculated that Chile would imply the lowest costs of green hydrogen production on the planet (less than 1.3 dollars per kilogram by 2030 and falling)
Chile has already started to produce green hydrogen and green ammonia, also beginning to massively change the use of fossil fuels in sectors such as mining and transportation.
this as part of a national green hydrogen plan driven by the state and the private sector. and in parallel / synergy with the development of electromobility through lithium.
Chile has already captured investments in renewable energy worth 25 billion dollars in the last 2 years alone, and a similar figure is expected only in green hydrogen.
the possible world market is so vast that surely no nation will be able to monopolize its generation.
Considering the excellent relations between Chile and Australia even as virtual allies in the pacific region, we could be facing a future conglomerate of the South Pacific as the axis of the world's energy generation.
australia can be the asian hub for chilean green hydrogen per example, and chile the same for australia in america. a sinergy between chilean and australian minning and energy industries, can be a excellent combination.
Hydrogen is a Huge waste of energy, such a waste.
So are lithium batteries, driving a big SUV, and cooking food over a campfire. Whats your point?
Addition of fueling stations and vehicles that use the fuel. Like electricity. Making everything run on electricity? Take everything that uses gas or diesel and grind it then just build everything new. Just like that.
@@kayakMike1000 With hydrogen the power loss is huge over 60%. Good for things like shipping.
No. It. Isn’t. But obviously your education was.
Michael Lenczewski his point was to troll.
I think green hydrogen would work great as a battery in a renewable energy hub: Excess Solar+Wind used to make H2 through electrolysis, stored on site and returned to the grid with fuel cells on demand. That would make a useful 24 hour supply. I think the technology is heading in the right direction and by 2030 there will be a lot more H2 Fuel Cell vehicles (cars, trucks, trains, ships and planes).