Solar to Hydrogen -Convert sunlight directly to hydrogen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2023
- In this video we look at Hydrogen generation from Solar Energy. Other than electrolysis, there are at least 5 other methods through which solar energy can be directly converted to hydrogen gas. We examine each of these.
- Наука та технологія
When will "they" stop attempting these huge projects for grid applications? Grid has 30% loss at transmission lines.
When it is small, self contained to each house, or business and off the grid (as needed) : is when we have independence.
'They' don't want independence.
Really appreciate this channel!
👍💪✌
Thank you for showing possible H2 solutions
Hydrogen is meant to be used as fast as it is generated. Storage technology is still in its infancy.
Great
Hydrogen is useless as fuel because you cannot store it for longer than a few days, and even then there will be significant losses due to the hydrogen atoms bleeding out through the walls of the storage tank. Further, hydrogen lingering between the atoms of the storage tanks changes the physical properties of the tank itself, leading to “Brittle Fracture”. Look it up. This is not something that can be overcome, it is a element aspect of material science.
This why no one with a technical background takes hydrogen seriously. It’s always politicians and bureaucrats who keep bringing this stuff up.
very good!! I hadn't imagined!!
Thank you for yor eye opening comment
Hydrogen produces brittleness in steel, but modern hydrogen storage tanks are made with carbon fibre composites..
@@chrissmith2114 it's only a carbon fibre composite until it becomes a carbon/epoxy/hydrogen amalgam, at which point... fracture.
@@frankinla91602 Wow, did you tell Toyota and Honda, who have been using the tanks for years....
So you replace the tank, like any other part. Separately a copper alloy is used in hydrogen rockets that do not react to this enbrittlement problem.
Great video. Small correction at 1:40 - Mt, megatonne, not metric tonne, 95 million metric tonnes.
Making clean hydrogen for steel making and other industrial processes makes sense. It does not make sense for transportation, since we are entering an exciting era of new and powerful battery technologies, which will overcome the battery weight and cost issues currently present.
Agreed. In transport, volumetric energy density is paramount. Industrial uses will be H2's future.
Yeah, the battery breakthrough has been promised since the first battery electric cars in 1820.... been 5 years away ever since.
@@chrissmith2114 ?
H2 competes with CH4 for OH in the atmosphere making it effectively a greenhouse gas.
It water H2O that is a greenhouse gas.
@@synergyfiles3536 That's an entirely different thing. I didn't just make it up.
@@Timlagor I agree with what you have said
Ahh so electric aviation guy.
Yeah
For green hydrogen, the only number that matters is the cost.
Thewn try 'white Hydrogen' that flows from drilled wells due to underground chemical reactions. Hydrogen is the most abundant stuff in the universe, our Sun has been using it for Billions of years to keep us warm.
Also the leakage. It's a potent GHG.
@@TimlagorIt would be funny if everyone uses hydrogen to avoid global warming, only to cause more via hydrogen.
Also, the earth's gravity isn't strong enough to hold hydrogen. Some of the water we split into hydrogen, will leak and eventually be lost to space. Also, we don't know what effect the leaking hydrogen will have on the ozone layer.
How it is possible with all your research that you missed voltrolysis? ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=voltrolysis
cost is way too high!
Who took it upon themselves to deem green hydrogen as the ultimate clean energy ?
It definitely isn't.
H2 competes with Methane for OH- radicals and thus is effectively a potent greenhouse gas.
H2 being a very very small molecule also leaks very easily.
Why would you bother? Waste of good electricity. Hydrogen has few if any transport uses, only niches. There is a reason everyone is making EVs. The only ones desperately trying on hydrogen, are those that have lost the EV race already. Or in the pockets of old Oil. Batteries on the other hand are a rapidly developing area.
The problem is that when it comes to heavy duty lorries, we cannot rely on batteries because of their high weight. Same is the case with electric aviation. I was opposed to Hydrogen because I myself work in a company that makes battery packs for buses
@@synergyfiles3536 Seen recent videos about the Tesla Semi, truck. Being used by Pepsi I think it was. Electric will have no problems with doing trucks, I mean they are built to deal with moving weight!
Aviation is another issue certainly, however I have seen some video about a battery tech breakthrough that was so good on the power to weight ratio aviation would become a possibility. OK Caveat, I expect these developments are in labs as yet and not mass production. But it suggests battery tech is still young and improving.
Of course it would be better to end all powered flight anyway. An evil of the modern world, rampant pointless people moving. However, Hydrogen should be used for lighter than air slower, better, air travel and cargo lifting. Now that should be a niche to new major use for green Hydrogen. Got to stop worshiping speed, it serves little real point or use.
White hydrogen is available from ground well sources like natural gas is.... Hydrogen is so useless as a transport solution that Tesla is now making 'Hesla' vehicles with fuel cells. To fit a 12 tonne battery into a truck means the payload has to be reduced. Toyota and Kenworth make a fuel cell + electric motor power pack that can be retrofitted to older HGV, this means a new life for old vehicles that are not designed around their huge battery packs, with a 10 minute recharge for 300 miles range in the demonstrator.
"...watch this video to the end..."
uh, no, I'll watch for as long as I find it interesting. You justed to bore me.
The future of transport are fossil fuels.
Cheapest energy source to date?
Liquid metal Thorium ion Molten Flouride Salt Energy Converters (TMSR) require little Uranium and the cheapest can be built and operated in less than 5 years at a capital cost of $1250/kWe and poduce power at a pre-profit levelised cost of less than $30/MegaWatt.hour.
Eg Indonesia's 7×500MWe ThorCon's Molten lquid ions of Thorium; Sodium; Berilium and Flouride salts as aBase loader or automatically load following to help out the inefficient; unrecyclable and short lived Solar & Wind farm so called "Renewables" that at 2Watts/m² would destroy Indonesia's tropical rain forests if used instead of ThorCon TMSRs at 43kiloWatt per square metre...
Sounds interesting but difficult. No one is talking about it. Why?