The truth about hydrogen

hydrogen replaces diesel were just not good at hydrogen

well my original idea, lets turn sahara into solar panel and store in hydrogen from the ocean, well it is impossible to burn without oxygen, but in earth fortunately we have a lot of oxygen. Those talk-heads have no clue how energy used in humanity, new sources added old sources never ever removed or replaced. So net zero is BS. Back to the topic the only thing hydrogen would change is how we storing energy in larger scale (very ineffective if we have no limitless energy).

The main question is who ever have common sense mentioning fuel of the world. Hydrogen would be a battery replacement in terms of energy, and still a chemical reaction to generate or ignite. With fossil fuel you receive energy from literally conserved over thousand years, it is a 100% different scenario. We can use hydrogen to store extra energy similar way as hydro pump plant does. As it is ignitable can operate engines and turbines, but with the caveat, it is excess energy product. We currently could not even reach a point when we can stop using burning bio fuel/coal to provide enough electricity in a stable way. Laughable the idea we start to use our production electricity on generating hydrogen on around 50% energy loss already to later operate a plane, this is silly. We can return to hydrogen when we solved the enough energy problem.

If someone ask me, yes hydrogen would be nice to store energy for the evening where solar panel used, and peek excess energy can be turned into hydrogen, but still hydro pump is cheaper and more efficient, but need a lot of specific criteria to work. Hydrogen would not utilize any gravity and artificial lakes, however I can't believe we will ever create Hydrogen re-ignition power plants. The root cause of our problem how to store energy, we are struggling at chemical reactions or forces like gravity, hydrogen will be not the breakthrough, which allow is to effectively store electricity. So I am pretty sure that new moon project will end up just connected to the grid instead of creating hydrogen, as no one will reignite this as fuel, but may help in development of plastic and composites :D. As we never transport hydrogen can be done in other chemicals so the efficiency will drop down below 20%, or it will be just a random explosive device. The 1st element is the most oxide able element, huge potency make it really hard to operate with reliability, except if we can remove oxygen from the picture , which a bit deadly.

So I think behind the whole PR the big question how we can use unreliable "renewable" energy in a way we can conserve energy, when renewables temporary short. Well the answer can be hydrogen , but that is not effective and not safe, literally an explosive device with bad handling.

Are we purposely leaving red hydrogen out of the discussion, or...?

What a biased video, more "net zero" propaganda for the "earth lords" and their "climate change" bs. They should ban private jets first. I thought they were only going to talk about hydrogen, but they have to push their agenda first. Also host needs to eat, meat would be good for him.

What about ocean energy, make one

I was very interested in his education until he mentioned "Waking up the the Climate Crisis".... There is NOT Climate Crisis, its a total scam. Today the Green energy is not only losing $$$ hand over fist... majority of the auto industry is scrapping the idea entirely because they have lost billions. Not the mention the enviro damage lithium mining is causing and the unstable EV Batteries that are causing 100s of millions if NOT a billion in damage. Should I mention; Wind turban blades are made in China out of carbon fiber that is NOT recyclable..... they just burry the chopped up blades, that have maybe a 8-12yr life span.

Overnight Japanese SC maglev container trains Sydney/Melbourne and Sydney/Brisbane will kill trucks and planes on that route with only $10 daytime fare.

this is the real solution to climate change

There are to two classes of fuel. Those that have a existing production distribution and sales environment, and those that do not. The fuels with existing production distribution and sales environment are oil (gasoline, etc) and electricity. All of others do not. There is a second layer in alternative fuels. This level divides between those that rely upon one of the two established sources of fuels and those fuels which do not rely on existing fuel sources don't have a chance at being successful. The cost of developing the required energy structures are too high to construct and be successful. Now Hydrogen is a fuel that relies on an existing energy source (i.e. oil or electricity with an addition of other elements). This places Hydrogen in as a second level energy source. It is dependent on the presence of the primary fuel source. Since it is at a second level it requires conversion as well as PDS structures to produce and sell its energy. So if it relies on a primary source. Why not go directly to the primary source? This is also true for hybrid automobiles! This is why I think hybrids are a scam.

To go or not into hydrogen vehicles should be under great consideration worldwide. EV is not sustainable with many known problems so looking into hydrogen with worldwide governmental support is a better into the future.

Ther is not now nor will there be a SINGLE source to meet all energy needs. When we figure out the right questions to ask as to what our energy needs are going to be over the next 50 - 100 years then the best mix of energy resources can be developed and developed to meet those needs.

Wouldn't it make sence to look at hydrogen as a battery in passenger cars? And instead of transporting hydrogen fuel, it could be produced within the car, using electricity such as in the case of battery powered electric cars. That way fuel would not need to be transported separately, and the electric grid is already an existing insfrastructure the whole concept could rely on

We should work on producing green hydrogen. Blue and gray hydrogen depend on natural gas, so they are not green. But I am sure that we have no better alternatives than green hydrogen. We must invest in solar and wind farms, the global warming is really really a big problem threatening us, so we must act and invest in green hydrogen unless we find some cheap and easy to use alternative. In 100 years to come. I am sure the earth will be fine if governments assume responsibility and have the will to preserve our planet. We are in real danger. I think government invest on hydrogen, not because it will make net zero, but because they do not trust fossil fuels, they think fossil fuels will end. There is no good will. That is our problem

Sod hydrogen🫷, lots of funding for magnetism and gravity!.👍

It would be nice if we could store the in summer produced solar energy into hydrogen and then use it in winter.
I would love to see a subsidy for that.

Did you mention the danger to the environment when releasing hydrogen due to accidents and leaks? This can start to destroy our atmosphere's built in defense against greenhouse gasses the OH radical. Hydrogen will cancel these out in the atmosphere, It seems to me that using electrolysis to produce green hydrogen on demand under the hood so to speak is the safest way.

It takes fossil fuels to break hydrogen from other molecules. It is HIGHLY inefficient. HIGHLY INEFFICIENT.
Let's think about "green" (or not green) hydrogen critically. "To make green hydrogen, you use the energy from renewable sources such as wind energy." You "USE the energy" of green energy. You are still wasting energy to "produce" hydrogen. You still have to use energy to break the bonds. You are wasting renewable energy. That energy could be used for something more efficient rather than something far off the wall and crazy that is so volatile you have to use extreme caution to transport. Yes, you have to transport liquid hydrogen using our current methods of transport such as using big trucks (which burn diseal fuel) or railways. Hydrogen as a fuel makes zero sense and if someone tells you it does, they are lying and trying to rob you for $$$.

we can use so many energy sources that emits less pollution other than gasoline , diesel and bunker oils to power machines.

Whos watching around the 31.10.2024?
What about a mixture of different sustainable energy sources?
Having in mind, a Skyscraper - also with sustainable building materials and techniques, so less waste etc.
Using Solar, Wind and green Hydrogen Power in a closed system, would the loss of energy still be as high as -60%?
Is this even achievable in 2024 or 2025?
How long until "the train is underway"? ;)

Sarawak in East Malaysia is becoming a battery of South East Asia once the Hydrogen Plant in Bintulu Sarawak costing US$12 completed in 2027

Adding electrolysers for storage of excess production could be a good way to balance the grid. Instead of simply disconnecting wind and solar when they produce more than needed, they could keep running - just producing hydrogen locally.

Sure you can go green and produce hydrogen using water electrolysis and lots of electricity from renewable sources on a mass scale... but you might as well just cut the crap and use the electricity to power EV cars directly without the entire fuel supply chain and logistics in between.

The Hindenberg could have piped hydrogen to its engines from its thought bubble.

how about if you use nuclear power plants to create hydrogen fuel ? Also, could you have a hydrogen portable generator power an electric motor(s) ?

Why not produce alternative sinthetic fuels? Sinthetic diesel and gasoline are easy and cheaper to produce and more friendly to environ than EV

Fuel o the future 🎉

95% of hydrogen production is gray. Still. In 2024.

And now we have discovered that it leaks all over the place.

Hydrogen is a cam. Not green, not efficient, and expensive.

DW has always been one of my favorite. I used to watch DW & NHK world a lot when I was in school.

You haven't talked about Carbon Engineering based in Squamish, BC, Canada. A company that transforms the CO2 in the air into usable fuel. Basically, you cut in half the CO2 concentration in the air 2 parts converted - 1 part re-emitted by cars. It's obviously not a perfect way, but still the fastest way NOW as we still rely on fossil fuel. Only this one is not dug out of the ground, but sucked out of the air with fans. The advantage is also that we can use that technology NOW, not in 2035 like some other technologies predict.

very interesting, thank you!

Next time your battery leaks Hydro light a match, burns faster than gasoline. Becarefull, no reason we can't use hydrogen.

We should focus more on nuclear and fusion tech.

It's not hype. This is a distraction from the real "hype" of batteries.

This is the kind of hype driven by the renewables only zealots a couple years ago. Everything they say on blue vs green has been discredited. The 50% capture claim is rubbish - it’s more like 98% and electrolysers are not improving significantly. All the green projects are getting pulled because of this.

Hydrogen could be the fuel of the future. Countries in South America don’t have the technology to implement. Is been a lifetime of extraction. Is time for those individuals to accept, we can’t extract non renovables resources considering equal benefits to every particular country.

I feel that the advantages far outway the disadvantages. Futher research will bring about new break throughs in this area. Making its use the logical, energy solution. Most abundent fuel possibilities moving forward into the future.

Solar and wind seems to be a better option.

5kg of hydrogen requires a 33 gallon steel tank pressurised at 10000 psi. The steel tank is over a 100 lbs. It's a fools errand. a 33gal gas tank would hold 117 kg of gasoline...

just go nuclear dude

I did a PhD in hydrogen fuel cell electrocatalysts recently. The issue I see at the moment is that the government funding of research is directly fueling the Academia’s vicious cycle where emphasis is put on, and “success” is measured by, publications. I tried focusing my grad school research on stability problems associated with non-precious metal electrocatalysts, and I can tell you that the idea of showing degradation is not taken well by the community, who is as a whole just riding a wave of juicy grants to produce, at best, questionable results.

Why do we need "ONE SOLUTION RIGHT NOW TODAY FOR EVERYTHING"???? My thought is with the variety of energy sources in the world, some regions will do better with hydro generation, some with wind/solar, and others with what is available regionally. The needed scale of generation must be considered as well. The objective is NOT a one world solution, the true objective should be to use what works where you are. If that is a multiplicity of fuel sources and fuel carriers, then use what works best where you are today, and keep watch to see if there is a better solution tomorrow.

It's completely pathetic! This isn't about clean renewable energy. This is about the fact that WE WILL RUN OUT OF GASOLINE! Our attempts at replacing it are pathetic and sad. Making money is the main concern in our civilization, and it might drive us to extinction!

Sorry guys coz some time my develop looks like a monopoly but i just to say .. the time my develop my partner need to get food and fck so how can i conservative and consentret to the development products from my trademark model.

Talking about electric batteries as an alternative to hydrogen fuel cells means further innovation of those electric batteries. Lithium ion batteries have a negative impact that is just as bad as H2 fuel cells, when considering their life cycle. Further research must be done into sodium ion and flow batteries in order to make them a more sustainable alternative to hydrogen.

An untapped energy resource seems to be the 24/7 availability of tidal energy. It is certainly more available than geothermal, also not enough
investigated!

If you need electricity to make hydrogen into a fuel, why not just use the electricity to run electric engines.

Green energy to make hydrogen to put in fuel cells to run cars really ! what a waste . While it takes around 50 KWHs to produce just 1 kg of hydrogen it simply doesn’t make sense.

Climate change is just the latest money spinner. Simple fact electricity generation apart from solar panels its all coming from power turbines. So effectivly locomotive technology is used regardless of powering it by nuclear reactions to boil the kettel.
But its all about profits no one listens when you tell them all the tecnology nessisary is avalible and time tested yet its not about energy because otherwise we wouldnt have anything to complain about its about maintaining control maintaining power.

What do you make of the hydrogen hype?