Is Europe on track to develop its own Hydrogen economy? | DW Business
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2023
- Efforts are underway to develop an industry for a fuel that could one day enable us to fly without the guilt of destroying the planet with dirty emissions. The world needs to de-carbonize - and it needs to do so fast in order to avoid planetary disaster. In the search for cleaner alternative fuels, many are pinning their hopes on Hydrogen. Although its production still overwhelmingly relies on burning fossil fuels, proponents point to the fact that the only byproducts of consuming it are heat and water. In Europe, lawmakers are keen to harness its power too. Scotland in particular sees huge potential in exporting the fuel - especially given the availabilty of wind power, which would enable it to produce the fuel cleanly.
Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Energy Neil Gray is hoping to drum up support for his country's Hydrogen ambitions and distance himself from British Prime Minister Richi Sunak's recent decision to weaken the UK's climate goals.
Subscribe: ua-cam.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#hydrogen #climatechange #emissions
From a security perspective, any step towards greater energy independence can only be a good thing.
@@VaporizeUkraine no excuses. Who ever blew it up, should have done it earlier!
It's a distraction
They're trying to rely on creating new commodity of Hydrogen fuel to replace oil. From electrolysis to steam reformation with gas, neither are clean or sustainable unless there's 200% renewable generation capacity in the electric grid.
Long duration battery storage (far from lithium) is key. Such as flow or rust batteries.
Victory to Ukraine
it won´t be bc there are already studies, that we will import most of the hydrogen from other countries, especially african ones, so independence goes out the window pretty fast, seems like we don´t want to learn anything from the last 2 years
@@toyotaprius79lol keep that mindset and see what happens in the west by 2043 with h2. Ur gonna feel real distracted then when h2 will be everywhere and u won't know. Like Linux. Most People know 0 about it yet it runs 95% of the world's internet. Stay distracted.
Its a transition. Itl get more green over time
I wish we started this fifty years ago...
Wouldn't hav3 helped. Please search and read up on Jevons Paradox
We did.
It was done for decades as a compromise away from battery storage to preserve oil businesses interests. It's a distraction
They're trying to rely on creating new commodity of Hydrogen fuel to replace oil. From electrolysis to steam reformation with gas, neither are clean or sustainable unless there's 200% renewable generation capacity in the electric grid.
Long duration battery storage (far from lithium) is key. Such as flow or rust batteries.
We started with this a lot sooner, 60 years ago, we flew to the moon on hydrogen fuel cells.
It was done well over a hundred years ago. It's pointless, since alamost all hydrogen poroduced today is extracted from coal and gas and is dirtier than using either. This is a new way for the fossil fuel industry to peddle their product before it finally becomes worthless.
Scotland is also generating tidal power, using the water currents around some islands. I remember seeing a report that the island had one issue: it was producing way too much power for its needs - that could be a good place to convert that reserve energy into hydrogen.
Thats a good point that people never talk about.....many times through the day power plants make TOO MUCH power but even though hydrogen takes more energy to make it than it gives you can always just use the extra power to make hydrogen during peak times
Nova Scotia, Canada is buying at least 15 of those same underwater turbines from a Scottish company.
The Bay of Fundy has massive tidal energy potential as it can change up to 16 meters the highest in the world.
@@wiktorjachyra1869 Yes hydrogen is a great byproduct of over production of electricity as it is a good storage medium for energy.
We don't need batteries for green energy storage if we just mass produced hydrogen.
It would also be a multi us fuel from Electricity to Air, Land and Ocean transportation.
There are island nations using diesel generators to produce electricity and importing gas for cars but have an abundance of sun and wind.
They could free themselves from dependence on other countries.
It's only costly because we haven't adopted it's mass use and the green production methods are new.
What are the environmental impacts of *large* scale tidal powerplants? Siphoning of some unused energy that was ment for a small island because it exceeds the needs of a maybe 500 people living there, is not the same as producing hydogen for the entire EU i would imagine when this gets traction. Therefor the tidal (wave?) powerplants might therefor also increase in size and then it would be intersting to know what effects that would have on the environment, before this is realised.
Using hydrogen as an energy store is hugely inefficient. With current technology producing hydrogen from water by way of electrolysis consumes vastly more energy than will be stored and ultimately released by burning the hydrogen. Why not use the same electricity to generate the heat or drive a motor directly?
Found this after finding pro Nd cons and came to this conclusion
Go dig and you might find your conclusion
Batteries are heavy. Hydrogen is storage, converted to electricity by fuel cell though burning hydrogen engines also exist.
It took Airbus 20 years to design and build the A380, and the A380 uses conventional technology. If Airbus designs and builds with a different fuel source it'll take longer.
At the moment Airbus are testing hydrogen technologies, but haven't announced any new aircraft. So I would expect any new Airbus hydrogen powered passenger aircraft until at least the 2050's.
"So I would expect any new Airbus hydrogen powered passenger aircraft until at least the 2050's."
You expect to live until 2050?
@@nntflow7058 wrong, very very wrong.
@@matthewbaynham6286 It really depends on what you take as the starting point and the end. On the one hand you can say everything started in 1988 and delivery of the first aircraft was completed in 2007, making it 19 years. But that's not really a fair assesment imho. In '88 they only launched the idea internally and started a feasability study. In the early 90's they even started a study with Boeing on a joined project for a very large aircraft, but Boeing pulled out in '94 as they did not think the project could ever be profitable (and they were right in the end). For all intents and purposes however. And throughout the '90s most of the work done at Airbus were studies, not actual fine detailled designs for an actual aircraft.
That project was only approved in 2000. That's when Airbus greenlit the production of such an aircraft and the actual designwork could start. By 2005 the first prototypes were delivered and in 2007 Singapore Airlines got the first A380.
It seems the best way to export excess electricity - would be as electricity rather than as green hydrogen. I'm sure it would be cheaper to build transmission lines and undersea cables than a pipeline or a plant for liquifying hydrogen. Also, given the energy losses incurred transporting hydrogen, it would be better to produce the hydrogen at the point of need.
The benefits far out way the disadvantages. Solar energy can be directly converted to hydrogen, (hydrolysis of water) in your own home.
Agreed, we're digging holes in the ground for lithium and cobalt for batteries.
Hydrogen for storage seems smarter to me.
Besides we're shipping oil, LNG, coal and lithium around the globe now how worse could hydrogen be?
Exporting hydrogen would be temporary at best as it can be produced in every country with wind and sun.
It's proof of concept.
@@IMGreg.. The problem is that hydrogen has a pretty pathetic energy density by volume, and an extremely low boiling point, and even as a liquid it still has a somewhat poor energy energy density by volume. As a result, liquifying it is very energy intensive, compressing it is also very energy intensive, and storing it at ambient temperature and pressure requires comically large storage vessels. Hydrogen also has a nasty tendency to leak out of any container you put it in, much faster than methane. It's just a really annoying substance to work with in large quantities.
Consider that most modern rocket designs use either kerosene or methane, even though hydrogen theoretically offers far greater efficiency. In practice hydrogen is such a pain to pipe around, such a pain to keep cool, and requires such large fuel tanks that it has proven to just not be worth the bother for most purposes.
Also, the round trip efficiency of hydrolysis to hydrogen fuel cells has so far not been terribly impressive. And those fuel cells still require some exotic minerals. I doubt it will ever become a good medium for bulk, grid-scale energy storage.
Not that hydrogen is necessarily useless as a fuel. There will probably be applications for which there are no viable alternatives, but generally I see it as rather over hyped.
@@bartbannister394 No, they do not.
@@fnorgenat the lower station level of using hydrogen for backup grid power I think they will use combined cycle turbines as are currently used with methane. They are not much less efficient than fuel cells and are much cheaper when you need large power levels. So that avoided needing platinum etc, if you can do the hydrolysis without any rare materials. Storing it in salt caverns and empty gas wells etc may be possible. Using a pipeline rather than a ship avoids having to compress the gas to a very high pressure. Transmission lines are bet expensive and are an eyesore unless you bury them, in which case they are insanely expensive. They are looking into building a pipe instead of a transmission line from Spain to France to get solar energy in. I haven't seen the details but I don't think they would even be considering it unless it was competitive compared with building a big transmission line instead.
SE players are specialists in this
This is about making a new commodity of Hydrogen to replace oil. It is neither clean or sustainable unless there's 200% renewable geberation capacity in the electric grid.
Long duration battety storage (far from lithium) is key. Such as flow or rust batteries.
again Mercedes Benz was ahead of the curve with the B200 hydrogen fuel cell car in 2005. almost 20 years ago!!!!
They should work more on the production of green hydrogen than look at the consumption of it. There's plenty of ways to use it, so investing in generation is a no brainer. While there's a lot of questions of certain proposals for it's use were alternatives are available and often more viable.
We all need to get on with it.
just put a pedal wheel in front of each passenger seat.
make the airframe out of spruce.
You're a true visionary.
Climate crisis solved.
@@313yoyofly5 NY Idlewild to the Belgian congo in just 17 mins.
paris climate treaty has failed
we need a new one
The volumetric energy of liquid hydrogen would probably require half of the passenger space doubling the price of a ticket alone assuming that the cost would be the same as kerosene per KJ of energy. I can only see reclaiming carbon dioxide to make kerosene as the only economical way for passenger aircraft.
It's a distraction
They're trying to rely on creating new commodity of Hydrogen fuel to replace oil. From electrolysis to steam reformation with gas, neither are clean or sustainable unless there's 200% renewable generation capacity in the electric grid.
Long duration battery storage (far from lithium) is key. Such as flow or rust batteries.
Techno-solutionists seem to care more about flying for holidays - most humans on the planet have never taken a plane - than feeding the world or heating/cooling homes. Hydrogen is also so inefficient that the little energy it will produce is going to be used for essential stuff like in the industry for public infrastructures and in construction. So DW News, let's be more critical instead of praising what are still ineffective technologies that have yet to be carbon-free.
And long distance travels are going to be much less common in the next decades and will instead be done on boats, as they were mainly done until the 60s when the rise of commercial air travels happened.
So while it's good to research any energy source, flying is certainly not a priority.
It's truly sad that ever since the hindenberg disaster mankind has always had a taboo about using hydrogen as an energy/fuel source. When it's clearly the easiest and best option to replace fossil fuels fast.
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a primary fuel. That, is the real problem.
The EU cannot compete on a global stage with its massive state overheads and waste, so they better develop their own EVERYTHING economy and fast.
"Water vapor is Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas." xd
It's about time!😢
There many ways of getting green energy. One of which is geothermal ( especially closed loop, system, no need to pump, as the heated material rises naturally, after being used to create electricity ( the heat level has dropped, so sinks back down( naturally( being cooler!)). Very clean, no pollution
Will last for ever!
Drilling down about 5 to 8 Kms, the natural heat is high enough to power steam generated turbines to produce electricity.
If hundreds of plants were installed nationwide! Problem solved!
One of the good sides of hydrogen is that you can produce it wherever and whenever there's an excess of electricity. That way hydrogen acts as a balancing factor (one of them) between renewable energy production and consumption. That's not nearly the only benefit of hydrogen, of course. For example first steel factories are already starting to use hydrogen instead of coal in manufacturing of steel. Steel production is currently a large user of coal all around the world. Cement factories can also use hydrogen instead fossil fuels in the manufacturing process, and hydrogen also brings other benefits to that process than just it being carbon free (when produced with renewables).
And now explain the painful process of producing hydrogen and the painful process of storing it lol.
@@SSS_HEX
I'm sorry, but it's you who has to explain the "painfulness", as you made the claim. I suggest, though, that we leave out ambiguous expressions like that, and make factual and preferably quantifiable claims instead, using unambiguous language. There's already too much confusing babble on Internet, so let's not add to it.
There are and have been challenges in all energy production (actually in all production and manufacturing). Excluding any negative effects that can't be corrected or prevented with money or other resources, the trouble means money or time (or both). If you want to present sensible criticism towards hydrogen in energy production, address those two aspects: money and time, and if you are aware of positive or negative aspects that can't sensibly be addressed with those two (meaning perhaps that too much of those are required (your source?)), those would be a good addition to the discussion too.
It's also important to remember that the aspects of cost and time can't be sensibly discussed without considering what are the alternatives. In regard energy production the situation is that you don't choose something, you have to choose something else. Making a good choice between different energy alternatives takes a huge amount of knowledge, calculations and planning by experts on different fields. Making far reaching claims about those choices requires a large amount of time and dedication from a layman who isn't an expert on any of those fields, or who perhaps even lacks a lot of basic knowledge on them.
@@adoatero5129 Hydrogen is the most energy dense gas on earth which makes storing it extremely difficult, as result when left idle for along time, it leaks and a lot of it is lost. Therefore solving the storage facilities of hydrogen is crucial for it to be adopted, at the moment carbon fiber is being used but for small scale and it's still not good enough cause it still leaks.
Another issue with hydrogen is that PEM fuel cells require platinum as a catalyst to produce electricity which is extremely expensive and rare with Russia and South Africa being the main suppliers of up to 90% of the platinum used today.
@@adoatero5129 You should be the one who needs to explain since you are such a big prayer but nevermind... here you go:
1 There is NO EXCESS of electricity @ the world considering year after year the global energy consumption is higher and higher. No industry is producing excess of any kind unless they want to go bankrupt.
2 The most "sustainable" way to produce hydrogen is by extracting it from methane... and the process itself is very VERY inefficient and polluting... you only need to google it
3 Don't praise hydrogen or any "green" alternative just because using it there is no emissions, the way you make those alternatives is usually more PAINFULL lol.
@@user-zc1cx8jc4s - “Hydrogen is the most energy dense gas on earth…”
Actually, it’s not. Even methane is more energy dense in gaseous form. You may confuse energy density and specific energy (that’s a common error). Energy density means amount of energy per unit of volume, and hydrogen isn’t an especially dense gas. Specific energy (sometimes called “gravimetric energy density”) is another matter. As hydrogen is very light, it contains a lot of energy per unit of mass, and hydrogen actually has the highest specific energy of all gases. Low energy density of hydrogen is a problem for applications where high energy density is needed, like in cars and aeroplanes.
- “...which makes storing it extremely difficult”
For certain uses, like automotive, yes, but not for the ones we are talking about, for example using hydrogen gas as a way to store excess energy from renewable energy. For such use hydrogen can be stored in stationary storages, which means the storages can be large, which means that atmospheric pressure can be used. One example of such storage are salt caverns, which have already been used to store hydrogen on large scale at least for 15 years. They work well, they are cheap, and can contain huge amount of hydrogen per cavern.
- “...as result when left idle for along time, it leaks and a lot of it is lost”
I’m sorry, but “a lot of it” is too vague. To sensibly use leakage from storages as an argument on this discussion you need to present actual numbers. In reality, leakage through container materials is not a problem in regard to lost hydrogen. It’s a problem for the durability of the container materials, though. According to the Columbia University the current estimated hydrogen losses in the world from production to end uses are 2.7 %, and that’s when the issue hasn’t really been paid much attention to. Based on that the losses aren’t going to be a problem at least from the point of view of the cost of the lost hydrogen.
- “Therefore solving the storage facilities of hydrogen is crucial for it to be adopted, at the moment carbon fiber is being used but for small scale and it's still not good enough cause it still leaks.”
Again, different applications require different solutions. When hydrogen is used for large scale energy storage, no exotic materials or other exotic solutions are necessarily needed. Needs and situations vary, though, so we may see new, advanced solutions appear, but we’ll already get to good speed with what we already have.
If you have “free” energy hydrogen, it’s IMO much more useful to produce ethanol or e-kerosene out of it. Including carbon capture.
I think pure hydrogen is a dead end. And only so hyped because ppl don’t know/understand that it sucked in hundreds of projects in the last 30 years.
Currently it’s only potential is to
lure investors to invest adventure money into H2 startups.
H2 will have its niche one day, but not in cars or airplanes.
PS: LOL 1500km with a plane that is practically a glider.
Some large ships have switched to methanol to comply with sulfur legislation, methanol would make sense to make from hydrogen and carbon capture. Just a small thing like being liquid at room temperature and standard pressure makes it so much easier to handle and transport.
If it affect the business interests of a certain north amrican country, non of these will succeed. It will be interesting how Europe can get Hydrogen fuel into the 'old' cities without distupting the existing city layouts too much.
Why would you want to get hydrogen into the city?
@@Hans-gb4mv It will be quite a hassle to have to go to the outskirts to refuel. I am not familiar with Europe, are there hydrogen 'pumps' in city centres?
Liquifying hydrogen is very energy intensive process. Have to know much net energy is consumes for the liquid hydrogen flight.
forget it, it's to complicated for aircraft use!
Nice work guys
What is the role of Frauenhofers powerpaste in this? Their production capablities had been increased somewhat it was reported, but still need to be increased substantially for their concept to take root.
Hydrogen is a fools errand.
Please do elaborate...
Hydrogen has more uses than for foolcells in cars... You like to eat? Fertilizer production needs hydrogen to make ammonia, today made with natural gas.
Anytime any timeline will be delayed at least 20 years.
We are at a turning point in energy history: In coming decades, for the first time ever, energy will have a deflationary economic impact! Historically humanity always used easily accessible energy sources first and then, when they were exhausted, moved to less accessible sources. With renewables (which already have generation costs lower than coal) costs will only decrease as the technology develops.
The most significant technological hurdle is to come up with low cost long term storage solutions.
I have no doubt that hydrogen will be the fuel of the future. I like to think that we are in a similar situation as we were at the turn of the century when deciding which fuel would be used for automobiles.
I doubt it will be. Hydrogen is more expensive to produce and is less energy dense than traditional fuels.
@@Feelthefxwrong.
@@Feelthefx Fossil fuels are quickly coming to an end. The world doesn't have a choice.
Well, it's not that simple. Hidrogen can be one slice of the solution
I have no doubt that hydrogen power will be DOOMED to fail.
Energy contained in H2 is 1/6 of a carbon fuel. So no option! Especially not on long flights.
We need e-fuels
Energy by mass or by volume? I would argue that the proper comparison is engergy of h2 vs carbon fuels should be by mass, since it is the weight of the fuel you need to get airborne.... so by mass, hydrogen is around 3x more dense in energy when compared to diesel/gasoline/kerosene.
@@markbuckholz3184 sorry, but in an airplane you cannot cool down hydrogen to minus 200 nor can you increase the pressure to a required level either. And in a pipeline you basically transport 1/6 of the ennergy compared to natural gas during the same timeframe.
We need efuels for shipping and airplanes and then we might as well use it for cars.
Hydrogen is not an option. Industrial upscaling necessary for our economy will not happen.
Cheers
@@Fr99763 You are confusing your data points. The aircraft does not cool the hydrogen. It would be liquefied on the ground and be loaded as an unpressurized liquid to be kept cold on the plane by insulation and evaporative cooling. The evaporation releases the H2 gas to fuel the engines or fuel cells. Pressure need not build up excessively in the storage and expansion tank if used at the rate of evaporation. Both H2 pressure and flow rate to the engines or fuel cells would be controlled by warming the liquefied H2 as needed. Any temporary excess evaporation could be vented or flared. On ground any excess evaporation of stored liquid H2 would be piped at low pressure to fuel cells to feed the airport grid or provide ground power to the plane. It is simply an engineering problem.
And yes, efuels are another option that is even more energy demanding to collect CO2 and combine it with H2 on the ground to replicate what took plants and geologic forces eons to produce fossil fuels from water and CO2. Using liquefied H2 directly is more energy efficient, but introduces more difficult storage and transport challenges. Let the competition play out.
Unless you invented a better hydrogen fuel pump, the answer is no. Such an invention would make international headlines. This is clickbait
as european i dont like they invest in hydrogen before in electric cars.
Hydrogen is to volatile, cand be stored and high explosive.
I thought that to a few month ago. But after reading up on H2 Storage i found, that its actually as dangerous to store as natural gas and we have gas pipelines, storage, liquification plants and even cars fueled by it.
Also as a firefighter i can tell you that electric vehicles are basically not extiguishable, because the batterie components burn at extream temperatures the best solution is to through them into a water filled container and let them sit there for at least a day (due to the extream heat the fire also produces its own Oxygen).
So i've come to the conclusion that it is the supiriour way of power storage because you avoid batteries (which are themseves bad for the environment) and get a higher energie density than with batteries (relevant for how long a plane can fly / car can drive without refuleing).
Stop talking rubbish, they have already done tests in America, where they shot a hydrogen tank with a high power assault riffle and guess what NO explosion.
Don't talk about things you have not researched.
😠
Europe has to take the lead on this as the Americans are too conflicted and have too much money tied up in the production and sale of oil.
If the Scottish government is involved then it Will be a disaster, just look at ferry's and ScotRail. That is just an example.
As for the wind farms, total rubbish, I am paying a huge amount for electricity, hope Scotland NEVER gets independence, I am already paying more TAX than anywhere else in the UK.
If there are all these wind farms why is electricity £2000 a year.
I'm in the US. I would be ecstatic if my electric bill dropped to £2000 a year!
EU H2 agan..didn't hydrogen advocates lose their jobs when tesla broke through,they promised a bright hydrogen future by 2020
Unless you are making deuterium and tritium for use in nuclear fusion reactors in the future, this is a complete waste of money.
A sensible policy at last. Take note Westminster.
It will take a long time before battery-powered planes and ships become a viable option. Until then, large vehicles that need to travel far must be powered by hydrogen made using nuclear power. Until we reach the next step in transportation technology of course. As for cars and motorcycles, I don't think hydrogen will be the best solution unless you need to drive a heavy truck for long distances.
I've long thought that battery powered planned are absurd. What you need are giant gliders launched with magnets. Shoot them up into the sky and let them glide. Then you don't waste weight supporting the extra weight of fuel or batteries.
I'm imagining you launch planes at supersonic speed and then just let them glide.
Not all cities have the powerinfrastructure to move all transport to electric. With some adjustments combustion engines running on hydrogen is a thing.
@@VaporizeUkraine Battery electric cars can burn hard. Hydrogen fuel cell is very common for forklifts in Europe.
Excellent
Typical SNP Not 1 Scottish wind turbine, Most are German (Siemens) Danish and Irish,
Thank you to this DW presenter for correctly referring to my country, Scotland, as a 'country' and not part of England or the so called 'UK'.
Unlike the English mouthpiece @ssholes the BBC, who refuse to do so even in their damned weather reports!
We are not 'the north', we are not 'north England' and we are NOT a fkng 'REGION, we are a country in our own right!
Thank you, DW, for that respect.
CO2 is absolutely clean, we drink it with soda.
I think that hydrogen is the best way forward. We still need to develop battery storage. We need to cut back on the amount of rare earths that lithium-ion batteries use and we need to address the fire hazards associated with them.
Is it really less energy demanding, to bring and keep liquid hydrogen at some -250 celsius, rather than use it to produce synthetic gasoline from co2, from nuclear (and or renewables, if they are enough ) with net zero Carbon emission, easy storage and, above all, freaking already existing motors.
Hydrogen is very expensive 🤔 double or triple unlike gasoline ⛽
REally, gas is like $5-6 a gallon right now. I know Europe is even more. All about demand, if we start using more, it will get less instantly. Just watch, Battery cars will destroy the automotive manufacturing, using only a small amount of workers to assemble them. Anybody thought about that
About time.
Meanwhile in America ...
If people stayed at home, that would save a lot more fuel; but that's always posed the biggest challenge.
lol
How much pollution does it cause to produce the hydrogen?
not good enough...
Good morning
he's lying what about industrial carbon
Nope. Getting to a molecule of H2 requires a HUGE amount of energy itself.
What happens when a hydrogen plane crashes?
And nobody mentions how dangerous is the playing with hydrogen. Europeans having a big gap in chemistry knowledges or? 🤔
Compared to electric, hydrogen is way better as the aircraft gets lighter as it consumes fuel.
Pipe line😀pipe dreams you can tell he’s a politician not an engineer
Target of 2040 ? ! Says all why Germany is losing, target 2025 and make it happen
Im living still comfortable, you are so hysterical.
Eu cant electric
if clean products are available the public will use them over the smog factories . build it and we will come.
The public will use whatever is cheapest and easiest. They always have and always will, especially in the developing world where nobody gives a damn about the environment.
hydrogen is explosive but so are the fossil fuels
NOOOOOOOO!!!! Electricity and batteries are far simpler and more efficient and less monopoly in electricity production (more options)!! Hydrogen - monopoly over the people and overcomplicated engines. Transportation with the increasing appearance of electronics in them (computers - mobile phones on wheels), the drive system needs to be simplified. Comparison like Nokia, Blackberry and the arrival of Samsung and iPhone!
Green hydrogen can be *excellent* in stationary grid-scale "_seasonal_ energy storage" to store energy from the summer time to be used in the winter time. That will for sure kill off fossil fuels once and for all. 👍 However hydrogen will be *terrible* for mobile automotive applications - there's plenty of discussion around that, sorry Toyota!
Hydrogen powered flight…where have we seen this before?
Is green hydrogen like Clean Coal?
No. Chemically H2 gets burned with O2 to create the Dihydrogen Monoxide, a chemical that kills ~3500 people by inhalation every year.
I wonder if hydrogen can be used in 2 ways. It can be used in engines, but it is also light and can lift the vehicle from the groud or lessen the needed lifting power by the engines.
Think about Zeppelins that can be transformed to fixed wing aeroplanes.
Doesn't work though if highly compressed. The hydrogen needs to displace air to lighten the vehicle.
@@Invertatude Of course. Part in gas as Zeppelin and part in liquid form to have more stuff for the engines. Works that way.
You may find a way to use gas or liquid in same engine. Or just make engine that uses gas and preheat the liquid...
You may deflate the used gas to make some energy for engines. Or heat some liquid to make gas to gain more boyancy.
I think a gas compressor would be too heavy, so burn, or use in fuel cell, the gas when needed.
Erm, you do know what happened to the Hindenburg?
@@mutkaluikkunen3926 Yea, it burned. Yet still was it fault of the hydrogen or the coating? When there is no oxygen, hydrogen cannot burn... This fear is somewhat overstated, but of course when it start to burn hydrogen adds to the fiery mix.
Did you know that current aviation fuels burns too?
@@martiansoon9092 Yea, they do, but hydrogen is on another level with that.
It's a bit explosive though huh
so is jetfuel
Not a problem - we figured out gas storage dacades ago and that workes for H2 as it does for natural gas.
@@JanChrissD Did you skipped elementary school or didn't started yet? 😂
@@SSS_HEX Unlike you i have knowledge of the subject and don't need to use insults as "arguments"
No, flammable not explosive.@@Teh-Penguin
Expect hydrogen passenger drones in a few years
Mabe build mortor there make H, when it goes.....Just a littel tank
I've been hearing about hydrogen for 30 years and it got nowhere yet
The wisest thought that is in everyone's minds today is to invest in different income flows that do not depend on the government, especially with the current economic crisis around the world.Retirement doesn't come with a specific requirement, people need to understand that having a right retirement plan is ideal and can help build a financial fortitude. Also, having a financial counsellor that will guide you through every process would be good, not just any expert but a very good one!
Finding financial advisors like **KAYLA TABITHA RODRIGUES who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them. I came across her in a Bloomberg interview and got in touch with her. You can use something else. For me, her strategy works good results
you can confirm her yourself on the internet,she works with authorized regulation and all.
Hydrogen is everywhere n volitile, but very explosive. I hope this is not another Volkwagon n Europen Car Manufacturer Scam.
Vision unity pilot needed too to premote Ukraine intelligence counter units for teaching helping
This guy is drinking way to much of the koolaid
Dont be silly, germany. We still try to like you.
Modified glider. Did it get airborne under its own power or was it towed into the air by a conventional airplane?
How to get so much hydrogen not burning coal or gas making electricity for electrolysis? You will spend much more energy getting hydrogen and make the same carbon pollution.
We don't need to decarbonize, we just need to start adapting to the new normal.
Hydrogen fuel cells are inherently dangerous.
They should not be used in cars or civilian products.
Hydrogen is very flammable and a tank of it is extremely dangerous.
For an aircraft is may make sense since the aviation industry is so safe and protected but for other applications it could be an issue.
It's a distraction
They're trying to rely on creating new commodity of Hydrogen fuel to replace oil. From electrolysis to steam reformation with gas, neither are clean or sustainable unless there's 200% renewable generation capacity in the electric grid.
Long duration battery storage (far from lithium) is key. Such as flow or rust batteries.
Lobbing for oil, I see ...
Lobbying for renewable clean energy that doesn't blow up like a "hydrogen" bomb. Solar and batteries work just fine thank you.
Recycled earth2😷
RAS HOUSE MUSIC 🎶 LABORIE BEACH ⛱️ ST LUCIA JAZZ
Mankind vs human mutation 🚀💩
대한민국에서는 태양광 발전 전기를 "출력 제한"이라는 조치로 전기를 버리고 있습니다. 환경 오염에 반대하는 세계는 이것을 규탄해야 합니다. 그리고 태양광 발전을 기존 전력망에 연결하는 것이 바른 방법이라고 아무도 주장한 적이 없는데... 신재생에너지를 통한 수소 생산과 저장 그리고 24시간 안정적인 발전이 기준이 되어야 합니다.
No, Europe is not.
Timelines unrealistic? Hhhmmm maybe to resolve that issue is to bring the technology to the USA where companies like SpaceX can make it happen sooner.
0:15 hydrogen 氫氣
0:20 byproducts are heat and water
notorious aviation industry wants to get onboard.
1:50 current concept is that we will have ...
2:15 albeit 雖然，儘管
3:00 charter flight
4:00 drum up support for his country's hydrogen ambition.
4:45 offshore, wind tidal, pumped hydra storage, and generating green hydrogen
... make sure we play our part to decarbonize the energy production.
6:35 and you're hoping to harness the power in the service of exporting clean hydrogen.
9:50 hold up to its end of the bargain
10:30 for investors, it's a backtrack.
jelengess geci...
👽❄🌑🌌ufo dependent plz help where aliens👾
Just build a 400km/h Shinkansen rail across Europe and you don't need regional airplanes. Or buy Russian gas instead of spending top dollar on pointless hydrogen projects.
Hydrogen is the future, not electricity...Hydrogen based cars are the future not the EVs.
Why keep our reliance on oil and gas? Commercial H2 is made from oil and gas or coal. Until it is not, it is really not a viable alternative.
They're a long long long long way behind EVs so there's simply no chance for them - we have already chosen our technology for cars. There might be a chance for trucks but probably not. Even for Aircraft we're more likely to have to use Sustainable Aviation Fuels except for smaller aircraft.
@@steven4601 Same goes for electricaty though...
@@t43562 the reason EVs are so far ahead, look at the amount of money given to the company's involved from governments around the world, someone in various governments is going to make a lot of money in the future from EVs.
Look at what Toyota are doing with hydrogen engines and cars.
Toyota and Yamaha have even collaborated on a Hydrogen combustion V8 that runs entirely on hydrogen and only puts out water as an emission.
@@andy70d35 it's just the practicality of EVs has arrived already. Lots and lots of different companies are investing in every part of the ev supply chain - it's a snowball effect. Companies will invest where they can see there is already success instead of taking a risk on hydrogen and every decision like that makes it more impossible for hydrogen cars to catch up. Big car companies won't have the money to build battery plants AND a huge hydrogen refuelling infrastructure so they will just build the batteries.
rich country ruin the earth
Is this new? Liquid hydrogen os used everyday by China, Russia and India 😅
There is NO future for hydrogen in transportation. It is dirtier than diesel as 99% is made from steam reformed (un)natural gas, the actually clean hydrogen is a miniscule % of the used gas and uses enormous amounts of power. To go via hydrogen is horribly inefficient when you compare to using the power directly or via batteries (todays cells). It is better to use rape seed oil to replace the jet fuel as it is carbon neutral and nearly identical to diesel/jet fuel chemically. Investing in hydrogen (outside of steel production) is a certain loss of invested money, don´t do it.
As Nord Stream blew up without a cause nor a culprit, I wonder what will happen with Hydrogen. 🙂
Will DW report on the resignation of the Canadian Parliament House Speaker Rota over the standing ovation twice for a Ukrainian 14th Waffen SS Division member!
what exactly is your point?