How Clean is Hydrogen, Actually? With Prof. David Cebon | The PLUS Podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2024
- Professor David Cebon has authored or co-authored more than
200 peer-reviewed papers on dynamic loads of heavy vehicles,
road and bridge response and damage, asphalt micromechanics,
weigh-in-motion, advanced suspension design, safety, productivity
and energy consumption. In this episode, he hones in on Hydrogen
and sets straight a few myths about its uses and cleanliness.
Become a Patreon: / fullychargedshow
Become a UA-cam member: use JOIN button above
Subscribe to Fully Charged & the Fully Charged PLUS channels
Buy the Fully Charged Guide to Electric Vehicles & Clean Energy : buff.ly/2GybGt0
Browse the Fully Charged store: shop.fullychar...
Visit our LIVE exhibitions in the UK, USA & Europe: FullyCharged.S...
Subscribe for episode alerts and the Fully Charged newsletter: fullycharged.s...
Visit: FullyCharged.Show
Find us on Twitter: / fullychargedshw
Follow us on Instagram: / fullychargedshow
this should be mandatory viewing for every politician on the planet.
At first glance Tom, Seems like a good idea. Having worked with lots of politicians, most of them are not scientists, and even worse, they are lawyers, and they are truly stupid and immoral. What we need is more politicians that are scientists.
Exactly
Especially the corrupt corporate belly filled ones in India!!
I doubt it'd matter. Politicians are very easily bought
One thing that made me even MORE pro EU was when the EPC regulations were radically overhauled.
Our government is big on reducing regulation, which crucially also means allowing companies to get away with a lot more
Due to the radical overhaul of the EPC rating, appliances are already becoming more efficient because there's an incentive to do so. Politicians that can be bought don't have that.
Fortunately, the UK isn't as powerful when I comes to regulation as our leaders like to think we are. That's meant we're basically forced to accept European emission standards. If we were more powerful, I can't see us radically overhauling EPC standards at all.
With regards to my own house, I use the "average" amount of gas for a house this size but I use 65% of the average amount of electricity, for a house this size. I bought my house not long after the EPC overhaul, and because I've had to go out and buy a bunch of stuff, that's some serious savings (3500 kWh vs 5500 kWh) I don't yet have an EV, and I only got solar panels put on at the end of November. I'm quoting my "before November" energy requirements
Basically, what I'm getting at is that it doesn't actually matter if politicians in the UK and the US see this. They're very easily bought.
MEPs however do need to see this, given the EU is also looking at incorporating more hydrogen, and realistically the only person with any scientific or engineering background within the EU is Angela Merkel.
Everyone else is a lifelong career politician, and those people absolutely need to know the ins and outs of what decarbonisation truly means.
Unless that comes with a large stuffed brown envelope it won’t make the blindest bit of difference :-)
Excellent conversation! It is absolutely amazing and RARE to have the oppertunity to listen to someone that has actual knowledge that is rooted in a scientific background, instead of a lot of opinions, mostly based on hopes and wishes, or political views and "information" provided by lobbyists!
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 should have listened more carefully, especially about the inefficiencies of converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity, and th problems of moving hydrogen around.....
@@jm-ze3sf You do not have to move hydrogen, make it where you need it with water and sun or wind. Once you realize that it recycles back to water and re-use it, you can circumnavigate mars with a liter of water.
@@josidasilva5515
We only need 3 more things to make hydrogen cheap and in abundance.
1. A magic wand
2. Pixie dust
3. A wish
..... good luck with that.
@@josidasilva5515 He actually said that increasing efficiency and reducing emissions of "green" H2 production is the first thing we should be doing, as vastly more hydrogen will be needed to produce fertilizer than the amount of hydrogen that is used for all purposes today. He also said something about looking at things with an open mind and making decisions based on capabilities derived from the science instead of preconceptions politics etc.
I'm such a geek. To say that's the best hour and five minutes I've spent in recent memory is somewhat worrying. Brilliant, truly brilliant.
One of your best episodes to date. A fascinating insight from a genuine expert. Thank you!
I totally agree.
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 why are you posting the same comment multiple times? You should have listened more carefully, especially about the inefficiencies of converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity, and th problems of moving hydrogen around.....
@@josidasilva5515 Sorry - basic thermodynamics is against you. There is no free energy (other than Gibbs' of course... 😂😂)
He's an expert on whether a big truck will roll over (vehicle dynamics). He's NOT an expert on electricity, renewable energy, or hydrogen, which is obvious from the many mistakes and incorrect assertions he makes. Unfortunately, the non-scientific think that all scientists know all about all science. No. Think of it this way: if your appendix burst would you go to an electrical engineering professor to fix it? I put a long post elsewhere here detailing the problems with this guy's statements.
This is some of the most 'fact dense' viewing I have ever seen. I've watched it three times, right through, I've even taken note so I am armed to the teeth with factual arguments next time someone tells me that hydrogen is the future.
Such a great episode.
Perfect explanation of the lunacy of most of the hydrogen hype going on at the moment. Should be required viewing for all politicians, civil servants and media. Well done Prof Cebon.
They just argue that the scientists are not sure if there is not a much more efficient method just around the corner. They just have to look better. And what about E-Fuel? Why not use E-Fuel. Energy in Patagonia is abundant and they - Porsche and Siemens - have demostrated how easy and cheap E-Fuel could be if they woud get more money to develop the technolgies, that are all just around the corner.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 there aren't solutions round the corner, there is the slight problem of the laws of thermodynamics. Porchse are happy to sell extremely expensive e-fuels to rich people. Not viable in the real world.
@@mattwright2964 I know, but the politicians do not accept that.
You just have to dig further, you always get a result, increase your efforts, you can do it, the future of mankind rests on your shoulders. No pressure! The sky is the limit, physics is for kindergarten.
And so on and so on.
There is no workaround to reduce our heating up the planet besides stopping burning fossil ressources. And then wait 300-500 years until it has normalized again.
Oh i know one way. Migrate to Mars.
This is probably the best and most objective discussion on hydrogen and energy needs. There is not one superfluous sentence after the introduction.
Brilliant episode @BobbyLew. Professor Cebon was one of the best guests you have ever had on the podcast. Anytime I get into conversation with a H advocate, I shall politely direct them to this!
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 That still doesn't solve any of the other issues highlighted in the show. 75% efficiency to 90% efficiency doesn't get round the issues further downstream. The energy density of the hydrogen vs diesel and the number of delivery trucks required is a massive issue which is easy to visualise. I presume their will be a similar issue with storing large volumes of hydrogen vs diesel, and where these tanks will be located.
Absolutely brilliant! How clearly all of the information was explained. Spread the word.
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 👈 invested everything he owns into hydrogen refueling stations
You were right, this was an amazing interview. The influence from the powerful fossil fuel industry is clearly what's driving this crazy Hydrogen push. And what he said about leaving the shipping and aircraft industry until last makes so much sense.
Excellent discussion. A lot of fundamental issues addressed and explained. This clarification is so important and and helps better inform those who continually find themselves engaging in such discussion. Great stuff. Bring on the electrification. As you’ve said so often Robert we must ‘stop burning stuff’
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 But the emissions when burnt are so much worse too. It's not going to work. End of story.
@@BrawnyBeats Then there is no solution to climate change, simple as that. Battery cars is very inefficient and not sustainable long term. They're important tool to allow affluent people under the right circumstances to transition and reduce emissions.
Ground and air source heat pumps are also a great solution again for specific use cases and should be mandatory for all new builds. They are however not suitable in large parts of the country, and another solution needs to be found.
Right now Hydrogen especially green hydrogen is looking like the best solution. It's also appearing like it might be a better grid battery storage solution to replace gas. Hydrogen can be created during excesses in wind and solar production and used to offset them once both sources die back or immediate peak demand is needed.
I saw this was an hour long and really didn't fancy watching it, felt like Prof Cebon and Robert chatted for 10 mins, and then it ended, so interesting and a great podcats thanks.
So good to hear from such an expert on this topic
OMG what a great interview, so clear. He would be fantastic in a debate, as he would be so effective in taking the emotion hype and energy, preventing the audience being whipped up in a frienzy!.
I am so thankful and happy you had this show because I too went down the hydrogen dead end many years ago and came to realize that if you just use 1st principles when thinking about energy then let’s go straight to Solar, wind,offshore wind,onshore wind with sort and medium term battery storage or immediate
Would be great to have a visual of his 5 points. A very fine presentation!
Great suggestion. I feel a relatively short video with clear visualisations would help educate us all.
Perhaps he could collaborate with MinuteEarth?
h2sciencecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Hydrogen-Science-Coalition-Principles.pdf
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
@@josidasilva5515 Prof D. Cebon highlights the role of hydrogen as a chemical ... and that the use of hydrogenfor energy is just plain a bad idea. Hydrogen as an energy transfer or source is an unnecessarily complicated idea in a world were a simpler solution already has 1000x more traction. How does presenting a logical argument with supporting evidence represent an "overall negative perspective"?
That was the most brilliant clarification on the topic of hydrogen that I have ever seen and listened to for years well done, well done.
Sorry Mr. Ce'st bon, ne pas bon. He's not that good with numbers and has an overall negative perspective. He should be looking into improving efficiency in electrolysis by resonance (pulse with modulation) or breaking H2O by ionization (high Voltage on atomized water).
Me thinks you doth protest too much Mr Dasilva
@@josidasilva5515 But the emissions when burnt are so much worse too. It's not going to work. End of story.
@@josidasilva5515 right, and then if you get it to 100% efficient electrolysis using hypothetical magic technology, you're still only half as efficient as BEV.
The purpose of electrolysis is to provide a greenwashing marketing strategy to sell more methane.
@@Seehart Every new technology was called magic, until someone discovered and started to use it. There is also magic to be made with ionization of atomized water resulting in H2, just like what happens during a thunderstorm, which was also considered magic by troglodytes.
Brilliant. This video is now in my armoury for the dino burners on Twitter. Thank you so much.
Prof Cebon spot on.
Focus with hydrogen must be on steel making and fertiliser.
I would also add as feedstock in making synthetic jet, rocket and diesel fuel, because in some situations there is no feasible alternative for these fuels.
Just burning it as a replacement for natural gas or petrol is a waste of time and money and wont help the planet.
I have visited the two largest hydrogen makers in Denmark, they are both saying they are going for these industries for green hydrogen. They have dismissed passenger cars long ago.
But he said it's:-
"High NOx when burned"
.
Highly inefficient as a fuel
.
And my understanding is that using it to produce "other fuel" is just adding more stages and so more inefficiency (pollution) to that production.
.
Then, at the end... "Shipping" (long range) at 2% of current pollution, should use Biofuels.
Well, Aviation is also 2%?
Apply the same principle.
Pick the battles.
"Perfect is the enemy of good"
Yes, there is inefficiency in making hydrogen from electricity and making other chemicals from that hydrogen but if you are a bit clever then you use that inefficiency (heat) in a district heating system. You do have those in the UK, right?
I like bio fuels, as long as they are not from palm oil plantations replacing jungles...
And again, clean up the electric grid first, figure out uses for the excess fossil free electricity after that.
Hmm, are we sure this bloke's at the top of his game?
A Google around will find you plenty of papers/ research engineers arguing the opposite.
@@Arpedk 😂😂😂😂
Yes indeed these two hydrogen producers might well proclaim such.
Other producer state the opposite.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.
Some authorities are determined to make hydrogen cars regardless.
Suggest you Google up the predictions for battery cars to get a sense of balance.
Totally brilliant episode. Blew me away. So clearly explained.
Fantastic clarity from David, brilliant - shout this from the rooftops
This is such an important video its one of the best podcast I've heard for months. Thanks Robert brilliant work and I am share like crazy!!
get this guy on the pay roll he's fantastic. Very clear and informed expert opinion.
The first episode I have ever watched, I have been listening forever but this was a great conversation. Could you add chapter markers to the video? It would really help as there are a few parts in particular that I would love to show people i.e my parents who just installed a "Hydrogen Ready Boiler". I knew it didn't make sense but thanks for clarifying! Keep up the good work!
Excellent episode. I was speaking to my local London Labour MP about green energy. He didn't like wind and thought the best future energy source was hydrogen. I reminded him that hydrogen was a way of storing energy, not a source. I asked him if he read books about climate change and green energy. He said, as a busy MP, he didn't have the time.
Just out of interest, which area?
South East?
I have a Labour MP in South East London.
I'd be "disappointed" if it was him (surname starts with E, ends with D)
@@rogerstarkey5390 No, surname starts with C
I never write things down when watching a video, but after 5 minutes, I restarted the video with my notebook in hand.
The MP's in charge of our Energy security should be made to sit and listen to this and then explain to the electorate why they think Hydrogen and fracking is the future and not renewable energy/technology.
Cmdr Machine,
the snag being renewables cannot work, they are not suited for large scale grid supply, nor can technical advancement do anything for the key deficiencies of renewables, the largest of which is intermittency and batteries are not asolution as the required capacity is so large..
In the U.K. gas generation is what keeps the grid going, it is the backbone, so fracking should have been done years ago, primarily for energy security. Coal should never have been run down as that is an alternative reliable generator but now all our reliable fuels are in one basket, i.e. gas. Nuclear is a good but unpopular route that is also worth doing.
I know the reason they think Hydrogen and Fracking are the future, because their fossil fuel bosses state that is the case and they have to do as they are told by their puppet masters.
Thank you. It’s good to know who is pushing hydrogen and why when we know the efficiency is low and the emissions high. Also storing the stuff is tricky and worse the idea of storing it as liquid ammonia, frightening if we had a large scale transport system for that stuff! Glad to see a clear arguments against using hydrogen. Well done!
Great podcast. So informative.
If you are not sailing huge tankers of oil around the world, all of a sudden you need a whole lot less hydrocarbon for sea freight.
Apparently up to about 40% of ocean freight is moving fossil fuels around.
This guy is surprisingly switched on. It's so satisfying to hear all the facts brought together to lay out exactly how we should be making the best use of our resources. It might be worthwhile to use green hydrogen made from excess renewable electricity to manufacture methane. Methane is needed as rocket propellant and could be used in a methane fuel cell for long-haul shipping, long-haul flights and possibly seasonal energy storage.
What a fantastic interview. It’s great to have the record set straight by someone who is qualified to speak about it. His depth of knowledge across many so sectors was astounding. Thanks.
This was an amazing amount of information from Prof David Cebon. He absolutely kills the idea of Hydrogen being of any additional use than what it is already used for. I am still amazed that ASHP is 6x more efficient. Incredible and more people need to see and hear this.
Slight problem is that ASHPs don't produce a fuel. Remember also that our huge Gas Network can handle a high proportion of Hydrogen (Coal Gas was up to 80% Hydrogen) Hydrogen has a part to play, as do many other systems.
@@tedf1471 Did you watch and listen to all of this????
ASHP produce heat and use electricity as their fuel. At no point is an ASHP talked about as creating anything but heat, especially talking about domestic heating.
The gas pipes need to be upgraded to carry hydrogen and that is a significant cost.
Hydrogen is difficult to transport and
Hydrogen will in effect take 6 x more energy to create it.
So sure, would you still want to use a bolier that has had to be updated to use hydrogen if the gas was even just 4x higher than that of the cost of electricity? 3x more electricity used to create so cost passsed on and the cost of doing the process and transporting may actually cost many times more. Also, the boiler efficiency will need to use more to produce the same amount of heat from an ASHP.
ASHP may not be suitable everywhere, but where they can be fitted it will be better as it reduces the electricity demand on the grid, so increased use of them is better for our planet as well.
I have moved to full electric and I have a warm home, a useable cooker as well as all items in my home. I can then drive 10,000 miles a year and pay a lot less to do so.
Industry may be a different story but many different sustainable methods will be available and it is about finding those that work on a larger scale for a business, so I do agree with that.
@@Jaw0lf Electricity is not a fuel, it is a form of energy and needs a way to be stored. Fuels are of interest when transport is involved, it's their energy density and mobility. I had a hefty KIA SUV for a few days recently, very impressive but I discovered its battery pack weighed 1.4 Tonnes! As for the UK Gas network, legislation has already been passed to allow up to 15% Hydrogen be added. All evenues need to be explored without prejudice - Ammonia for Shipping and/or Trains?
This is the third or fourth time I've watched this talk, and parts of it still astound me. For example:
1. Raised NOx emissions in a H2 domestic boiler
2. Combustible H2 truck producing more emissions than diesel.
Of course, we all know why this non-starter is still being promoted.
Probably the best rundown of why hydrogen isn't the answer on UA-cam. Thanks.
This was such a valuable educational hour for me. I have to admit, I've previously been somewhat of a proponent for a hydrogen economy. But this conversation has forced me to reevaluate. I think I had seriously underestimated the real world impracticalities and inefficiencies of a hydrogen economy. The basic theory initially seemed like a great solution. I'd still like to see how grid scale battery storage stacks up against on-site green hydrogen production (as a mechanism for storing excess generation). But it's common sense to first use any green hydrogen to replace the essential hydrogen uses that currently rely on dirty coloured hydrogen production.
David Cebon did a very good job in explaining the pros and cons of h2. Listened from start to finnish straight.
Brilliant podcast. It was a great listen this morning when driving to Cardiff. 👍🏼
Great episode, but please put any internet URLs you mention into the podcast description please!
Absolutely loved this podcast, so much interesting information
The other option for long haul trucking etc is dedicated shot section catenary (pantograph lines) ie between Sydney and Melbourne on uphill sections trucks could hook into the overhead catenary and get charged up as they drive. This can dovetail with charging at stopping points. This is important for countries where they swap drivers and keep rigs on the roads closer to 24 hours like the USA.
David Cebon: thank you for this very clear and layman accessible explanation of what hydrogen should and should not be used for! I have to admit that I am lacking Physics knowledge, which you kindly provided in this interview! I will use a lot of your arguments going forward to hopefully get everyone on the right track to decarbonise the main stuff!
I'm sorry I don't normally 'help the algorithm' by commenting, but this really was excellent. Interesting, informative and plausible.
I concur, so I do
I'm generally daunted by anything over an hour but this was so informative, thank you. Prof. Cebon put the facts so clearly and I will probably quote him at Transition town meetings, not to mention the pub!
One of the best podcast you have ever done. Well done bravo. Bz
Just seen this fantastic talk by David Cebon. This should be shown when ever possible, where the renowned professor explains the laws of physics. This puts the debate on hydrogen, carbon capture and electric renewables in perspective. We have to get the law makers educated and stop wasting our money on projects that just don't work or are totally not cost effective. The future decision by the government should be guided by people like prof David Cebon and not by any company with a vested interest.
Excellent analysis. I actually knew almost all of the information David used, but he draws it together in a very comprehensive and comprehendible way, I have friends who are totally blind to basic facts about hydrogen, but I agree with David saying that in the end it will be market forces that will win the day for battery electric systems. No transport company is going to even consider a system so much more expensive than BEV, which is why so many businesses are already switching away from diesel. Great video. Thanks.
This was one of the most interesting talks so far. I am horrified by the numbers - I knew hydrogen is not the way, but the scale clarification by professor Cebon is chilling.
Robert that was the best podcast yet, it was interesserttingly clear and educational. I may have to watch it again as I am suffering information overload, and neck ache through shaking my head in disbelief. This coalition I hope is talking to our government so we focus on the areas we can implement change quickly.
Great job - as you say more people need to watch this.
We need this type of guy inputting Government, to keep policy on track, thanks both for informing us about hydrogen which is very much needed, especially for those that are Pro Hydrogen! I have learnt so much here, I need to replay again to absorb the fine details.
I wish I could like this video 100 times. Such great information.
Yes please more David Ceban
Well that clears it up then!! Incredibly well rounded conversation, answering a lot of questions.
I went to a net zero conference run by the Scottish government and there was one session on hydrogen. The guys are pushing their hydrogen busses in Aberdeen and trying to float a hydrogen pilot distribution for heating in Methal. There is a hydrogen production target as well. I was aware of most of the arguments and raised some of them at the presentation. This just pushed my understanding of the problems to another level. Thank you for that insight.
Are the H buses still running in Aberdeen.I haven't been into the city for a while but heard they weren't very reliable.
A German town just ended its trial of hydrogen trains too and plan to replace them with battery trains (until they can get the infrastructure in place for proper electrification)
@@trialsted The absurd issue is that the Brexit supporting company JCB has been adapting its engines to run on hydrogen too. Not even using fuel cells and high efficiency electrical drives. This along with carbon capture and storage is the holy grail of many that is doomed to never succeed.
@@douglasrogers3918 yes, craziness, although arguably fuel cells aren't appreciably more efficient than a compression ignition engine.
Brillant conversation, Prof. David Cebon is very convincing and thanks for enlightening me on the subject.
Great show. Sent it on to many people.
Absolutely eye opening on this subject, thanks so much for your information in easy to understand language!!!!!
Hydrogen cars: *"Dumb as a bag of socks!"* 🤣
Dirty socks.
.
Mismatched dirty socks.
.
Mismatched dirty socks with holes in!
I feel that I've learnt something. Thank you
Great episode, the prof laid it all out very clearly, and whilst I knew an awful lot of the downsides of hydrogen, it clarified and reinforced a lot of my learning. Plus, I still learned a lot more (Roberts statement about air purity and filters for fuel cell cars was a new one for me...).
One thing I would have added to the hydrolysis discussion was the consumption of water. My understanding is that the water has to be ultrapure; this need potentially adds more energy consumption and complexity to the production of 'green' hydrogen. Assuming that you have the water in the first place.
Consumption of "CLEAN" water.
What got me was the "4-5 times the green source energy required"
.
At this moment (18:36 on Saturday) it's dark.
Wind energy is producing 37.9% of energy on the UK grid.
(Takes off shoes to count toes ....) Multiplied by 4 (who needs 5!?)
That's 152% of the current requirement.
Let's cover the "Ah! But that's exceptional!" Lobby.
Over the last year wind is at an average of 23.1 % so 4x would be 92%.....
But it's also cheap and fast to build. Make that 5× and we're at 100%+ (this is without solar, or the remaining Unclear energy, or Biomass, or Hydro (only 1.7%) or "Other".
And we save the raw material cost of all the fossil fuel!
.
I really can't see the logic in another path?
.
(Nobody asked about the longevity of fuel cells either.... It's not long!)
Absolutely brilliant to have the big science picture on how to get to a better future.
Everyone should know the details of this conversation. Very educational episode. May I suggest that someone puts together a pdf of accompanying notes that illustrate the key points made?
Fascinating. The facts that we don't hear before a debate or a news article
Fascinating. Lovely to hear @DavidCebon speak so clearly.
Brilliant stuff guys. Very informative, thanks.
A brilliant talk. Such a clear message.
So good to hear a real expert confirming your own first principles thinking so equivocally.
He convinced me. a lot of information there I hadn't heard.
Well done.
Really good clear information, a must watch. Well presented chaps
Brilliant! I’m afraid that we will need to continue to have this conversation to help clarify this topic.
Most sense I`ve heard on the whole subject of future transport. Well done FC
This has got to be the go-to in any discussion about the utility of hydrogen; there's not many bases left untouched. Thank you so much for this - would have been even better with a little rant at the end...
Great content. I always argued about the inneficiensies of hydrogen, but I learned so much more. Thank you.
Mainlining that lovely information straight into my brain box
Really informative interview. I have had my reservations for Hydrogen for years and once had a heated debate with a fellow employee at my previous job who ridiculed my choice to go EV and stated Hydrogen Fuel Cells were the future despite my argument stating that 98% of Hydrogen is made from burning fossil fuels but he was having nothing of it. He was convinced back then, probably 4 and half years ago, that EVs would never work and Hydrogen was the future. This interview clearly showed that the storage & transportation of Hydrogen is prohibitively difficult and thereby likely prohibitively expensive to be a sensible solution. I have now gone from having reservations about Hydrogen to simply not accepting it is a sensible option. Though I would be happy to be proven wrong and can now only see Hydrogen utilised by the method of Renewable Energy Electrolysis.
Excellent! Very clear as you say. An absolute revelation.
So clear and concise. Thank you so much for clarifying this complex issue for me.
I loved the bit near the end when Robert got his maths correct about the shipping! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
“Hmm, Smug Mode!”
😉
This was just SO INTERESTING! What a great guy- as you say, very clear indeed! I have sent link to my “Pubs And EVs (Not Hydrogen)” group!
Brilliant. This should be widely shared. Our current government obviously need education!
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant! I've learned a lot from this. Thank you both!
Brilliant ! Good to hear the global (and true) story about what we read by bits, here and there, between non-journalistic articles promoted by lobbyists.
If only the mainstream media would subscribe to this channel and listen to experts like this. There is simply no argument for hydrogen of any colour in our homes or cars.
Intelligent energy tariffs from Octopus (I don’t know of any others doing what they do) mean that it is simply cheaper and more beneficial to the planet to take the energy generated and use it “raw” to power our cars and heat our homes; NOT convert it to hydrogen and need 3 or 4 times more electricity to do the same job!
Brilliant podcast and a fantastic speaker!
Another great episode.
What a brilliant podcast. He's amazing.
Perhaps for some truck applications, a truck in which you simply change the used battery for a charged battery would be preferable. The discharged battery goes on charge at a lower rate, not necessitating huge currents coming into the truck depot. The turn around time is far less than the time needed to load or unload the truck.
Or truck charging stations could have battery packs as buffers.
This is brilliant! Finally understand the problem. Thank you!
Very informational and positive, that helps relativise the average Internet news articles about the topics addressed here.
Absolutely fascinating!
Best podcast so far.
Again a verry great podcast! Please do a short video on it please.
Best podcast I have seen🙌
Very very interesting, I would like to have a chat and a couple of beers with David . Good interview mate.
If it is True then it must remain True. Good work.. loved the pod cast.
Best on yet. Well done.
Amazing and insightful interview with a very knowledgeable gent... With two large iron ore companies in WA investing in hydrogen plants, I'm now wondering what their long term plan is? We don't have smelting plants here, all the ore gets shipped to China, so why are they investing in hydrogen production? Maybe that is the long term plan, to produce steel here and value-add to the commodity before shipping it off...
Great interview Robert, this ads significant clarity to this subject. thank you!
and see you in my home town Vancouver, cheers
I have been enjoyed, so thank you for delivering.
The best of several fully charged episodes on the "place of hydrogen in our world". I need to distil the information but it is all there.
48:10 . Getting hydrogen to filling stations. WOW! To paraphrase, it would need 18 tankers to transport the same energy as one tanker of diesel.
Fantastic! so many rumours destroyed and a clear description of a complicated subject, how do we get this information to the masses? It can seem a boring and complicated issue so engagement is difficult,
your podcast and show are excellent but i feel the subject needs propelling to the mainstream.
well done so far, keep going, thankyou