Hydrogen Fuel is About to get CHEAP!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- Hydrogen Iridium: Click the link to learn more about the trends impacting our futures and 3M’s solutions: bit.ly/3MForwardxTwoBit
Hydrogen is a puzzling energy source, as full of clean potential as it is challenges. Lithium ion batteries have come a long way, making supplies like lithium and nickel crucial. But hydrogen had unique challenges too, like Iridium needed for high efficiency electrolyzers. And it’s one of the rarest and most expensive elements on earth. But a new breakthrough material from 3M might just change that, and finally usher in an age of clean affordable hydrogen. So how does it work and what does it mean for the future of hydrogen? Let’s find out!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
In-Depth Content @ www.twobitdavinci.com
Become a Patron! twobit.link/Patreon
Become a UA-cam Member! geni.us/TwoBitMember
Buying a Tesla? twobit.link/Tesla
One Time Donation: geni.us/PaypalMe
》》》OUR PARTNERS《《《
Protect Yourself Online: twobit.link/DeleteMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Energy Sage for Solar ⟫ twobit.link/EnergySage
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
0:00 - Introduction
1:24 - Challenges
2:30 - Electrolyzers
4:40 - Iridium
6:15 - Hydrogen Earthshot
6:44 - Iridium Nanostructure Powder
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,green hydrogen production,hydrogen breakthrough,hydrogen car,hydrogen power,blue hydrogen,green hydrogen explained,3m,3m hydrogen,nanostructured,Nanostructured Supported Iridium Catalyst Powder,iridium powder,hydrogen electrolyzer,hydrogen electric generator,hydrogen electricity,future of hydrogen,hydrogen engine,hydrogen peroxide,hydrogen generator,hydrogen prices, Hydrogen Fuel Is About to TAKE Off, Here's Why, Hydrogen Fuel is About to get CHEAP! - Наука та технологія
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This seemed more like a promo for 3M.
‘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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
You mean your sponsor is "3M Reaches $10.3 Billion Settlement for 'Forever Chemicals in our water'"
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
Taking 3M as a sponsor really undermines any image of sustainability you try to cultivate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Blah blah blah.
@@beingsentient lol
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.
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.
Will it be green Hydrogen or blue?
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 .
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.
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..
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.
Scotland abandoned a project to power trains using hydrogen because of safety concerns. It was not concerned about production.
One major criticism of my country, Australia, is that we have no commercial level fuel refining here, it is shipped from Singapore who do that job for us.
So when renewables began to gain traction, and Australia was ideally suited to Solar and Wind energy, they've been pumping the idea, gaining large in-roads (largest solar farm on Earth, ability to cost-effectively desalinate seawater and electrolysis processes, which could see domestic production (and export to Japan). I am hopeful that perhaps Australia can ship this product, all around the world for consumption, as we already ship the most LNG.
Look into what Hazer (HZR) are doing in Perth. Very promising tech.
I appreciate the balanced coverage.
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.
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?
Another point to think about is that the hydrogen cars produced today are trying to compete in mileage per tank vs ICE vs EV, and the only way to do that is either to make the fuel cells more efficient somehow, or add more tanks, the latter being a problem in terms of space and well having more compressed hydrogen than anyone would really want to travel around with; however, if there were as many hydrogen fuel stations around as gas stations, it wouldn't matter if it was half the capacity as EV, because you can refill in 5 minutes as opposed to 30 to 60 minutes. The benefit of hydrogen vs ICE would be the fact you'll be driving a non-polluting (post production) car, and everyone can breath clean air.
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!!!;)
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.
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.
You mentioned near the end of the video jets, trains & shipping, but what about FCEV trucking?
Here's the thing about H2 power. All internal combustion engines have incomplete combustion. H2 that isn't burned is lost forever. It floats up into the atmosphere and then gets whisked away by the solar wind. Think about it. Water lost forever. That is a problem that needs to be solved first.
So...still no. Still not there. No good way to store. No good way to produce.
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?
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.*
Natural gas is heavy and lingers around which makes it dangerous. Hydrogen is light and flighty which makes it almost impossible to ignite.
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
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.
H place is in heavy industry. Shipping, trucks, trains, planes, mining, and factories that rely on gas. Or a supplemental power/heat source for entire regions/cities (instead of gas or wood pellets for example).
They have fixed points, stations and hubs. This makes it so much easier to transport and store + refuel and does not require complex infrastructure everywhere like regular gas stations.
Distributed personal and dynamic transport should go electric - it is much easier to set up and maintain. And you can charge from every socket worldwide (even if slowly) - including ones built 100 years ago. And it can use any number of power sources (fuel cells, solar, wind, hydro, geo, bio, fossil, gravity etc). You can charge at home if you want to.
Very interesting - I remember so so so many years ago learning about about Ballard fuel cells and we are still not that much closer!
I think my "Mr Fusion" car might be here first 🤣
Cheers
A 3M sponsor? Really? Im glad you could get the big bucks, but honestly they are a really evil company
Did 3M not want you to give energy by volume?
I have 12.4 Kw Solar and batteries (2 Powerwalls) in my home. There are 2 BEV's in the garage that are 90% charged by the energy my home generates so their impact to the charging grid is negligible. I'm also pushing 2/3 of the energy I'm generating day time out to the grid for which (thanks to net metering) I am poorly compensated. Being in a sunny climate certainly makes this all possible but I setup a home energy system that works well for where and how we live. I also relandscaped my yard removing all lawns and replaced with drought resistant plants minimizing water consumption.
Bottom line, where there is will, there is a way.
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.
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 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.
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!
I don’t think people understand how common, large scale and the large demand for hydrogen now. It’s every where . It’s used in food processing, agriculture and chemical manufacturing . Getting a solution for manufacturing will be brilliant . There is no problem transporting it and road tankers deliver the stuff 24/7. All the truck manufacturers are developing hydrogen solutions. A lot of fork lifts run on it. It’s not a far cry to use it in transport and JCB is using it for construction equipment.
it can be used where energy density is a priority, but regular cars will not become mainly hydrogen, to many drawbacks from this entire thing.
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
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 😄
For home use In Italy, an Engenire in Pisa Produces a new Hydro cogenerator !! you must have a look at it! Thank you for your awesome videos as always!
For storage of Hydrogen there's Metal Hydrates technology and I am curious if this is going to have application for the storage of H .
Acethylane welding gas dissolves in Acetone for safe storage in tanks; wouldn't Hydrogen dissolve in some economically viable liquid for safe storage ?
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.
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.
As an EV owner myself I know the strength and weaknesses of my model S. I keep my Jeep Cherokee for long distance driving and towing. A H2 4x4 would be a great upgrade but we need to use clean ways to H2 from water and H2 recharging station as numerous as fuel station. I'm hoping this will be the future of 4x4.
You do realise that current storage for hydrogen in cars means that by volume gasoline is 5 to 6 times more energy dense. So to get the same range you need a tank 6 times as big. Is this practical? Where would you put it?
Just wait until building structures where the h2 really shines as in making steel, nuclear powered aircraftcarrier with jetfighters powered by h2 produced by the nuclear engine. Japans red h2 seems to be the most likely way to go in producing h2. The duckcurve problem with solar and unsteady windgenerated electricity could possible be levelled out by increase and decrease production of h2. As a bonus h2 is produced when electricity is cheap!😊
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.
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….
Maybe for large ships, big trucks, and aircraft, but not for cars!
The more I hear about government supporting H2 fuel cell research and throwing subsidies on it, the more I question the origin of this idea. The origin of Li-Ion battery as an energy storage for vehicles and beyond is an extension from small electronic devices. Hydrogen? It is an intermediate in chemical industry used for refining petroleum, treating metals, synthesis of fertilizers and other chemicals. Where the idea of hydrogen as energy storage came from? I mean, fuel cells can operate on many other fuels.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Wow, this Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series sounds like an amazing product! It's great to see companies like Segway using cutting-edge technology to provide us with reliable power solutions for our outdoor adventures. With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design, I can see how it would be a valuable addition to any camping trip or for backup power at home. Thanks for sharing this information!
My belief is that we must focus on various technologies H², electric, compressed air, Propane.
BTW the Utopia (Mt. Pleasant) mine in St. George, NB has 90% of the of the worlds Iridium Cubic Kilometer volumes!
They told us Propane was going to be way cheaper and more environmentally friendly back in the 70s then up the price and did not continue to back the supply where we needed it ,, I have had several trucks that ran on Propane and am a mechanic,, they will probably do the same thing this time
Hydrogen also makes beautiful mushroom clouds when paired with an atomic bomb, turns the sky into a pretty kaleidoscopic canvas of colour.
storage of hydrogen has some issues, but with solid hydrogen it makes it doable and there has been advances in that area.
another lesser known method of hydrogen production is thru ultra sound.
Good Descriptive and reseachive content
Very interesting. Thanks.
So Hydrogen is still 10 years away just like it has always been.
I see a lot of comments about efficiency and storage, and I just think of the many houses that have solar panels without batteries for storage, so when they're not at home with the A/C on etc., the potential energy generated is lost or pushed back into the grid and sold on by the electricity companies for a lot more than what they give you. If each house had a mini hydrogen station which they could reserve enough for their own usage, but advertise through an app to sell a portion, there wouldn't be a need to stop at a fuel station, you could go to any house park up for 5 minutes and fill your car up and continue on with your journey. This is already a thing for EV charging, but the problem is the rate of energy transfer, hydrogen being the winner. The argument here would obviously be if everyone would be willing to have a compressed tank of hydrogen in their backyard ... perhaps buried, made with strong materials and a quick release valve for emergencies, it wouldn't be such an issue? Elon Musk only thinks Hydrogen is stupid because he's heavily invested in EVs and batteries, but if you ask me, batteries are an environmental disaster, whereas on-site generation of hydrogen, even with traditional methods (albeit, inefficient) would still be cleaner and free!
As with fusion and hydrogen there is always a "but". Hydrogen has an extreamily low energy level by volumn as a gas or liquid. I wonder why no one ever does a "cost benefit analysis" for hydrogen vs. gasoline?
Hydrogen powered passenger jets would be so awesome
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.
My goodness I don’t want to ever fly on a Hydrogen plane.
If you can store hydrogen in compound or dissolved form and extract it on demand, you can sidestep embrittlement and volumetric issues. What that form might be and how you extract it is where the real focus of hydrogen research should be.
In my country's economy - sales are heavily taxed - hydrogen costs 36.3 cents per kWh (€12.10/kg and 33.3kWh/kg) and gasoline 22 cents per kWh (€2.20/litre and 10kWh/litre). That makes gasoline kWh comparable to normal household kWh costs. The difference is that your ICE vehicle doesn't get better than about 30% efficiency and your battery-EV does a lot better.
But hydrogen electric vehicles don't get to the efficiency of battery-electric ones, by far.
The snake in the electric grass is that commercial charging stations where you charge your car at commercial rates rather than normal household, charge much more, especially for high speed (extreme Ampères) charging: 70 cents (€0.70) per kWh is no exception.
Definitely see hydrogen as a future solution for energy production, transportation but the production and infrastructure needs to be a priority but great video!!!
As a renewable energy storage system very interesting
But i am sure that Toyota's Decision to push on H2 combustion technology will also bring push on this Tech too
But it's no good if you ship that stuff from all around the globe
Local production is the way to go
Seeing this makes me think of syfy space mining operations
Catch the stone before they coming to close
Who gets 3M to sponsor a video? Rare
How much CO2 is produced by the iridium mining?
Direct water to hydro to fuel meaning water used by vehicles possibilities is workable too
How feasible or costly would it be to scale up with iridium using this technology? This is a big piece missing to judge whether this is really practical or if it's just an infomercial for 3M.
Hydrogen is the most abundant in the Universe but on Earth crust, it is only about 0.14%. It is still more than Lithium and all other battery minerals but we need to call it properly.
Can this system work efficiently with intermittent electricity?
My excitement towards hydrogen production has more to do with airships cuz using helium in airships is just not viable imo. If we can produce airships using hydrogen safely, then we can see a future where humans live in the sky. Farms and logistics can also take to the skies. Then we'll have a future closer to the Jetsons.
What about directly processing H20 into H2 at a pump or at home ? How expensive would that be?