Wow the irony that 3M is your sponsor touting caring for the environment when they just lost a lawsuit of 10 Billion dollars for contamination of drinking water with forever chemicals. Damn. And I thought trying to capitalize on a submersible video was low.
3M one of the world's largest polluter of PFA's forever chemicals destroying the environment arguably worst than plastic producers as they are forever. They have been reposible for many deaths and many future deaths to come for a very long time until we have figured out a way to clean it up. I love your videos man and you usually have decent sponsors. Take their money, but try to research the harm they have caused and the significance of forever chemicals. At least Coca-Cola pollutes in a way that is relatively easier and less expensive to clean up, a way that the environment would eventually deal with. 3M and Teflon don't.
Nice video. But I'm tired of the discussions that leave out how difficult hydrogen is to work with. And using the term "density" is definitely poorly chosen, as hydrogen only looks good if energy for a given mass is considered. But density of gaseous hydrogen makes it absolutely the worst when it comes to energy by volume.
Yeah, I'm getting sick of the phony hype as well. Every time I hear of new breakthroughs in hydrogen, they're just click bait that doesn't really address the issues with hydrogen. Some are just downright fraud. I remember some crap about storage on a disk. *MOAN* The only thing that seemed promising was about it being used in the form of a compound. But water's a compound that just isn't viable because of energy and time it takes to separate. Now if they come up with a new way to separate it that is both economical and fast, WAHOO! I doubt that's in the cards, though.
Exactly. It should be a crime to not mention both gravimetric and volumetric energy density when talking about fuels and batteries. It's almost useless to quote just one of the two numbers since some fuels/batteries are useless if taking both into account. With hydrogen you need to quote two or three numbers for volumetric density. As the density depends whether you store it as a compressed gas or a liquid.
Volume using which storage method? Because nobody is going to use it at room temperature. And it does not matter anyway because a hydrogen car is no different from ICE or BEV in volume. But when you are building a semi or a boat and the options are to install ten tons of batteries or one ton of fuel cell and tanks it is clear why people mention the weight.
Due to hydrogen’s extreme fluctuation and capability to many materials as steel a.o, and due to released hydrogen to the atmospheric, impacting CO2 many times worse than the known fuel, I’d really like to hear a thorough risk assessment. I guess there are a reason for 80% of hydrogen are used where produced.
This is only one of at least four challenges, the three other ones: - Storage - efficiency making H2 (will always take three times the energy than just using electricity) - efficiency using H2: turbines or engine are inefficient and Fuel cells as well under load
The main benefit of the H2 would probably be as an immediate feed stock to other chemicals and fuels. Like chemical fertilizer factories can have an electrolyzer on sight. Also as much as folks hate them, having an e-fuel plant at an airport or shipping terminal complete with electrolyzer would really cut down on the carbon footprint from transport and use of fossil fuels. If fresh water is scarce at a location where H2 is needed they can pipe in NG or RNG and use methane pyrolysis, then profit off the carbon black sold to other industries.
350 to 700 bar pressure vessels used for storage and regulation including off-gasing . Often stored in a metal cylinder wrapped in carbon-fiber. Applications like commercial vehicles receiving regular maintenance and inspection like UPS trucks is good. In the hands of consumers, that is another discussion. It is possible but safety is paramount.
@@KoenvanGorpAstronomy That is why hydrogen will be optimal for ships, the ship produce the hydrogen and use it inmediately, being sotragd inside a container in the ship, there is plenty of leaking control, that and industrial applicationa are the only industries that hydrogen can thrive, the rest, only electric works.
@@mr.somebody1493 This isn’t MAKiNG energy from hydrogen, it’s STORING energy in hydrogen. Totally different. Nothing is used up. You use energy to extract hydrogen from water, and when it is burned, it releases energy and turns back into water.
My father-in-law was an editor for Chemical Engineering magazine for 40 years. Since I met him in the early '90s, we've been discussing H2 as an energy source, especially as a replacement for gasoline. I even looked into converting my 2006 Chevy Avalanche to hydrogen. However, the cost isn't just the H2, it is also the tanks, which must be replaced frequently. I now drive an electric car (Ford Mach-e) and am happy to be fueling my drive with my ten-year-old solar array. I'm still waiting on the flux capacitor.
Batteries are simply better for smaller EVs unless you really need the performance. Some kind of race car might use hydrogen because lighter car means more speed and range and filling the tank will likely be far faster than any foreseeable supercharger, unless you want to risk batteries exploding and don't mind paying for constant replacements... I have heard rumors of military UAVs using fuel cells for similar reasons. But the main reasons why regular cars won't be using hydrogen is the cost of small fuel cells and all the hydrogen infrastructure that would need to be built.
@@TheBrucifer No, everyone is interested in better batteries because they are used everywhere, you don't put an expensive fuel cell in a radio or night vision goggles. But while the military could easily pay for a battery pack that weights a ton and gives the drone a fifty mile range, they would prefer to use the half ton fuel tank that gives the drone a hundred mile range. Also, making and storing hydrogen is usually easier than hauling tons of spare batteries if you don't want to wait for the recharge before sending the drone on a new mission. The military could also pay for some new extra lightweight yet super powerful battery that is not suited for EVs because you can only recharge it ten times or something like that, but replacing the need for fuel supplies with a need for special battery that probably needs to be hauled from the other side of the world is not a good plan.
H2 = maximum energy/weight ratio OTOH, extremely low energy/volume ratio, thus extremely high storage and transportation costs. A 3000psi H2 cylinder gives you 60% LESS energy than CH4 on that same cylinder. And H2 is a lot more dangerous...
@@AnalystPrime What makes you think a hydrogen car would be lighter than a gasoline ICE? I guess I can't blame you, because this video repeated the same old misleading claim that hydrogen has a higher energy density than hydrocarbons. That's only true in the magical land where hydrogen is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. When you include the weight of the tanks required to contain it at high pressure and/or low temperature, the equation changes dramatically. Then there's the horrible volumetric density... Hydrogen is a dead end for cars, other small vehicles, and planes. It *might* be possible to use it in ships, large trucks, or stationary applications. The only use of hydrogen that definitely makes sense is as a chemical feedstock.
When I was in grade 6, I read an article about hydrogen power and excitedly told EVERYONE. Eventually, I discovered how expensive it was. Shame is a good teacher.
I was involved in hydrogen research 20 years ago. We were talking about the same exact issues back then. Hydrogen embrittlement will not be engineered away. Access to clean water is another major issue and will become more of an issue in the future. I only see applications in large ships and industrial processes. That’s it. We really don’t have the luxury of time and hydrogen will not be a meaningful solution.
Don't rely on German technic, no more! We got crazy, politically; nothing will work, technically and economically. H2 is the best fuel for rockets; CH4 is the best for airplanes; gasoline and diesel are the best for cars and trucks. The CO2 problem (if it is as urgent/severe as Al Gore promoted it and President Bush hated it) needs better, more economical solutions on the primary energy generation and refinery_tec side.
@@jimj2683 where do you have those driving around? In Germany BMW has released some hydrogen cars, that’s mainly a political stunt. We lack the hydrogen infrastructure and it has a poor energy ratio, considering the amount needed to produce it. In the first 6 months of 2023 there were 6 new hydrogen cars registered.
@@jimj2683 environ-tec lunatics are dreaming of H2-powered ocean shipping. Nonsense! The only reasonable use of H2 is in the chemical industry (with proper safety tech) and in rockets! Even NASA has problems with H2 leakage, but that is manageable.
‘Hydrogen is about to…” Yeah, this is about as far away as fusion power in that I’ve heard this message for over 40 years! Also, hydrogen may have the 2nd highest energy per mol of mass but that mol of hydrogen takes up tremendous amounts of volume (space) compared to other fuels. In my mind, there are only a few countries that have enough dispersed nuclear power to make for an effective hydrogen infrastructure and America isn’t one of them.
If we could just produce electricity from light, possibly sunlight. Somebody should start looking into this. We could then tap that gigantic nuclear powerplant in the sky ;)
@@VolkerHett We already know how to do that. The problem we have though is it's not efficient enough. Perhaps one day someone will crack that problem but not for now.
The OTHER problems from Hydrogen is its transportation cost, retention in any vessel or container since it “slips” through many seals, and corrosion. You have to pressurize or cool any pipe or container to move it. These are huge engineering problems unless the hydrogen is produced and consumed on site, or held in a “solid state”
Overall efficiency for electrolysis H2 is around 50%. H2 Fuel Cell to generate electricity is also 50% efficient. So, the whole cycle EE➡️H2 H2➡️EE is a mere 25% efficient. Recent research in electrolysis - using very high pressure steam - indicates 70% Eff. may be achieved in the future. Supposing fuel cells also improve to 70%, we would still get 49% overall eff. - meaning 51% of the initial CLEAN ELECTRICITY - wind, solar, hydro... - would still be LOST. And these figures DO NOT INCLUDE transportation and storage costs. OTOH batteries can have 90-95% storage Eff. , Electric Motors 95%+ Eff. I would definitely invest strongly in new battery technologies, with cheaper and cleaner materials, higher kWh/kg, perhaps small liquid fuel cells as range extenders on hybrid vehycles, nanomaterials for H2 storage...
@@rubindiehl2569- “overall efficiency” Not very efficient to mine for batteries, ship components all over the world, charge & discharge, and then recycle. Hydrogen is far more efficient in it’s lifecycle than batteries. Plus, used hydrogen is non-toxic (ie H2O) while used lithium is associated with autism in children. H2 is green… Batteries are toxic.
The problem of hydrogen fuel is that by the time the distribution network will be scaled up, battery technology will have progressed enough to make it irrelevant. So it won't scale. Maybe just for planes and shipping containers. Definitely for industrial needs. But it will never go mainstream.
Yep H2 for commuting appliance is stillborn. Using batteries and biofuels is the way to go in that department. GMO grasses for RNG feed stocks and seed oils for refining would be amazing for this. Combined with no till farming techniques and pyrolysis a lot of carbon needed for industry can be recycled from the air, no need to pump and mine more out of the ground.
I agree, ships and planes could benefit from hydrogen but a car will just be too small. I drove a hydrogen car once and got explained to me that the gas evaporates in the tank and also has a big risk of exploding in a car sitting with full tanks for a week or two.
Batteries will always have their problems too, for the foreseeable future they'll still be best for short trips. There's just too much physics stopping them from charging superfast with the current (no pun intended) technology. Also battery vehicles are incredibly heavy which damages roads faster and harder on tires in general. There's also the mining of materials and all the problems that brings. There's a place for hydrogen fueled cars and I'd rather see that happening in conjunction with electric vehicles.
Containment is the main issue, not transportation. The beauty of hydrogen is that you can build a plant for it literally anywhere. Hell in 300 years every gas station might be a hydrogen generator plant and you wont need external fuel shipments. The station will generate the fuel it sells on the spot. We just to figure out how to effectively and consistently contain it. Out of every future fuel we can path towards hydrogen is easily the best option. Its just a shame we wasted the past 100 years building up and widespreading oil
Green hydrogen will use excess power from wind and solar when demand is low and be stored in salt caverns. Look at the Utah project now being built. It will have enough storage capacity to power everything in a large city for over a year.
The problems are insurmountable as it is the smallest atom and cannot be fully contained ie it leaks, also there is the problem with Hydrogen embrittlement where it makes metals brittle and the final killer it takes 4x the amount of electricity in it's refinement to propel a vehicle the same distance as an EV using that same amount electricity, therefore Hydrogen will always be 4x dearer to run than an EV, not to mention the large amount of maintenance to maintain that complicated vehicle
Hydrogen fuel is supported by big oil companies, it allows them to keep their consumer fueling stations. Hydrogen cars have to go to a fueling station. Electricity can be made at your house from the sun and then put into your car at your house. Hydrogen = New Big Oil
Shell had 3 hydrogen filling stations for cars in London - there are less than 200 hydrogen cars in the UK and Shell closed the 3 filling stations in London. Batteries are the way forward for cars and buses.
So how many solar panels do you have on your house? Do you work at night to have your solar panels charge your vehicle during the day? Or do you have yet another battery at your house to then charge your vehicle from the house battery? Batteries are New Big Oil.
@@smileyfacefrown2723 My house doesn't care about its weight so I loaded my garage with old vehicular batteries pack, not good enough for their old job but perfectly healthy for the new one. Sun feed them during the day, and they feed the cars( and more if needed) at night. No big oil in my garage ! Yet another few batteries saved.😉
Here is the state of Hydrogen in California since this video was uploaded. Hydrogen costs $36 a Kg now and most fueling stations are often closed because they break so often. The $15,000 fuel card Toyota offers won’t even last 2 years now for the average driver. A full tank in the Toyota Mirai costs over $180 and only gets you about 300 miles. That is $0.60 per mile. The number of refueling stations in California is actually decreasing and not increasing. Shell just shut down almost all of their Hydrogen stations in Northern California permanently.
Your statement in the title was definitive - " Hydrogen Fuel Is About to TAKE Off, Here's Why " But your video was a whole lotta If, Maybe, Goal etc etc :(
I've worked in the industry. Hydrogen is scary. Just maybe for ships where the storage can be open to the atmosphere. Never for vehicles which will become mobile bombs. Even if it was free to refuel, I'd not drive a H2 car.
9:50 you can’t mention fast charging without mentioning home charging. I charge my car mostly at home for 5-10 cent a kwh - 90% of the time. DC fast charging happens now and then, but not having to go to the charging station is a goody for me after 20 years of doing just that.
The biggest problem with Hydrogen is transport and storage, both of which can be greatly ameliorated by turning the hydrogen into ammonia. It's easy to pump through pipelines and can be either used to re-gurgitate the H2 just as it's required, or used directly as a fuel. We have a century of experience of using and moving it. 120 ports today have ammonia terminals and finally it has an energy density per litre, 50% greater than liquid Hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency shouldn't be the biggest consideration as producing renewable electricity, especially if you don't need to worry about storing it as electricity, or working out how to integrate it into a grid, becomes cheaper and cheaper. If you had a 100% efficient storage mechanism ten years ago, the power would still be more expensive than a 30% efficient system today. Build, build, build renewable electricty capacity and we will worry about how to use the intermittent gluts of power later. I can guarantee you, someone will find a use for all that 'spare' power. Heck, even I could run a very profitable and CO2 reducing business, if they would give me the unused electricity capacity, here in little old Ireland. We have the solutions already- they may not be the most efficient solutions possible, but we need to go with an ok plan today, not wait for the perfect solution tomorrow.
I just caught a podcast about someone building facilities to make methanol from green hydrogen for use as shipping fuel. Same benefits as ammonia - higher energy density, easy to handle. I think people WAY over-focus on “efficiency”, and completely miss out on the importance of safe/easy/affordable handling.
The only problem with industrial NH3 is the handling. In the high concentrations needed a large scale leak can be devastating. We use high concentration NH3 for O2 savaging to reduce corrosion in our systems. One day a guy dropped a plastic lined glass NH3 bottle and it just barely cracked chasing everyone out of the immediate spaces almost instantly. We had to go back in full face breathing gear for the clean up. NH3 is definitely a part of the big picture for a H2 economy, we will just have to be very careful with its uses is all.
@@rogerphelps9939 The CO2 released from green methanol is just re-release of CO2 that was made to make it in the first place, so it is not the same as CO2 from burning fossil fuel. There are plenty of sources for CO2. The podcast episode addresses it extensively. There’s agricultural sources (ie capture from manure or various industrial food processing), industrial carbon capture (ie cement manufacturing), even capture from fossil-fueled industrial heating. And once captured, at least it’s getting used to offset other carbon on the way out. Purists may sneer, but! Methanol made from captured industrial waste CO2 that would otherwise be vented directly into the atmosphere will be used to offset bunker fuel in shipping - arguably the dirtiest CO2 source there is. And shipping is a VERY difficult decarbonization problem with a huge footprint.
Huge Tesla fan here, however if there is new evidence, it's important to draw conclusions based on new evidence. If you can truly get hydrogen to cost 0.05/kWh while electricity costs 15c, then it will will win. Hydrogen's past certainly does not dictate its future as with any tech. Hydrogen has yet to prove itself, but that does not mean that it can't, but also doesn't mean that it will. Let's keep things objective and continue to draw conclusions based on the newest evidence regarding all energy sources!!!;) Best of luck to every source of energy and happy to adopt the most efficient at the time!!!;)
Some key drawbacks of hydrogen was ignored in this analysis. Hydrogen is very difficult to store. Its volumetric energy density is actually very poor as it is normally in gas form and its must be stored at high pressure to be useful, again pointing at the storage problem.
After reading some of the comments, I am surprised how many of the viewers have a far greater understanding of the challenges of Hydrogen than the presenter. There is hope for humanity after all.
The Volts podcast (my favorite energy podcast!) had a really interesting guest this week, the founder of a company that is trying to make green hydrogen for shipping fuel at scale, by combining with CO2 to make methanol. This solves both the energy density and transport problems - methanol is energy-dense, liquid at room temperature, and easy to handle. They’re planning to generate their electricity completely off-grid, using combined solar/wind in remote locations that have a good weather cycle for high uptimes. This solves the grid connection/energy cost problem. But it goes DEEP into other problems - not handwavy UA-cam theory, but the real practice of trying to build real manufacturing. First up - sourcing the electrolyzers to make hydrogen from electricity (not methane) at such scales. There are NO industrial suppliers - it’s a bespoke thing that needs custom-built, at least for now. Obviously there’s a future market, but for now, manufacturers are all thinking, positioning, and negotiating their first customers. Next up - why not just ship hydrogen around? Problems with pipelines relative to natural gas! Hydrogen has to be piped at much higher pressures to get the same energy density, which is dangerous, and again the tooling is not there off-the-shelf. Truck or train shipping hydrogen is also a difficult problem because of low density requiring high pressure, and it can’t be affordably liquified. This is made worse by their choice to go for the cheapest electricity, which means remote locations. So, methanol. Highly recommended if you want to learn how to sell green hydrogen in practice, rather than a bunch of wishful thinking about The Future.
Yep, this exactly! Green & turquoise H2 will be made at industrial sights as a feed stock to replace the steam reforming process (areas with lots of water will use green, otherwise turquoise). It may also be used at CO2 capture facilities to make e-fuels for heavy transport and aircraft on sight, think airports and shipping terminals. Transporting and storing vast amounts of pure H2 for seasonal storage just isn't viable for many reasons at the moment.
@@anydaynow01 You should definitely listen to that podcast! It’s really enlightening about the real-world challenges of using green hydrogen as a feedstock for other synthetic fuels. The Volts podcast is consistently good, and constantly addresses issues of real world practice, but this particular episode was a standout. It’s the June 28 2023 episode with guest Anthony Wang.
The whole point of hydrogen is to get away from CO2 emissions. Methanol emits CO2 when burned. If the CO2 is not scavenged from t he atmosphere the whole exercise is just a fossil fuel smokescreen.
Internal combustion engines are a major source of noise pollution which is bad for mental health. The world has slowly been getting more pleasant as we transition to electric
When it comes to oceanic shipping, there is one other technology that we can always go back to: sailing. It worked for thousands of years, there is no reason why we can't design high-capacity sailing ships to move some of our cargo without expending fuel.
only 45 seconds in and Roy saves me the trouble of debunking this video: _"This video sponsored by 3m"_ *no, wait! tell us more about 3m, and forever chemicals, please.*
I'd love to hear more about Stanford U's discovery of a way to electrolyze hydrogen starting from seawater, and its potential (or lack thereof) to change the game both for fuel and desalination.
AFAIK a Scottish island off the Scottish west coast does this already. Being in the North Atlantic, wind is generally superfluous for the island's inhabitants. So they use the excess electrical energy to hydrolyse sea water and store the hydrogen. Later, when there's not enough wind, the hydrogen is converted back to electricity. One thing they don't have to worry about is to compress the hydrogen a lot as they have enough space for large tanks.
When I was a kid I would walk by these very large tanks that would vary in height. Turns out they were holding natural gas using liquid mercury to float the tank and as a seal. They were near the coal power station.@@jpdj2715
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It takes energy to create. It's a storage medium like batteries only far less efficient. The infrastructure, transportation, and delivery are all very expensive. This is promoted by oil industry to maintain their income model.
But it can be scaled up much easier than batteries and some of the problems are greatly diminishes with centralized use like a steel smelter that needs a GW of power and a suitable chemical to reduce iron. Hydrogen does make sense in these kinds of uses and it can then be bootstrapped to expand into other more challenging use cases. Batteries won't be used for multi-month storage for the winter. Hydrogen can be especially if refined into methanol or other liquid fuels. The efficiency suffers but if it's cheap enough and there is "too much" solar and wind power anyway, it can be manageable. Small vehicles will almost all use batteries and bigger one and long-range vehicles will use methanol or methane derived from green hydrogen. The trick here is to first go big (steel manufacturing, fertilizers, grid scale powerplants) and laugh at Toyota and such pathetic attempts at distributed hydrogen economy.
I think Elon is right when it comes to hydrogen in consumer cars. But for airplanes where higher energy density is required it makes a good fit. Also then you don't need to build thousands of hydrogen stations all across the country. Only hundreds at major airports.
For airplanes the low volumetric energy density is a major problem. Airplanes fly much better with kerosine or even methanol. Now making synthetic kerosine cheaply from green hydrogen, there's a real challenge.
@@wombatillo It takes a different approach to plane design (lifting body) to make hydrogren viable for anything beyond a very small training plane (which honestly can just use batteries too); this is a long development process. This can definitely happen but will take time. Assuming we don't want to use small reactors like US navy ships for container shipping it is also a potential candidate for hydrogen also (and trains). Consumer transport and semis dont make sense for hydrogen.
@@ccibinel Lifting bodies like huge deltas sure but they will be tricky to implement for passenger use. They're an unproven design. A long pressure tube is a simple and affordable solution. It can be done even with current plane frames but I'm skeptical of the practicality. 700 bar hydrogen will take a huge chunk of the passenger and luggage space in addition to the wing tanks compared to kerosine tanks which are mostly in the wings. Short hop airplanes with ~50 passengers will probably be electrified pretty soon but they will be at first under 500 mile hop planes unless something really major happens in battery development.
@@wombatillo 500 wh/kg exists now (low volume/expensive) and should be enough for short haul flights. The tech exists and I would expect early planes like that in 5-10 years (mainstream in 20). A density of 1000 kw/kg would be needed to cross oceans in battery planes (2500 kw/kg) to match current long haul). Hydrogen needs unique airframes and battery needs these evolutions in battery tech - coin flip who gets .
This will be great until the government taxes the hell out of every unit of hydrogen put into a motor vehicle. Road use taxes will soar because the cost of the product will be lower and that will give the government room to tax everyone so heavy.
Storage and distribution are hydrogen’s big problem. If you can use it industrially close to the source of production it makes the most sense. I believe Japan’s “red hydrogen” push is based on this premise.
Agree totally. Look into the Australian company Hazer (HZR) that will be completing it's commercial demonstration project this year. Very promising as a carbon negative technology producing both high quality hydrogen and graphite from an iron ore catalyst.
Hydrogen is a pipe dream. The only way hydrogen can be viable is if it’s subsidized by the government. Hydrogen lacks volumetric energy density. Storage and transport at the issue here.
I think the only way to go is to produce hydrogen where it's needed. A ship or steel works, for example, should have their own hydrogen plant. No storage and minimal distribution thus minimal loss and costs.
2 points from someone in the business for 35 years- 1. water electrolysis is not the economical or sensible way to make H2 and never will be. 2. You don’t need to transport H2, you transport it in a carrier and convert it on use, on-site. The idea it’s not for passenger cars, however, is correct!
Lets do a thought experiment. The pem membrane was free and the efficiency was 90%. You have a wind turbine 10 miles offshore and connecting it to the grid cost 1 million per mile. Where would you put the perfect hydrogen convertor . 1. in-situ - how do you collect the hydrogen? 2. at the grid connection, double conversion loss Elec -> H2 -> Elec long term hydrogen storage expensive but better than batteries. 3. Hydrogen distribution, remote site use such as JCB machines (this maybe the only use that makes sense)
And it goes further. Hydrogen embrittlement; the killer of all things. There are no materials, none, zero, zip, that do not eventually fall to its power. Storage vessels, pipelines, reaction chambers, all of them, ALL OF THEM, fall to destruction. People don't maintain their vehicles now. So how do you think this is going to work when vehicle storage vessels start rupturing while driving? I certainly don't want to be around when that starts happening. Hydrogen, BY ITSELF, is a non-starter. Making synthetic fuels with it, which ARE safer, much more easily stored and transported on our EXISTING infrastructure IS!!! There's your road map! Use as much of our EXISTING infrastructure as possible while cleaning up the feed stock!
I don't think that even the JCB effort makes any sense. Tinkering with an engine is one thing but expecting someone else to solve the far greater problem of generating and getting the hydrogen to the engine is extreme wishful thinking.
It's going to depend on what the end user needs. If it's hydrogen to make steel, fine. If it's to run a ship or plane across the ocean, hmmmm. You might want a synfuel they can burn in a conventional engine and store in conventional fuel tanks. If houses need solid grid electricity, why not just send it to them over wires? I have a several gas appliances, can they be more efficiently converted to hydrogen, or electricity? Induction stove, heat pump, etc. or just burn hydrogen?
A decade ago I thought hydrogen was going to be the thing because battery tech seem to not be advancing. If they can put in hydrogen stations across the nation over night and give significant cuts in prices of hydrogen cars and fuels to create a cheaper price per mile than we currently have, count me in. But thats not happening is it? As solar advances you can come close to safely making your own fuel and control your own destiny. That's something the oil barons that exist do not want. Currently we have LMC, LFP and LMP batteries. They can carry you from station to station and get you across the country. In the near future these chemistries will advance and we will have sodium, silicon or solid state batteries which are in actual testing, not just in the lab. All I want is a reduction in cost of power.
To say that the only emission is water vapour is an over simplification as there is also a release of a large amount of heat which is why the reaction to produce electricity is so ineficient. Hydrogen is only the answer to a limited number of questions and electrification directly of via batteries is always going to win on efficiency and hence cost.
For most applications I agree but forestry and agriculture just do not work well for BEVs. A large tractor may go through 300 galleons of diesel fuel in a day during crunch time on the farm. It is just no possible to replace this with batteries. There is ~38kwh of energy per galleon. Since diesel engines are less efficient it would take ~16kwh of battery to replace each galleon of diesel. So if you charge over night the battery would have to be ~300*16kwh. or 4800kwh battery. This is just not practical from a cost, weight and charging stand point.
@@gregkramer5588 Yes, as I said "Hydrogen is only the answer to a limited number of questions" and this is one of those special cases. BEV can work for smaller vehicles especially with top up charge or battery swap at lunchtime
Very disappointing to see you doing a commercial for 3M pushing falsehoods. Hydrogen is not about to take off, it has many drawbacks, even for use in ships and planes, not only that the production of it pollutes almost as bad as fossil fuels, but also that is highly explosive and extremely dangerous to transport, it is also impossible to keep hydrogen contained in a safe and effective manner. There is a recent study that points out that hydrogen leaks if it comes to be used on a large scale would be as bad if not even worse for the environment than using fossil fuels. You have a very interesting channel, unfortunately your credibility in my opinion has suffered greatly as a result of this video you chose to make for 3M.
In the upper atmosphere, hydrogen may moisten and cool the stratosphere, slowing down the recovery of the ozone layer. In the lower atmosphere, hydrogen may hasten the build-up of the greenhouse gases: methane and ozone and therefore contribute to worsening climate conditions.
So I would be extremely cautious when it comes to using hydrogen as a fuel source. It would be 1000x better to use nuclear wind and solar with energy storage as to not contribute to stripping the ozone layer
Yeah I'm tired of hearing discussions of hydrogen that ignore the global warming impact of leaks. Reminds me of the "methane as a bridge fuel" debate for getting off coal. Leaks matter and hydrogen is extremely leak prone!
Hydrogen is just that easy solution that we keep getting our hopes with. I remember when the George W Bush admin pushed hydrogen fuel cells in the 2000s.
In your final cost analysis, you compare the cost of hydrogen derived electricity projected 10 years into the future with the cost of charging car batteries today. That is a little misleading. Just based on the high efficiency of charging batteries, it's hard to see hydrogen ever being cheaper than charging batteries. To be clear, I agree that hydrogen is essential for decarbonizing many industries, such as steel production, aviation, etc.
Yeah unless some super duper nano tech allows us to store it in a condensed medium. (As just in case people didn't know. Water holds more hydrogen per liter than liquid hydrogen which I find insane. ) So unless we get some miracle medium to store hydrogen comparable to the density of water? Then it is a no go. Hydrogen cars weigh more than EVs with way less space to get slightly better range. Think 50 to 100 miles more. Whoopty doo. Hydrogen is a pain to store. It is dangerous if not kept properly. It destroys the equipment. It requires cryogenic tempatures or absurd pressures. It loves to leak according to those who work with it. I simply don't see how people look at hydrogen, and think "ah yes. I would love my car to be part blimp. This totally will work". Let us not forget that we'd have to build an entirely new infrastructure. With new battery technology constantly improving year in, and out. Hydrogen makes no sense, and that ship has sailed. If we did this years ago it would be good. Not with battery tech being as it is in the near future. It will only ever be used for niche industries. Don't fund hydrogen. You'll be disappointed.
I work for a Hydrogen Dispenser Manufacturer. It’s here. We are building and installing hydrogen dispensers all over the world. These dispenser have thousands of safety checks and are actually very safe. The investment will eventually pay off. And yes, as usual, California is leading the way.
The small size is exploited for Vacuum testing semiconductor parts and even the " pop top " on your favorite beverage. Hydrogen finds the smallest voids and leaks profusely. Please don't park your hydrogen car inside my garage with the gas water heater.
Combining it with magnesium into "powerpaste" or another easily reversible reaction is an option but unclear what the energy losses of this are. These are proprietary which makes real world usage slower and information on scaling issue hard to find.
The problem isn’t just storage, but also distribution. The infrastrucutre just isn’t there. At least with distributed photovoltaics, a case can be made that energy production and distribution is mostly local. No, the only way hydrogen makes sense is to add carbon to it. Turn it into liquid fuel, basically “gasoline” that can be distributed and used with existing infrastrucutre.
Hydrogen is a fuel storage medium not a fuel source. We need power to make hydrogen. Converting power to movement is better than the conversion losses going from power to hydrogen and then back to power.
@@Dewydidit yes I agree. Where do we get the energy to crack fossil fuels? We get it from fossil fuels. Now try that with H2… Where do we get the energy to crack H2O? The answer isn’t ‘from H2’. H2 is a fuel storage medium, not a fuel source. Hydrogen is seen as a replacement combustible fuel for ICE vehicles but that reality isn’t feasible until we make enough extra clean renewable energy to make wasting electrons to inefficiently make H2 to then burn it inefficiently in a heat engine (all heat engines are less efficient than electric motors). Until we have ‘super-power’ meaning overbuilt energy grids that support us on even the worst days of the year, until then, we are better served not wasting electrons making H2, and instead just use the electrons to directly propel vehicles. Does that make since?
@@jryant You get it from solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear. Right now you're content with burning coal to refine gasoline. I don't think your argument stands up to scrutiny. Solar isn't going to run out like coal is. It isn't "consumed" by the process of making energy with it.
@@Dewydidit so if you’d reread my comments, you’d see I’m a proponent of using Superpower (excess renewable energy) create hydrogen for ICE/H2-cell uses. My entire point is that we do not have the extra power to make clean H2 atm. Most H2 is made with nonrenewables atm and that’s not sustainable. So yes when/where we have excess renewable energy, we could make clean H2. However we still do not have good ways to store H2 yet as it boils off and can migrate through metals. Toyota is pushing for a solid-state H2 storage system that uses a laser to free H2 from a solid disc matrix to then be burnt in a ICE/H2-cell. There are possible uses in the future but for now the lack of enough renewables stops H2 from being a reliable energy storage tool.
@@jryant Water IS the storage medium for hydrogen. ANY new source of energy is going to require building the infrastructure to support it, refineries, fuel stations, ect. You saying "excess" renewable energy, I'm saying dedicated. Install the solar panels FOR the cracking station. If you're waiting on the US to have EXCESS renewable energy, you'll be waiting a while. We're gluttons with no interest in moderating our consumption to reduce future need.
So to get clean hydrogen to use as fuel we would; - Use electricity to split water in to oxygen and hydrogen - Use electricity to compress the hydrogen gas - Use electricity to pump it in to a car - In the car convert the hydrogen to electricity to charge a battery which can then power the car How about.. and it's just an idea Skip all those steps of producing hydrogen with the end goal of getting electricity and just power the car with all that electricity in the first place at much better efficiency and less complexity Hydrogen as a power storage solution I can understand... As a fuel I can't
You missed some important items which may change your mind... - Transport the hydrogen in vehicles requiring more electricity or hydrogen or maybe diesel. - deal with all the efficiency loss from leaking hydrogen. - And not being able to park the vehicle indoors because a leak contained in a building could cause massive explosions. - and all the current medical and chemical applications using dirty petroleum based hydrogen now, which first need to be converted over to clean hydrogen before we can even consider any new applications of hydrogen. If we do not do this first then any new applications of hydrogen like transportation will still be dirty no matter how we make the hydrogen. - and before anyone mentions all the terrible environmental damage from batteries for EVs (don't get me started on why this FUD is incorrect l, but let's deal with it anyway), let's not forget that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still require a fairly large Lithium or similar battery just like an EV does just a little bit smaller. ...oh wait, all these points also mean hydrogen is not really a good idea for transportation too. Guess I will not change your mind on this one.
@@kokofan50 yes - as a 'power storage solution' as I mentioned in the original comment If you want to be pedantic I could have stated; "As a fuel for static power storage solution I can understand... As a fuel for transportation I can't" And even then I'd be interested to see the numbers to see if it would be more efficient to store the power in a battery storage solution
Hydrogen seems to make the most sense when it comes to food production but due to it's round trip efficiency and a number of other fundamental issues, it doesn't make sense for transportation or energy storage. (Additional H2 issues not mentioned) 1. H2 takes up about 8x the volume as methane, the smaller molecule will likely mean more leaks and combined that with it's low ignition temp... more unexpected 💥s! 2. New infrastructure required for production, distribution and utilization of H2. 3. Hydrogen metal embrittlement...H2 likes to react with metal so all infrastructure will require more frequent maintenance vs CH4. 4. There's no way that hydrogen will ever be cheaper than renewables plus batteries... Not even on paper/power point slides so why would it ever be adopted over the cheaper clean alternatives(the multitude of renewables + battery chemistries)? ... Or simply scrubbing the C derivatives after combustion for existing CH4 power plants... This seems like the simple solution, no?
Hydrogen is currently used in a lot of chemical, medical, and materials production applications. This hydrogen is currently being made with high emissions methane steam reforming process. We need to first answer all the current demand with cleaner hydrogen before we can even consider any new applications of hydrogen. If not then any new applications of hydrogen even if produced cleanly will still be dirty hydrogen worse than just using gasoline/diesel and far worse than using any electrified option.
Another point is that carbon capture on hydrogen production is a horrendous waste of energy, materials and time. But mostly the energy, carbon capture uses massive amounts of electricity which has its own emissions footprint so it cancels out any good it could do. If we were to say "Let's use a huge amount of energy to reduce some of the emissions from our energy production" base logic can see the problem with that. Carbon capture may have some future for other process like materials manufacturing or agriculture, but it is at best terrible greenwashing when used anywhere near petroleum or energy projects. At worst it is an intentional grift to take money and resources from actual projects that actually do reduce emissions, just to keep us all burning fuels.
@5353Jumper some great points. Water electrolysis is nothing new but the most expensive method to date from my understanding. Research into cheaper/more efficient H2 methods would be beneficial, rather than SMR, which provides nearly 100% of the world's supply of H2 today. While I'm not up to date on the exact numbers, by simple reasoning, it seems straightforward that cleaning the carbon from existing CH4 power plant exhaust would require significantly less energy than building out the entire hydrogen supply chain to replace CH4. Along your train of thought, this will increase costs which will further tip the LCoE scales for renewables + batteries over conventional power generation.
As wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy production produce excess amounts so less storage is required in the grid. When electricity prices are negative/ low produce hydrogen.
This is a commercial for oil companies. They are the main providers for hydrogen. Hydrogen makes absolutely no sense. The energy needed to create and store, is so bad that it would be worst for the environment. Companies should develop better battery for energy storage ( would make more sense ) and improved wind and solar energies technics for personnel use.
You don't have to worry about hydrogen distribution or efficiency if you produce hydrogen on site preferably with green energy. Currently the cost of equipment makes it unlikely for the average home, but as costs come down we can eventually see everyone having the means just like the adoption of fridges or AC.
9:52 that is just pure bullshit right there. you need at least 3 times as much power to produce the hydrogen then what you get back out, so it is physically impossible to make hydrogen less expensive then 3 times the prize of electricity for the same kWh. there is a massive list of energy storage technologies that are cheaper and easier, from all forms batteries, over compressed air, flywheels, etc. hydrogen is pretty much the last thing that you only do when you are completely out of options. thinking about it i cant think of a worse way to store energy.... feel free to tell me if you can.
Hydrogen is a great alternative, but storage is the issue. The best way to store hydrogen is in metal hydrides. There is one major problem with this though. Metal Hydrides are the main components for a hydrogen bomb, which makes them unobtainable. The only way to get them is to produce them yourself. To fix this issue they would need to repeal the laws that prohibit the sale of them.
The use of Hydrogen is limited by storage density. You sort of need something the size of a bus, train or ship for it to be viable, otherwise you have about 50-100km of range.
What is possible is denied. Lets say water contains 100% energy. 30% of it can be used for electrolysis. You need 35% for a 1.6 liter 4 stroke engine and it runs up without any problems. The only downside is that the engine can start to ping and a membrane with a bubbler is needed for safety in case a backfire occurs. You can not use ac electrolysis because too much oxygen but you can use dc and put the anode side via a pipeline into the atmosphere. If you use AC your engine gets too much oxygen
3M advertisement? This channel has had some interesting stuff, but I’m questioning the objectivity at this point. Will def watch any following video pertaining to round trip efficiency. Besides the other problems (storage, delivery, etc) the round trip efficiency is terrible unless there’s some major breakthrough with production.
Hydrogen is still highly problematic. The cost to the end user is higher because of pressure, containment and production issues. The real cost as shown by Mercedes Bens and others is substantially higher than even gasoline.
Yeah, that’s totally different from gasoline, which is so safe that it’s used to put out fires! (Also, the fear-of-fire arguments against renewables - relative to gasoline! - are quite possibly the most ridiculous category of deeply flawed anti-renewable arguments.)
In the UK Prof. David Cebon is a leading light in a campaign to explain why hydrogen will not be used in cars, buses, or heating households to name but a few areas where hydrogen will not make any sense. JCB who make heavy earth moving equipment for building are adamant it is the future in their applications. In the UK politicians seem to be only people promoting hydrogen, one wonders why? For more information why not Google hydrogen science coalition.
@@rogerphelps9939 JCB argue that their equipment needs to work 18 hours per day so only hydrogen can provide the power. However, whenever I pass a guy on a digger he is not doing much and is being watched by 4 other guys. I do accept that when a farmer wants to combine his crops he might be working his combine for 18 hours a day for 5 days in a row. I am sceptical that there is no need for electric diggers. My golf club has a digger it never does more than 3-hours work in a day. Most days it is just used to barricade the door to the workshop.
I usually really enjoy your videos, Ricky, but in this case I have to completely disagree with you. Hydrogen is PROVEN to be completely impractical in vehicle contexts, due to multiple factors including the extreme difficulty of storing it in a vehicle at density, very poor conversion efficiencies, and the single biggest issue - THERES NO COMPELLING REASON TO USE IT!! - the single reason most touted for using Hydrogen over battery EV is charging time. This is the ONLY advantage a hydrogen vehicle has. But in recent years EV charging times have come down to nearly hydrogen levels (5 mins to get 80% charge) in certain high-end vehicles, and is dropping steadily in all EV segments. Many car companies have invested huge amounts over decades to try and make Hydrogen work for vehicles, but it simply doesn't!
I used to be very enthusiastic about hydrogen. Till I encountered the challenges of storing it. As you said, it’s potential it’s probably in the industry.
Hydrogen is last ditch hope by the petrochemical industries to carry on business as usual, for the last 50 years its be the new fuel thats just around the corner and it will continue to be so.
H2 is not an energy source. It’s a SECONDARY fuel source. You need another source of Energy in order to CREATE the H2 that will later be used as fuel. Yea, not interested.
Hydrogen fuel is "about to TAKE OFF someday" ... everything said in this video is still on the research level. And like everyone mentioned here, there are still other challenges than the super rare catalyst
Dr James Tour showcased a method of taking plastic, adding low amounts of electricity, to break it down into various components, including Hydrogen and Graphene. He did not need any ultra rare, super expensive elements to do it. It is likely a much better way of production. Plus it is reducing plastic waste. Win, Win, Win!
It's not just making hydrogen. It's making "HIGHLY PURE hydrogen" You're probably better off using sodium caynoborohydride or HI/SI then burning plastic for that
Batteries won. Just let it go. Hydrogen is NOT going to live up to the hype. You need more than a better catalyst for electrolysis. There are still major challenges in storage and overall efficiency. I watching Aging Wheels video the other day where he reviewed a hydrogen fuel cell car and turns out it's only like 30-40% efficient end-to-end if you use electrolysis. That's a HUGE waste of precious electricity.
Just because they can make it cheaper doesn't mean they'll sell it cheaper. Look at public charging stations. Or insulin/other meds. The profit motive ruins most things. Then there's H2's inherent weaknesses in transportability, storage, and volumetric energy density. Maybe for some niches it'll work.
No container for public use can stop the loss of at least 1% per day. And...what about the cost in energy to split water into H and O. Duh.............you always lose in transferring energy from one form to another.
A few explosions from accidents and the fact that it leaks out of anything, will end hydrogen as soon as it starts to take off. I would not go near it. Refineries burn it off instead of taking on the liability of a possible explosion.
A first from you, but I’m seriously disappointed in this video. Hydrogen has tons of challenges that will likely never be solved, at least not in our lifetimes, because you simply can’t change the physics involved. A good example is transportation, where around sixteen semi-trailers of hydrogen are needed to move one semi-trailer worth of the energy from diesel. However that problem is just one of many other problems with hydrogen.
Hydrogen production was solved by the Green box program from Ohio U. It is made from municipal wastewater and it takes far less energy to produce fuel from the ammonia and urea in their pee and poop. It cleans the water too but it does not split the water, water is too strongly bonded for that to be worthwhile unless you can figure out how to do it the Stanley Meyers way with the right frequency
The comments are gold, if you consider foolishness as a commodity. Ignoring hydrogen R&D would be astronomically catastrophic blunder! Ignore all of the PhD comments below.
3M as a sponsor is crazy if you see what they have done in their Belgium factory!!! Killing the environment and just deny. Be sure they will be fined hugely and for me : never use products of criminal type of organisations as that what it us in the end.
I agree that Hydrogen at this point and into the near future would be best used in heavy industry where energy intensive fuels are needed. Nothing however would be sweeter for Ecars and trucks than a Hydrogen fuel cell. And modern day nuclear is sitting there looking us in the face but has a bad name from the past. Look for Nuclear to get a lot better look as a bridge fuel to generate energy until real Fusion comes.
Fascinating that you didn't simply calc out the time it would take, given 100% efficiency (unattainable in this universe) in the electrolysis and fuel cell, to convert the primary energy consumption of humanity. Ursurping 100% of the current yearly Iridium production, and excluding Fuel Cells (so using Hydrogen directly in chemical processes, e.g steel manufacturing, or combustion engines) would take in the order of 650-1000 Years. Now calculate with real world efficiencies (eg. 60% fuel cell/electrolysis), the open cylce catalyst / PEM membran having to get replaced 1-3 times per year, and many other ineffiencies, and that you won't be able to dedicate hundreds of years of Iridum production entirely for this cause (even when many more, very costly mines get into operation), and estimate how many xx percent of the worlds primary energy demand could then be covered by 2030 or 2040 or 2050 with this magic technology. Also, or especially, considering this 3M breakthrough is 10x better than the current status quo (bringing the best current large scale technology in this sector to a replacement timescale in the order of 10 000 years - twice as long as the pyramids existed; maybe with space mining and this new tech, it could be brought down to a few hundred years - I would not disagree; But the audacity by H2 proponents is just laughable when you go back to first principles. Finally, fuel cells and water electrolysis have been around for 100 and 150 years respectively; I find it disingenous to show cost curves for technologies which have been around much less long (PV and LiIon batteries, 60 and 30 years), but NOT show the similar cost curve - which will certainly also show an exponential decaying trend - for this much older technology. May it be that the exponential factor / timescale coincides with many hundreds of years before cost parity could be attained, at scale, with other energy technologies which you actually DID show?
Hi, I don't understand, if it takes electricity to make hydrogen, how can it be cheaper than the electricity ? particularly with a reduced efficiency.. ?? like has been pointed out.. thanks..
TLDR; By marrying an HTGR reactor to a thermochemical hydrogen production plant, hydrogen can be produced in a clean and sustainable manner. Hydrogen is not a byproduct of properly functioning nuclear reactors, however some invision using the spare capacity to make hydrogen as coproduct. These would be: Pink hydrogen which is produced by electrolysis from electric energy not dispatched to the grid Purple hydrogen produced by steam electrolysis using reactor heat to make the steam. Red hydrogen produced through the high-temperature catalytic splitting of water using the nuclear reactor as a thermal energy source. Google purple/RED HYDROGEN Or HGTR
It would be a Co product of nuclear energy. TLDR; By marrying an HTGR reactor to a thermochemical hydrogen production plant, hydrogen can be produced in a clean and sustainable manner. Hydrogen is not a byproduct of properly functioning nuclear reactors, however some invision using the spare capacity to make hydrogen as coproduct. These would be: Pink hydrogen which is produced by electrolysis from electric energy not dispatched to the grid Purple hydrogen produced by steam electrolysis using reactor heat to make the steam. Red hydrogen produced through the high-temperature catalytic splitting of water using the nuclear reactor as a thermal energy source. Google purple/RED HYDROGEN Or HGTR
Learn more about the trends impacting our futures and 3M’s solutions: bit.ly/3MForwardxTwoBit
You should take a look at the H2-Flex hydrogen system too
But hydrogen is only 3Wh per litre at atmospheric pressure. It isn't ever going to work with such low volume energy density. Are you blind to REALITY?
Wow the irony that 3M is your sponsor touting caring for the environment when they just lost a lawsuit of 10 Billion dollars for contamination of drinking water with forever chemicals. Damn. And I thought trying to capitalize on a submersible video was low.
3M one of the world's largest polluter of PFA's forever chemicals destroying the environment arguably worst than plastic producers as they are forever. They have been reposible for many deaths and many future deaths to come for a very long time until we have figured out a way to clean it up. I love your videos man and you usually have decent sponsors. Take their money, but try to research the harm they have caused and the significance of forever chemicals. At least Coca-Cola pollutes in a way that is relatively easier and less expensive to clean up, a way that the environment would eventually deal with. 3M and Teflon don't.
H2 is obsolete for ground transport.
Nice video. But I'm tired of the discussions that leave out how difficult hydrogen is to work with. And using the term "density" is definitely poorly chosen, as hydrogen only looks good if energy for a given mass is considered. But density of gaseous hydrogen makes it absolutely the worst when it comes to energy by volume.
Yeah, I'm getting sick of the phony hype as well. Every time I hear of new breakthroughs in hydrogen, they're just click bait that doesn't really address the issues with hydrogen. Some are just downright fraud. I remember some crap about storage on a disk. *MOAN* The only thing that seemed promising was about it being used in the form of a compound. But water's a compound that just isn't viable because of energy and time it takes to separate. Now if they come up with a new way to separate it that is both economical and fast, WAHOO! I doubt that's in the cards, though.
Exactly. It should be a crime to not mention both gravimetric and volumetric energy density when talking about fuels and batteries. It's almost useless to quote just one of the two numbers since some fuels/batteries are useless if taking both into account.
With hydrogen you need to quote two or three numbers for volumetric density. As the density depends whether you store it as a compressed gas or a liquid.
Volume using which storage method? Because nobody is going to use it at room temperature.
And it does not matter anyway because a hydrogen car is no different from ICE or BEV in volume.
But when you are building a semi or a boat and the options are to install ten tons of batteries or one ton of fuel cell and tanks it is clear why people mention the weight.
Due to hydrogen’s extreme fluctuation and capability to many materials as steel a.o, and due to released hydrogen to the atmospheric, impacting CO2 many times worse than the known fuel, I’d really like to hear a thorough risk assessment. I guess there are a reason for 80% of hydrogen are used where produced.
Work out effective low temperature catalytic cracking of ammonia and this problem goes away somewhat.
This is only one of at least four challenges, the three other ones:
- Storage
- efficiency making H2 (will always take three times the energy than just using electricity)
- efficiency using H2: turbines or engine are inefficient and Fuel cells as well under load
The main benefit of the H2 would probably be as an immediate feed stock to other chemicals and fuels. Like chemical fertilizer factories can have an electrolyzer on sight. Also as much as folks hate them, having an e-fuel plant at an airport or shipping terminal complete with electrolyzer would really cut down on the carbon footprint from transport and use of fossil fuels. If fresh water is scarce at a location where H2 is needed they can pipe in NG or RNG and use methane pyrolysis, then profit off the carbon black sold to other industries.
@@mr.somebody1493 Hydrogen is not a resource, it is a storage medium. It comes from water, there is plenty of water...
350 to 700 bar pressure vessels used for storage and regulation including off-gasing . Often stored in a metal cylinder wrapped in carbon-fiber. Applications like commercial vehicles receiving regular maintenance and inspection like UPS trucks is good. In the hands of consumers, that is another discussion. It is possible but safety is paramount.
@@KoenvanGorpAstronomy That is why hydrogen will be optimal for ships, the ship produce the hydrogen and use it inmediately, being sotragd inside a container in the ship, there is plenty of leaking control, that and industrial applicationa are the only industries that hydrogen can thrive, the rest, only electric works.
@@mr.somebody1493 This isn’t MAKiNG energy from hydrogen, it’s STORING energy in hydrogen. Totally different. Nothing is used up. You use energy to extract hydrogen from water, and when it is burned, it releases energy and turns back into water.
My father-in-law was an editor for Chemical Engineering magazine for 40 years. Since I met him in the early '90s, we've been discussing H2 as an energy source, especially as a replacement for gasoline. I even looked into converting my 2006 Chevy Avalanche to hydrogen. However, the cost isn't just the H2, it is also the tanks, which must be replaced frequently. I now drive an electric car (Ford Mach-e) and am happy to be fueling my drive with my ten-year-old solar array. I'm still waiting on the flux capacitor.
Batteries are simply better for smaller EVs unless you really need the performance. Some kind of race car might use hydrogen because lighter car means more speed and range and filling the tank will likely be far faster than any foreseeable supercharger, unless you want to risk batteries exploding and don't mind paying for constant replacements... I have heard rumors of military UAVs using fuel cells for similar reasons.
But the main reasons why regular cars won't be using hydrogen is the cost of small fuel cells and all the hydrogen infrastructure that would need to be built.
@@AnalystPrime Military is heavily invested in advancing battery tech now.. fuel cells were a stop gap.
@@TheBrucifer No, everyone is interested in better batteries because they are used everywhere, you don't put an expensive fuel cell in a radio or night vision goggles. But while the military could easily pay for a battery pack that weights a ton and gives the drone a fifty mile range, they would prefer to use the half ton fuel tank that gives the drone a hundred mile range. Also, making and storing hydrogen is usually easier than hauling tons of spare batteries if you don't want to wait for the recharge before sending the drone on a new mission.
The military could also pay for some new extra lightweight yet super powerful battery that is not suited for EVs because you can only recharge it ten times or something like that, but replacing the need for fuel supplies with a need for special battery that probably needs to be hauled from the other side of the world is not a good plan.
H2 = maximum energy/weight ratio
OTOH, extremely low energy/volume ratio, thus extremely high storage and transportation costs. A 3000psi H2 cylinder gives you 60% LESS energy than CH4 on that same cylinder. And H2 is a lot more dangerous...
@@AnalystPrime What makes you think a hydrogen car would be lighter than a gasoline ICE? I guess I can't blame you, because this video repeated the same old misleading claim that hydrogen has a higher energy density than hydrocarbons. That's only true in the magical land where hydrogen is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. When you include the weight of the tanks required to contain it at high pressure and/or low temperature, the equation changes dramatically. Then there's the horrible volumetric density... Hydrogen is a dead end for cars, other small vehicles, and planes. It *might* be possible to use it in ships, large trucks, or stationary applications. The only use of hydrogen that definitely makes sense is as a chemical feedstock.
When I was in grade 6, I read an article about hydrogen power and excitedly told EVERYONE. Eventually, I discovered how expensive it was. Shame is a good teacher.
I was involved in hydrogen research 20 years ago. We were talking about the same exact issues back then. Hydrogen embrittlement will not be engineered away. Access to clean water is another major issue and will become more of an issue in the future. I only see applications in large ships and industrial processes. That’s it. We really don’t have the luxury of time and hydrogen will not be a meaningful solution.
There are tests with hydrogen trains going on in Germany, there it would fit in the energy mix.
Don't rely on German technic, no more! We got crazy, politically; nothing will work, technically and economically.
H2 is the best fuel for rockets; CH4 is the best for airplanes; gasoline and diesel are the best for cars and trucks. The CO2 problem (if it is as urgent/severe as Al Gore promoted it and President Bush hated it) needs better, more economical solutions on the primary energy generation and refinery_tec side.
blah blah blah. How do you explain all the Toyota Mirais driving around?
@@jimj2683 where do you have those driving around? In Germany BMW has released some hydrogen cars, that’s mainly a political stunt. We lack the hydrogen infrastructure and it has a poor energy ratio, considering the amount needed to produce it. In the first 6 months of 2023 there were 6 new hydrogen cars registered.
@@jimj2683 environ-tec lunatics are dreaming of H2-powered ocean shipping. Nonsense! The only reasonable use of H2 is in the chemical industry (with proper safety tech) and in rockets! Even NASA has problems with H2 leakage, but that is manageable.
‘Hydrogen is about to…” Yeah, this is about as far away as fusion power in that I’ve heard this message for over 40 years! Also, hydrogen may have the 2nd highest energy per mol of mass but that mol of hydrogen takes up tremendous amounts of volume (space) compared to other fuels. In my mind, there are only a few countries that have enough dispersed nuclear power to make for an effective hydrogen infrastructure and America isn’t one of them.
Exactly hydrogen 3Wh per litre at atmospheric pressure.
If we could just produce electricity from light, possibly sunlight. Somebody should start looking into this. We could then tap that gigantic nuclear powerplant in the sky ;)
@@VolkerHett We already know how to do that. The problem we have though is it's not efficient enough. Perhaps one day someone will crack that problem but not for now.
All inventions have evolved through tough times or need be patient changes are coming daily just like Night and Day
@@RayKearney-si9kc Except you can't beat the laws of physics, which is why hydrogen will never be viable.
The OTHER problems from Hydrogen is its transportation cost, retention in any vessel or container since it “slips” through many seals, and corrosion. You have to pressurize or cool any pipe or container to move it. These are huge engineering problems unless the hydrogen is produced and consumed on site, or held in a “solid state”
Overall efficiency for electrolysis H2 is around 50%. H2 Fuel Cell to generate electricity is also 50% efficient. So, the whole cycle EE➡️H2 H2➡️EE is a mere 25% efficient. Recent research in electrolysis - using very high pressure steam - indicates 70% Eff. may be achieved in the future. Supposing fuel cells also improve to 70%, we would still get 49% overall eff. - meaning 51% of the initial CLEAN ELECTRICITY - wind, solar, hydro... - would still be LOST. And these figures DO NOT INCLUDE transportation and storage costs. OTOH batteries can have 90-95% storage Eff. , Electric Motors 95%+ Eff. I would definitely invest strongly in new battery technologies, with cheaper and cleaner materials, higher kWh/kg, perhaps small liquid fuel cells as range extenders on hybrid vehycles, nanomaterials for H2 storage...
also, HINDENBURG.
_solid helium,_ also known as *_4 Kelvin_* (-224 Celsius), is right around the corner, i can just tell. ;)
@@rubindiehl2569- “overall efficiency”
Not very efficient to mine for batteries, ship components all over the world, charge & discharge, and then recycle.
Hydrogen is far more efficient in it’s lifecycle than batteries.
Plus, used hydrogen is non-toxic (ie H2O) while used lithium is associated with autism in children.
H2 is green… Batteries are toxic.
The explosion and fire had excellent efficiency.@@markplott4820
The problem of hydrogen fuel is that by the time the distribution network will be scaled up, battery technology will have progressed enough to make it irrelevant. So it won't scale.
Maybe just for planes and shipping containers.
Definitely for industrial needs.
But it will never go mainstream.
Yep H2 for commuting appliance is stillborn. Using batteries and biofuels is the way to go in that department. GMO grasses for RNG feed stocks and seed oils for refining would be amazing for this. Combined with no till farming techniques and pyrolysis a lot of carbon needed for industry can be recycled from the air, no need to pump and mine more out of the ground.
I agree, ships and planes could benefit from hydrogen but a car will just be too small. I drove a hydrogen car once and got explained to me that the gas evaporates in the tank and also has a big risk of exploding in a car sitting with full tanks for a week or two.
@@peters2261 yes hydrogen being the smaller possible molecule there is it's virtually impossible to store it at high pressure without leak.
Batteries will always have their problems too, for the foreseeable future they'll still be best for short trips. There's just too much physics stopping them from charging superfast with the current (no pun intended) technology. Also battery vehicles are incredibly heavy which damages roads faster and harder on tires in general. There's also the mining of materials and all the problems that brings.
There's a place for hydrogen fueled cars and I'd rather see that happening in conjunction with electric vehicles.
@@peters2261 there is no big risk of tanks exploding SMH. Stop listening to conspiracy theories, and go watch videos of how hydrogen tanks are built.
Containment is the main issue, not transportation. The beauty of hydrogen is that you can build a plant for it literally anywhere. Hell in 300 years every gas station might be a hydrogen generator plant and you wont need external fuel shipments. The station will generate the fuel it sells on the spot. We just to figure out how to effectively and consistently contain it. Out of every future fuel we can path towards hydrogen is easily the best option. Its just a shame we wasted the past 100 years building up and widespreading oil
Green hydrogen will use excess power from wind and solar when demand is low and be stored in salt caverns. Look at the Utah project now being built. It will have enough storage capacity to power everything in a large city for over a year.
You mean your sponsor is "3M Reaches $10.3 Billion Settlement for 'Forever Chemicals in our water'"
The problems are insurmountable as it is the smallest atom and cannot be fully contained ie it leaks, also there is the problem with Hydrogen embrittlement where it makes metals brittle and the final killer it takes 4x the amount of electricity in it's refinement to propel a vehicle the same distance as an EV using that same amount electricity, therefore Hydrogen will always be 4x dearer to run than an EV, not to mention the large amount of maintenance to maintain that complicated vehicle
@beingsentient lol
Hydrogen fuel is supported by big oil companies, it allows them to keep their consumer fueling stations. Hydrogen cars have to go to a fueling station. Electricity can be made at your house from the sun and then put into your car at your house.
Hydrogen = New Big Oil
Shell had 3 hydrogen filling stations for cars in London - there are less than 200 hydrogen cars in the UK and Shell closed the 3 filling stations in London. Batteries are the way forward for cars and buses.
So how many solar panels do you have on your house? Do you work at night to have your solar panels charge your vehicle during the day? Or do you have yet another battery at your house to then charge your vehicle from the house battery?
Batteries are New Big Oil.
@@smileyfacefrown2723 My house doesn't care about its weight so I loaded my garage with old vehicular batteries pack, not good enough for their old job but perfectly healthy for the new one. Sun feed them during the day, and they feed the cars( and more if needed) at night. No big oil in my garage ! Yet another few batteries saved.😉
Hydrogen = much more tax revenue to grubermints. Self consumed roof top solar is not and cannot be taxed
@@theairstig9164 Yeah it can. Also if you think the companies pushing solar and batteries are not as bad as big oil, you are delusional.
Here is the state of Hydrogen in California since this video was uploaded. Hydrogen costs $36 a Kg now and most fueling stations are often closed because they break so often. The $15,000 fuel card Toyota offers won’t even last 2 years now for the average driver. A full tank in the Toyota Mirai costs over $180 and only gets you about 300 miles. That is $0.60 per mile. The number of refueling stations in California is actually decreasing and not increasing. Shell just shut down almost all of their Hydrogen stations in Northern California permanently.
I don't want to remain tied to going to a gas station to refuel. I like the idea of charging my car's battery at home.
Your statement in the title was definitive - " Hydrogen Fuel Is About to TAKE Off, Here's Why "
But your video was a whole lotta If, Maybe, Goal etc etc
:(
I wish he wouldn't do stuff like this.
This seemed more like a promo for 3M.
I've worked in the industry. Hydrogen is scary. Just maybe for ships where the storage can be open to the atmosphere. Never for vehicles which will become mobile bombs. Even if it was free to refuel, I'd not drive a H2 car.
9:50 you can’t mention fast charging without mentioning home charging. I charge my car mostly at home for 5-10 cent a kwh - 90% of the time. DC fast charging happens now and then, but not having to go to the charging station is a goody for me after 20 years of doing just that.
The biggest problem with Hydrogen is transport and storage, both of which can be greatly ameliorated by turning the hydrogen into ammonia. It's easy to pump through pipelines and can be either used to re-gurgitate the H2 just as it's required, or used directly as a fuel. We have a century of experience of using and moving it. 120 ports today have ammonia terminals and finally it has an energy density per litre, 50% greater than liquid Hydrogen. The round-trip efficiency shouldn't be the biggest consideration as producing renewable electricity, especially if you don't need to worry about storing it as electricity, or working out how to integrate it into a grid, becomes cheaper and cheaper. If you had a 100% efficient storage mechanism ten years ago, the power would still be more expensive than a 30% efficient system today. Build, build, build renewable electricty capacity and we will worry about how to use the intermittent gluts of power later. I can guarantee you, someone will find a use for all that 'spare' power. Heck, even I could run a very profitable and CO2 reducing business, if they would give me the unused electricity capacity, here in little old Ireland. We have the solutions already- they may not be the most efficient solutions possible, but we need to go with an ok plan today, not wait for the perfect solution tomorrow.
I just caught a podcast about someone building facilities to make methanol from green hydrogen for use as shipping fuel. Same benefits as ammonia - higher energy density, easy to handle. I think people WAY over-focus on “efficiency”, and completely miss out on the importance of safe/easy/affordable handling.
The only problem with industrial NH3 is the handling. In the high concentrations needed a large scale leak can be devastating. We use high concentration NH3 for O2 savaging to reduce corrosion in our systems. One day a guy dropped a plastic lined glass NH3 bottle and it just barely cracked chasing everyone out of the immediate spaces almost instantly. We had to go back in full face breathing gear for the clean up. NH3 is definitely a part of the big picture for a H2 economy, we will just have to be very careful with its uses is all.
@@davestagner Using methanol produces CO2. The only way to make green methanol is to get the CO2 from the atmosphere. Expensive.
@@rogerphelps9939 The CO2 released from green methanol is just re-release of CO2 that was made to make it in the first place, so it is not the same as CO2 from burning fossil fuel. There are plenty of sources for CO2. The podcast episode addresses it extensively. There’s agricultural sources (ie capture from manure or various industrial food processing), industrial carbon capture (ie cement manufacturing), even capture from fossil-fueled industrial heating. And once captured, at least it’s getting used to offset other carbon on the way out. Purists may sneer, but! Methanol made from captured industrial waste CO2 that would otherwise be vented directly into the atmosphere will be used to offset bunker fuel in shipping - arguably the dirtiest CO2 source there is. And shipping is a VERY difficult decarbonization problem with a huge footprint.
@@anydaynow01 Thank you for that. Yeah, nasty stuff by the sounds of it- desperate times and desperate measures and all that.
Taking 3M as a sponsor really undermines any image of sustainability you try to cultivate.
Huge Tesla fan here, however if there is new evidence, it's important to draw conclusions based on new evidence. If you can truly get hydrogen to cost 0.05/kWh while electricity costs 15c, then it will will win. Hydrogen's past certainly does not dictate its future as with any tech. Hydrogen has yet to prove itself, but that does not mean that it can't, but also doesn't mean that it will. Let's keep things objective and continue to draw conclusions based on the newest evidence regarding all energy sources!!!;) Best of luck to every source of energy and happy to adopt the most efficient at the time!!!;)
Some key drawbacks of hydrogen was ignored in this analysis. Hydrogen is very difficult to store. Its volumetric energy density is actually very poor as it is normally in gas form and its must be stored at high pressure to be useful, again pointing at the storage problem.
What about hydrogen on demand
After reading some of the comments, I am surprised how many of the viewers have a far greater understanding of the challenges of Hydrogen than the presenter. There is hope for humanity after all.
The Volts podcast (my favorite energy podcast!) had a really interesting guest this week, the founder of a company that is trying to make green hydrogen for shipping fuel at scale, by combining with CO2 to make methanol. This solves both the energy density and transport problems - methanol is energy-dense, liquid at room temperature, and easy to handle. They’re planning to generate their electricity completely off-grid, using combined solar/wind in remote locations that have a good weather cycle for high uptimes. This solves the grid connection/energy cost problem. But it goes DEEP into other problems - not handwavy UA-cam theory, but the real practice of trying to build real manufacturing.
First up - sourcing the electrolyzers to make hydrogen from electricity (not methane) at such scales. There are NO industrial suppliers - it’s a bespoke thing that needs custom-built, at least for now. Obviously there’s a future market, but for now, manufacturers are all thinking, positioning, and negotiating their first customers. Next up - why not just ship hydrogen around? Problems with pipelines relative to natural gas! Hydrogen has to be piped at much higher pressures to get the same energy density, which is dangerous, and again the tooling is not there off-the-shelf. Truck or train shipping hydrogen is also a difficult problem because of low density requiring high pressure, and it can’t be affordably liquified. This is made worse by their choice to go for the cheapest electricity, which means remote locations. So, methanol.
Highly recommended if you want to learn how to sell green hydrogen in practice, rather than a bunch of wishful thinking about The Future.
Yep, this exactly! Green & turquoise H2 will be made at industrial sights as a feed stock to replace the steam reforming process (areas with lots of water will use green, otherwise turquoise). It may also be used at CO2 capture facilities to make e-fuels for heavy transport and aircraft on sight, think airports and shipping terminals. Transporting and storing vast amounts of pure H2 for seasonal storage just isn't viable for many reasons at the moment.
@@anydaynow01 You should definitely listen to that podcast! It’s really enlightening about the real-world challenges of using green hydrogen as a feedstock for other synthetic fuels. The Volts podcast is consistently good, and constantly addresses issues of real world practice, but this particular episode was a standout. It’s the June 28 2023 episode with guest Anthony Wang.
@@davestagner I will definitely check it out, thanks for the suggestion!
FWIW, Elon Musk has once mentioned that if we are going to create carbon neutral fuels, Methanol is a lot more sensible.
The whole point of hydrogen is to get away from CO2 emissions. Methanol emits CO2 when burned. If the CO2 is not scavenged from t he atmosphere the whole exercise is just a fossil fuel smokescreen.
So Hydrogen is still 10 years away just like it has always been.
I've been following the company FuelCell FCEL for quite some time. They have teamed up with Toyota and Exxon and they look pretty promising.
Internal combustion engines are a major source of noise pollution which is bad for mental health. The world has slowly been getting more pleasant as we transition to electric
When it comes to oceanic shipping, there is one other technology that we can always go back to: sailing. It worked for thousands of years, there is no reason why we can't design high-capacity sailing ships to move some of our cargo without expending fuel.
only 45 seconds in and Roy saves me the trouble of debunking this video: _"This video sponsored by 3m"_ *no, wait! tell us more about 3m, and forever chemicals, please.*
I'd love to hear more about Stanford U's discovery of a way to electrolyze hydrogen starting from seawater, and its potential (or lack thereof) to change the game both for fuel and desalination.
AFAIK a Scottish island off the Scottish west coast does this already. Being in the North Atlantic, wind is generally superfluous for the island's inhabitants. So they use the excess electrical energy to hydrolyse sea water and store the hydrogen. Later, when there's not enough wind, the hydrogen is converted back to electricity. One thing they don't have to worry about is to compress the hydrogen a lot as they have enough space for large tanks.
When I was a kid I would walk by these very large tanks that would vary in height. Turns out they were holding natural gas using liquid mercury to float the tank and as a seal. They were near the coal power station.@@jpdj2715
Just not able to generate enough to make economic sense, or generate it fast enough.
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It takes energy to create. It's a storage medium like batteries only far less efficient. The infrastructure, transportation, and delivery are all very expensive. This is promoted by oil industry to maintain their income model.
But it can be scaled up much easier than batteries and some of the problems are greatly diminishes with centralized use like a steel smelter that needs a GW of power and a suitable chemical to reduce iron. Hydrogen does make sense in these kinds of uses and it can then be bootstrapped to expand into other more challenging use cases. Batteries won't be used for multi-month storage for the winter. Hydrogen can be especially if refined into methanol or other liquid fuels. The efficiency suffers but if it's cheap enough and there is "too much" solar and wind power anyway, it can be manageable. Small vehicles will almost all use batteries and bigger one and long-range vehicles will use methanol or methane derived from green hydrogen. The trick here is to first go big (steel manufacturing, fertilizers, grid scale powerplants) and laugh at Toyota and such pathetic attempts at distributed hydrogen economy.
I think Elon is right when it comes to hydrogen in consumer cars. But for airplanes where higher energy density is required it makes a good fit. Also then you don't need to build thousands of hydrogen stations all across the country. Only hundreds at major airports.
For airplanes the low volumetric energy density is a major problem. Airplanes fly much better with kerosine or even methanol. Now making synthetic kerosine cheaply from green hydrogen, there's a real challenge.
@@wombatillo It takes a different approach to plane design (lifting body) to make hydrogren viable for anything beyond a very small training plane (which honestly can just use batteries too); this is a long development process. This can definitely happen but will take time. Assuming we don't want to use small reactors like US navy ships for container shipping it is also a potential candidate for hydrogen also (and trains). Consumer transport and semis dont make sense for hydrogen.
The higher energy density doesn't help when you need really heavy storage tanks to hold very little of it. It's a dead duck for aviation.
@@ccibinel Lifting bodies like huge deltas sure but they will be tricky to implement for passenger use. They're an unproven design. A long pressure tube is a simple and affordable solution. It can be done even with current plane frames but I'm skeptical of the practicality. 700 bar hydrogen will take a huge chunk of the passenger and luggage space in addition to the wing tanks compared to kerosine tanks which are mostly in the wings. Short hop airplanes with ~50 passengers will probably be electrified pretty soon but they will be at first under 500 mile hop planes unless something really major happens in battery development.
@@wombatillo 500 wh/kg exists now (low volume/expensive) and should be enough for short haul flights. The tech exists and I would expect early planes like that in 5-10 years (mainstream in 20). A density of 1000 kw/kg would be needed to cross oceans in battery planes (2500 kw/kg) to match current long haul). Hydrogen needs unique airframes and battery needs these evolutions in battery tech - coin flip who gets .
This will be great until the government taxes the hell out of every unit of hydrogen put into a motor vehicle. Road use taxes will soar because the cost of the product will be lower and that will give the government room to tax everyone so heavy.
Storage and distribution are hydrogen’s big problem.
If you can use it industrially close to the source of production it makes the most sense.
I believe Japan’s “red hydrogen” push is based on this premise.
Agree totally. Look into the Australian company Hazer (HZR) that will be completing it's commercial demonstration project this year. Very promising as a carbon negative technology producing both high quality hydrogen and graphite from an iron ore catalyst.
This is so cool we need more hydrogen vehicles and stations. It seems like this is a better alternative than electric.
A 3M sponsor? Really? Im glad you could get the big bucks, but honestly they are a really evil company
Hydrogen is a pipe dream. The only way hydrogen can be viable is if it’s subsidized by the government.
Hydrogen lacks volumetric energy density. Storage and transport at the issue here.
I think the only way to go is to produce hydrogen where it's needed. A ship or steel works, for example, should have their own hydrogen plant. No storage and minimal distribution thus minimal loss and costs.
If they had the energy on board to split hydrogen wouldn't it be better to just use that to power a motor directly?
Hydrogen will never take off, so many middlemen would miss out
Scotland abandoned a project to power trains using hydrogen because of safety concerns. It was not concerned about production.
2 points from someone in the business for 35 years- 1. water electrolysis is not the economical or sensible way to make H2 and never will be. 2. You don’t need to transport H2, you transport it in a carrier and convert it on use, on-site. The idea it’s not for passenger cars, however, is correct!
Lets do a thought experiment. The pem membrane was free and the efficiency was 90%. You have a wind turbine 10 miles offshore and connecting it to the grid cost 1 million per mile. Where would you put the perfect hydrogen convertor . 1. in-situ - how do you collect the hydrogen? 2. at the grid connection, double conversion loss Elec -> H2 -> Elec long term hydrogen storage expensive but better than batteries. 3. Hydrogen distribution, remote site use such as JCB machines (this maybe the only use that makes sense)
And it goes further. Hydrogen embrittlement; the killer of all things. There are no materials, none, zero, zip, that do not eventually fall to its power. Storage vessels, pipelines, reaction chambers, all of them, ALL OF THEM, fall to destruction.
People don't maintain their vehicles now. So how do you think this is going to work when vehicle storage vessels start rupturing while driving? I certainly don't want to be around when that starts happening.
Hydrogen, BY ITSELF, is a non-starter. Making synthetic fuels with it, which ARE safer, much more easily stored and transported on our EXISTING infrastructure IS!!!
There's your road map! Use as much of our EXISTING infrastructure as possible while cleaning up the feed stock!
I don't think that even the JCB effort makes any sense. Tinkering with an engine is one thing but expecting someone else to solve the far greater problem of generating and getting the hydrogen to the engine is extreme wishful thinking.
It's going to depend on what the end user needs. If it's hydrogen to make steel, fine. If it's to run a ship or plane across the ocean, hmmmm. You might want a synfuel they can burn in a conventional engine and store in conventional fuel tanks. If houses need solid grid electricity, why not just send it to them over wires? I have a several gas appliances, can they be more efficiently converted to hydrogen, or electricity? Induction stove, heat pump, etc. or just burn hydrogen?
A decade ago I thought hydrogen was going to be the thing because battery tech seem to not be advancing. If they can put in hydrogen stations across the nation over night and give significant cuts in prices of hydrogen cars and fuels to create a cheaper price per mile than we currently have, count me in. But thats not happening is it? As solar advances you can come close to safely making your own fuel and control your own destiny. That's something the oil barons that exist do not want. Currently we have LMC, LFP and LMP batteries. They can carry you from station to station and get you across the country. In the near future these chemistries will advance and we will have sodium, silicon or solid state batteries which are in actual testing, not just in the lab. All I want is a reduction in cost of power.
To say that the only emission is water vapour is an over simplification as there is also a release of a large amount of heat which is why the reaction to produce electricity is so ineficient. Hydrogen is only the answer to a limited number of questions and electrification directly of via batteries is always going to win on efficiency and hence cost.
For most applications I agree but forestry and agriculture just do not work well for BEVs. A large tractor may go through 300 galleons of diesel fuel in a day during crunch time on the farm. It is just no possible to replace this with batteries. There is ~38kwh of energy per galleon. Since diesel engines are less efficient it would take ~16kwh of battery to replace each galleon of diesel. So if you charge over night the battery would have to be ~300*16kwh. or 4800kwh battery. This is just not practical from a cost, weight and charging stand point.
@@gregkramer5588 Yes, as I said "Hydrogen is only the answer to a limited number of questions" and this is one of those special cases. BEV can work for smaller vehicles especially with top up charge or battery swap at lunchtime
Very disappointing to see you doing a commercial for 3M pushing falsehoods. Hydrogen is not about to take off, it has many drawbacks, even for use in ships and planes, not only that the production of it pollutes almost as bad as fossil fuels, but also that is highly explosive and extremely dangerous to transport, it is also impossible to keep hydrogen contained in a safe and effective manner. There is a recent study that points out that hydrogen leaks if it comes to be used on a large scale would be as bad if not even worse for the environment than using fossil fuels. You have a very interesting channel, unfortunately your credibility in my opinion has suffered greatly as a result of this video you chose to make for 3M.
In the upper atmosphere, hydrogen may moisten and cool the stratosphere, slowing down the recovery of the ozone layer. In the lower atmosphere, hydrogen may hasten the build-up of the greenhouse gases: methane and ozone and therefore contribute to worsening climate conditions.
So I would be extremely cautious when it comes to using hydrogen as a fuel source. It would be 1000x better to use nuclear wind and solar with energy storage as to not contribute to stripping the ozone layer
Yeah I'm tired of hearing discussions of hydrogen that ignore the global warming impact of leaks. Reminds me of the "methane as a bridge fuel" debate for getting off coal. Leaks matter and hydrogen is extremely leak prone!
Only if you believe in the greenhouse fairytale
When hydrogen is combusted you will see no CO2 but oxides of nitrogen from the high temperatures.
Hydrogen is just that easy solution that we keep getting our hopes with. I remember when the George W Bush admin pushed hydrogen fuel cells in the 2000s.
In your final cost analysis, you compare the cost of hydrogen derived electricity projected 10 years into the future with the cost of charging car batteries today. That is a little misleading. Just based on the high efficiency of charging batteries, it's hard to see hydrogen ever being cheaper than charging batteries. To be clear, I agree that hydrogen is essential for decarbonizing many industries, such as steel production, aviation, etc.
Will it be green Hydrogen or blue?
Maybe for large ships, big trucks, and aircraft, but not for cars!
So...still no. Still not there. No good way to store. No good way to produce.
Yeah unless some super duper nano tech allows us to store it in a condensed medium.
(As just in case people didn't know. Water holds more hydrogen per liter than liquid hydrogen which I find insane. )
So unless we get some miracle medium to store hydrogen comparable to the density of water? Then it is a no go.
Hydrogen cars weigh more than EVs with way less space to get slightly better range. Think 50 to 100 miles more. Whoopty doo.
Hydrogen is a pain to store. It is dangerous if not kept properly. It destroys the equipment. It requires cryogenic tempatures or absurd pressures. It loves to leak according to those who work with it.
I simply don't see how people look at hydrogen, and think "ah yes. I would love my car to be part blimp. This totally will work".
Let us not forget that we'd have to build an entirely new infrastructure.
With new battery technology constantly improving year in, and out. Hydrogen makes no sense, and that ship has sailed. If we did this years ago it would be good. Not with battery tech being as it is in the near future.
It will only ever be used for niche industries.
Don't fund hydrogen. You'll be disappointed.
I work for a Hydrogen Dispenser Manufacturer. It’s here. We are building and installing hydrogen dispensers all over the world. These dispenser have thousands of safety checks and are actually very safe. The investment will eventually pay off. And yes, as usual, California is leading the way.
I thought hydrogen's main problem with storage, due to the atom being so small it slips through the cracks in standard metal containers.
The small size is exploited for Vacuum testing semiconductor parts and even the " pop top " on your favorite beverage. Hydrogen finds the smallest voids and leaks profusely. Please don't park your hydrogen car inside my garage with the gas water heater.
Combining it with magnesium into "powerpaste" or another easily reversible reaction is an option but unclear what the energy losses of this are. These are proprietary which makes real world usage slower and information on scaling issue hard to find.
The problem isn’t just storage, but also distribution. The infrastrucutre just isn’t there. At least with distributed photovoltaics, a case can be made that energy production and distribution is mostly local.
No, the only way hydrogen makes sense is to add carbon to it. Turn it into liquid fuel, basically “gasoline” that can be distributed and used with existing infrastrucutre.
@@RobertLeeAtYT not much of an issue if using hydrogen only for planes, ships and storage. Personal transport bev is the clear winner.
@@ccibinel Nah, a three minute fill up versus an hour "fast" charge? That's ridiculous.
Basically a 3M commercial
Hydrogen is a fuel storage medium not a fuel source. We need power to make hydrogen. Converting power to movement is better than the conversion losses going from power to hydrogen and then back to power.
I guess you think we just pump gasoline and diesel right out of the ground. We need power to refine those from crude oil as well.
@@Dewydidit yes I agree. Where do we get the energy to crack fossil fuels? We get it from fossil fuels. Now try that with H2… Where do we get the energy to crack H2O? The answer isn’t ‘from H2’. H2 is a fuel storage medium, not a fuel source.
Hydrogen is seen as a replacement combustible fuel for ICE vehicles but that reality isn’t feasible until we make enough extra clean renewable energy to make wasting electrons to inefficiently make H2 to then burn it inefficiently in a heat engine (all heat engines are less efficient than electric motors). Until we have ‘super-power’ meaning overbuilt energy grids that support us on even the worst days of the year, until then, we are better served not wasting electrons making H2, and instead just use the electrons to directly propel vehicles.
Does that make since?
@@jryant You get it from solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear.
Right now you're content with burning coal to refine gasoline. I don't think your argument stands up to scrutiny.
Solar isn't going to run out like coal is. It isn't "consumed" by the process of making energy with it.
@@Dewydidit so if you’d reread my comments, you’d see I’m a proponent of using Superpower (excess renewable energy) create hydrogen for ICE/H2-cell uses. My entire point is that we do not have the extra power to make clean H2 atm. Most H2 is made with nonrenewables atm and that’s not sustainable. So yes when/where we have excess renewable energy, we could make clean H2. However we still do not have good ways to store H2 yet as it boils off and can migrate through metals. Toyota is pushing for a solid-state H2 storage system that uses a laser to free H2 from a solid disc matrix to then be burnt in a ICE/H2-cell. There are possible uses in the future but for now the lack of enough renewables stops H2 from being a reliable energy storage tool.
@@jryant Water IS the storage medium for hydrogen.
ANY new source of energy is going to require building the infrastructure to support it, refineries, fuel stations, ect.
You saying "excess" renewable energy, I'm saying dedicated. Install the solar panels FOR the cracking station.
If you're waiting on the US to have EXCESS renewable energy, you'll be waiting a while. We're gluttons with no interest in moderating our consumption to reduce future need.
Hydrogen also makes beautiful mushroom clouds when paired with an atomic bomb, turns the sky into a pretty kaleidoscopic canvas of colour.
So to get clean hydrogen to use as fuel we would;
- Use electricity to split water in to oxygen and hydrogen
- Use electricity to compress the hydrogen gas
- Use electricity to pump it in to a car
- In the car convert the hydrogen to electricity to charge a battery which can then power the car
How about.. and it's just an idea
Skip all those steps of producing hydrogen with the end goal of getting electricity and just power the car with all that electricity in the first place at much better efficiency and less complexity
Hydrogen as a power storage solution I can understand... As a fuel I can't
A great explanation. Only someone running an oil company (or similar) could disagree.
You missed some important items which may change your mind...
- Transport the hydrogen in vehicles requiring more electricity or hydrogen or maybe diesel.
- deal with all the efficiency loss from leaking hydrogen.
- And not being able to park the vehicle indoors because a leak contained in a building could cause massive explosions.
- and all the current medical and chemical applications using dirty petroleum based hydrogen now, which first need to be converted over to clean hydrogen before we can even consider any new applications of hydrogen. If we do not do this first then any new applications of hydrogen like transportation will still be dirty no matter how we make the hydrogen.
- and before anyone mentions all the terrible environmental damage from batteries for EVs (don't get me started on why this FUD is incorrect l, but let's deal with it anyway), let's not forget that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still require a fairly large Lithium or similar battery just like an EV does just a little bit smaller.
...oh wait, all these points also mean hydrogen is not really a good idea for transportation too. Guess I will not change your mind on this one.
Fuel is power storage.
@@kokofan50 yes - as a 'power storage solution' as I mentioned in the original comment
If you want to be pedantic I could have stated;
"As a fuel for static power storage solution I can understand... As a fuel for transportation I can't"
And even then I'd be interested to see the numbers to see if it would be more efficient to store the power in a battery storage solution
@@5353Jumper haha - you made me smile and taught me some new information though 😄
I put this one in the clickbait drawer.
Hydrogen seems to make the most sense when it comes to food production but due to it's round trip efficiency and a number of other fundamental issues, it doesn't make sense for transportation or energy storage.
(Additional H2 issues not mentioned)
1. H2 takes up about 8x the volume as methane, the smaller molecule will likely mean more leaks and combined that with it's low ignition temp... more unexpected 💥s!
2. New infrastructure required for production, distribution and utilization of H2.
3. Hydrogen metal embrittlement...H2 likes to react with metal so all infrastructure will require more frequent maintenance vs CH4.
4. There's no way that hydrogen will ever be cheaper than renewables plus batteries... Not even on paper/power point slides so why would it ever be adopted over the cheaper clean alternatives(the multitude of renewables + battery chemistries)?
... Or simply scrubbing the C derivatives after combustion for existing CH4 power plants... This seems like the simple solution, no?
Hydrogen is currently used in a lot of chemical, medical, and materials production applications. This hydrogen is currently being made with high emissions methane steam reforming process.
We need to first answer all the current demand with cleaner hydrogen before we can even consider any new applications of hydrogen.
If not then any new applications of hydrogen even if produced cleanly will still be dirty hydrogen worse than just using gasoline/diesel and far worse than using any electrified option.
Another point is that carbon capture on hydrogen production is a horrendous waste of energy, materials and time. But mostly the energy, carbon capture uses massive amounts of electricity which has its own emissions footprint so it cancels out any good it could do.
If we were to say "Let's use a huge amount of energy to reduce some of the emissions from our energy production" base logic can see the problem with that.
Carbon capture may have some future for other process like materials manufacturing or agriculture, but it is at best terrible greenwashing when used anywhere near petroleum or energy projects.
At worst it is an intentional grift to take money and resources from actual projects that actually do reduce emissions, just to keep us all burning fuels.
@5353Jumper some great points. Water electrolysis is nothing new but the most expensive method to date from my understanding. Research into cheaper/more efficient H2 methods would be beneficial, rather than SMR, which provides nearly 100% of the world's supply of H2 today.
While I'm not up to date on the exact numbers, by simple reasoning, it seems straightforward that cleaning the carbon from existing CH4 power plant exhaust would require significantly less energy than building out the entire hydrogen supply chain to replace CH4. Along your train of thought, this will increase costs which will further tip the LCoE scales for renewables + batteries over conventional power generation.
@@5353Jumper ... To add...a simple way around my presented problems is to utilize hydrogen in situ when producing medicines, fertilizer, etc.
As wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy production produce excess amounts so less storage is required in the grid. When electricity prices are negative/ low produce hydrogen.
This is a commercial for oil companies. They are the main providers for hydrogen. Hydrogen makes absolutely no sense. The energy needed to create and store, is so bad that it would be worst for the environment. Companies should develop better battery for energy storage ( would make more sense ) and improved wind and solar energies technics for personnel use.
You don't have to worry about hydrogen distribution or efficiency if you produce hydrogen on site preferably with green energy. Currently the cost of equipment makes it unlikely for the average home, but as costs come down we can eventually see everyone having the means just like the adoption of fridges or AC.
This is viable, if we start treating hydrogen as a battery to capture excess energy, I could see this taking off.
I’ve seen a hydrogen fueling station in Tokyo. Every time I walk past it it’s empty.
9:52 that is just pure bullshit right there. you need at least 3 times as much power to produce the hydrogen then what you get back out, so it is physically impossible to make hydrogen less expensive then 3 times the prize of electricity for the same kWh.
there is a massive list of energy storage technologies that are cheaper and easier, from all forms batteries, over compressed air, flywheels, etc. hydrogen is pretty much the last thing that you only do when you are completely out of options.
thinking about it i cant think of a worse way to store energy.... feel free to tell me if you can.
caption: I'm Ricky and this is stupid DaVinci
Constructive.
Happens all the time 😂 fixed 🙌🏻
😂 I had to turn them on to see
@@NimbleBard48I think it's constructive to fix the captions. Why not? Also it's funny.
@@gearhead1302 My mistake. I thought he was being sarcastic. You know, media influencing you in a negative way and all that.
Hydrogen is a great alternative, but storage is the issue. The best way to store hydrogen is in metal hydrides. There is one major problem with this though. Metal Hydrides are the main components for a hydrogen bomb, which makes them unobtainable. The only way to get them is to produce them yourself. To fix this issue they would need to repeal the laws that prohibit the sale of them.
The use of Hydrogen is limited by storage density. You sort of need something the size of a bus, train or ship for it to be viable, otherwise you have about 50-100km of range.
What is possible is denied.
Lets say water contains 100% energy. 30% of it can be used for electrolysis. You need 35% for a 1.6 liter 4 stroke engine and it runs up without any problems. The only downside is that the engine can start to ping and a membrane with a bubbler is needed for safety in case a backfire occurs.
You can not use ac electrolysis because too much oxygen but you can use dc and put the anode side via a pipeline into the atmosphere. If you use AC your engine gets too much oxygen
Toyota Mirai set the world record for hydrogen cars, 845 miles.
3M advertisement? This channel has had some interesting stuff, but I’m questioning the objectivity at this point. Will def watch any following video pertaining to round trip efficiency. Besides the other problems (storage, delivery, etc) the round trip efficiency is terrible unless there’s some major breakthrough with production.
Hydrogen is still highly problematic. The cost to the end user is higher because of pressure, containment and production issues. The real cost as shown by Mercedes Bens and others is substantially higher than even gasoline.
Remember: hydrogen is not a fuel
I think hydrogen will continue to be the future ..
batteries is the simple and efficient way for most aplications
👍❤️
Just imagine every fender-bender on every corner could have been a hydrogen explosion .... sounds like fun, should level a city in what a decade
Modern hydrogen tanks are a lot tougher than existing gasoline tanks, so you're straining the imagination.
@@Dewydidit please google hydrogen vehicle explosions. Yes the tanks are tough but explosion events that do happen are catastrophic. Be better.
Yeah, that’s totally different from gasoline, which is so safe that it’s used to put out fires! (Also, the fear-of-fire arguments against renewables - relative to gasoline! - are quite possibly the most ridiculous category of deeply flawed anti-renewable arguments.)
@@jryant Very rare.
@@gregkramer5588 yes but existential.
In the UK Prof. David Cebon is a leading light in a campaign to explain why hydrogen will not be used in cars, buses, or heating households to name but a few areas where hydrogen will not make any sense. JCB who make heavy earth moving equipment for building are adamant it is the future in their applications. In the UK politicians seem to be only people promoting hydrogen, one wonders why? For more information why not Google hydrogen science coalition.
JCB are clueless thinking that clinging to something that they know well will save them. Bad move.
@@rogerphelps9939 JCB argue that their equipment needs to work 18 hours per day so only hydrogen can provide the power. However, whenever I pass a guy on a digger he is not doing much and is being watched by 4 other guys. I do accept that when a farmer wants to combine his crops he might be working his combine for 18 hours a day for 5 days in a row. I am sceptical that there is no need for electric diggers. My golf club has a digger it never does more than 3-hours work in a day. Most days it is just used to barricade the door to the workshop.
Interesting and thought provoking! You guys always put out great content! I can hear Toyota executives saying"we told you so..." years later. :)
Toyota is not now or ever going to be in position to say "I told you so".
You know Kodak? Toyota will be this century’s Kodak. Latest sales figures for Tesla and BYD would have made them sh*t themselves….
I usually really enjoy your videos, Ricky, but in this case I have to completely disagree with you. Hydrogen is PROVEN to be completely impractical in vehicle contexts, due to multiple factors including the extreme difficulty of storing it in a vehicle at density, very poor conversion efficiencies, and the single biggest issue - THERES NO COMPELLING REASON TO USE IT!! - the single reason most touted for using Hydrogen over battery EV is charging time. This is the ONLY advantage a hydrogen vehicle has. But in recent years EV charging times have come down to nearly hydrogen levels (5 mins to get 80% charge) in certain high-end vehicles, and is dropping steadily in all EV segments. Many car companies have invested huge amounts over decades to try and make Hydrogen work for vehicles, but it simply doesn't!
I used to be very enthusiastic about hydrogen. Till I encountered the challenges of storing it. As you said, it’s potential it’s probably in the industry.
Just wait until we realize water is also a greenhouse gas.
Hydrogen is last ditch hope by the petrochemical industries to carry on business as usual, for the last 50 years its be the new fuel thats just around the corner and it will continue to be so.
The challenge for Hydrogen is production and storage.
H2 is not an energy source. It’s a SECONDARY fuel source. You need another source of Energy in order to CREATE the H2 that will later be used as fuel.
Yea, not interested.
I really hope that Hydrogen will be forbidden just like Freon is forbidden
Hydrogen fuel is "about to TAKE OFF someday" ... everything said in this video is still on the research level. And like everyone mentioned here, there are still other challenges than the super rare catalyst
Dr James Tour showcased a method of taking plastic, adding low amounts of electricity, to break it down into various components, including Hydrogen and Graphene. He did not need any ultra rare, super expensive elements to do it. It is likely a much better way of production. Plus it is reducing plastic waste. Win, Win, Win!
It's not just making hydrogen. It's making "HIGHLY PURE hydrogen"
You're probably better off using sodium caynoborohydride or HI/SI then burning plastic for that
Batteries won. Just let it go. Hydrogen is NOT going to live up to the hype. You need more than a better catalyst for electrolysis. There are still major challenges in storage and overall efficiency. I watching Aging Wheels video the other day where he reviewed a hydrogen fuel cell car and turns out it's only like 30-40% efficient end-to-end if you use electrolysis. That's a HUGE waste of precious electricity.
Just because they can make it cheaper doesn't mean they'll sell it cheaper.
Look at public charging stations. Or insulin/other meds.
The profit motive ruins most things.
Then there's H2's inherent weaknesses in transportability, storage, and volumetric energy density.
Maybe for some niches it'll work.
No container for public use can stop the loss of at least 1% per day. And...what about the cost in energy to split water into H and O. Duh.............you always lose in transferring energy from one form to another.
A few explosions from accidents and the fact that it leaks out of anything, will end hydrogen as soon as it starts to take off. I would not go near it. Refineries burn it off instead of taking on the liability of a possible explosion.
A first from you, but I’m seriously disappointed in this video.
Hydrogen has tons of challenges that will likely never be solved, at least not in our lifetimes, because you simply can’t change the physics involved. A good example is transportation, where around sixteen semi-trailers of hydrogen are needed to move one semi-trailer worth of the energy from diesel. However that problem is just one of many other problems with hydrogen.
Hydrogen production was solved by the Green box program from Ohio U. It is made from municipal wastewater and it takes far less energy to produce fuel from the ammonia and urea in their pee and poop. It cleans the water too but it does not split the water, water is too strongly bonded for that to be worthwhile unless you can figure out how to do it the Stanley Meyers way with the right frequency
The comments are gold, if you consider foolishness as a commodity. Ignoring hydrogen R&D would be astronomically catastrophic blunder! Ignore all of the PhD comments below.
Hey, if hydrogen is good enough for the Sun, it's good enough for us kids. 🥳
I love “amazing breakthroughs.
There is no amazing breakthrough in this video.
Very interesting. Thanks.
3M as a sponsor is crazy if you see what they have done in their Belgium factory!!! Killing the environment and just deny.
Be sure they will be fined hugely and for me : never use products of criminal type of organisations as that what it us in the end.
Well, it turns out hydrogen is still not about to take off.
I think Carbon Nanotubes could dramatically improve Hydrogen production.
I agree that Hydrogen at this point and into the near future would be best used in heavy industry where energy intensive fuels are needed. Nothing however would be sweeter for Ecars and trucks than a Hydrogen fuel cell. And modern day nuclear is sitting there looking us in the face but has a bad name from the past. Look for Nuclear to get a lot better look as a bridge fuel to generate energy until real Fusion comes.
Fascinating that you didn't simply calc out the time it would take, given 100% efficiency (unattainable in this universe) in the electrolysis and fuel cell, to convert the primary energy consumption of humanity. Ursurping 100% of the current yearly Iridium production, and excluding Fuel Cells (so using Hydrogen directly in chemical processes, e.g steel manufacturing, or combustion engines) would take in the order of 650-1000 Years.
Now calculate with real world efficiencies (eg. 60% fuel cell/electrolysis), the open cylce catalyst / PEM membran having to get replaced 1-3 times per year, and many other ineffiencies, and that you won't be able to dedicate hundreds of years of Iridum production entirely for this cause (even when many more, very costly mines get into operation), and estimate how many xx percent of the worlds primary energy demand could then be covered by 2030 or 2040 or 2050 with this magic technology.
Also, or especially, considering this 3M breakthrough is 10x better than the current status quo (bringing the best current large scale technology in this sector to a replacement timescale in the order of 10 000 years - twice as long as the pyramids existed; maybe with space mining and this new tech, it could be brought down to a few hundred years - I would not disagree; But the audacity by H2 proponents is just laughable when you go back to first principles.
Finally, fuel cells and water electrolysis have been around for 100 and 150 years respectively; I find it disingenous to show cost curves for technologies which have been around much less long (PV and LiIon batteries, 60 and 30 years), but NOT show the similar cost curve - which will certainly also show an exponential decaying trend - for this much older technology. May it be that the exponential factor / timescale coincides with many hundreds of years before cost parity could be attained, at scale, with other energy technologies which you actually DID show?
Hi, I don't understand, if it takes electricity to make hydrogen, how can it be cheaper than the electricity ? particularly with a reduced efficiency.. ?? like has been pointed out.. thanks..
TLDR;
By marrying an HTGR reactor to a thermochemical hydrogen production plant, hydrogen can be produced in a clean and sustainable manner.
Hydrogen is not a byproduct of properly functioning nuclear reactors, however some invision using the spare capacity to make hydrogen as coproduct. These would be:
Pink hydrogen which is produced by electrolysis from electric energy not dispatched to the grid
Purple hydrogen produced by steam electrolysis using reactor heat to make the steam.
Red hydrogen produced through the high-temperature catalytic splitting of water using the nuclear reactor as a thermal energy source.
Google purple/RED HYDROGEN
Or HGTR
It would be a Co product of nuclear energy.
TLDR;
By marrying an HTGR reactor to a thermochemical hydrogen production plant, hydrogen can be produced in a clean and sustainable manner.
Hydrogen is not a byproduct of properly functioning nuclear reactors, however some invision using the spare capacity to make hydrogen as coproduct. These would be:
Pink hydrogen which is produced by electrolysis from electric energy not dispatched to the grid
Purple hydrogen produced by steam electrolysis using reactor heat to make the steam.
Red hydrogen produced through the high-temperature catalytic splitting of water using the nuclear reactor as a thermal energy source.
Google purple/RED HYDROGEN
Or HGTR