Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Economy

[@caygill2]

KZbin's most underrated channel?

[@4thgradedropout980]

Without question. This and AvE

[@Batzoid]

indeed

[@joseylastborn8790]

@@Batzoid so says a elementary school dropout and gamer who watch Fox News I take it exclusively when not accidentally tripping on a video like this looking for something new in the game news world?

[@Batzoid]

not a drop out just someone who didn't go to collage. I wonder what comment I made that brought you here. I doubt this one did. I'll respect you enough not to judge you based on who you subbed to years ago. actually I don't reason with KZbin comments. see you in 8 months

[@joseylastborn8790]

@@Batzoid I don't have any clue about the alliteration or seriation of the eight months following I guess the sarcastically expressed condescension but there was something I could offer from the get-go here please stand by just a few seconds. Yes reading my comment I see that the word tripping needs to be owned as serendipitously only applying as to recreational used when I dictated that word last night it's second meaning had no awareness but I like it. Once again though my lack of drug use besides the photons waking up generate has me without any short-term memory whatsoever as to what I want to say so for the third time I hope to conclude this response which is initial in just a moment. I have not judge to anybody by what they prescribed to rather I was taught in rhetoric if you wish to praise then you should have something in terms of standing if it doesn't intend to disrespect. The number of ambiguities in terms of trying to understand what you mean is very very high coincidentally after I was similarly insulted Knock by the person who started out that way recently so dealing with that Fiasco is my higher priority. In terms of branding your basic science knowledge this channel is not epically quality assured. I believe in there narrow casting and I'm deeply troubled by my comments here however cryptically defensible they might be but over a period of some months now I find this professor to have an insecurities and aggression all but proving he is bought and sold. Now he distinguishes clearly enough between the two technologies for getting electricity from gas but his mention of the hydrogen in the Bloom Box has become dated I think although the litigation preceded it. There is a shorthand that is also troubling on the professor's part not just mine. Bloom boxes are used on the regular grid not just microgrids privately owned and if you benefit from lack of competition you're going to support microgrids even though microgrids could offer diversity and greater competition not be a shelter for the wrongful monopolies thriving. the problem with the grid is it inherent need for storage. grids Rock that have inherent storage for example a pressurized air grid has a inherent storage. Liquid nitrogen used Too Cool reactors in an emergency and Spike the amount of work that you can do with the heat from fission or like what Google did with razor blades to build back bone from wing bone of hummingbirds. People who go for cash after an American K through 12 because it's so tempting are the worst kind of wealthy especially when they associate with the downtrodden not just hooking.

[@hitmewitdarock]

The Bob Ross of Energy.

[@broderickcamel1701]

Got the exact same vibe

[@NOBOX7]

No this is some Norb andy grade action

[@cmas-astronomy4715]

You are the kind of professor that makes a student want to attend UI at UC! Great set of videos and they very much remind me of Prof. Muller's Physics for future Presidents @ UCB. Kudos and keep up the great lessons for those of us that are life long learners.

[@sternpunkterdung1420]

Love this video series. Combined Cycle power plants have a much higher efficiency like 50% to 60%.

[@sternpunkterdung1420]

That one I'm working at, has about 59%. It uses 2 Siemens SGT5 4000F gas turbines.

[@MaxPower-11]

Sternpunkterdung True, although you need to take into consideration that there are no electric transmission losses. Also, the system probably warms up faster than the steam cycle of a combined cycle system and as such might be more flexible with respect to power dispatching.

[@srour87]

high temp fuel cells can reach to 85% effeciancy if you apply heat recovery.

[@haliax8149]

@@srour87 I've wondered how that heat would be useful though. Is there enough to run the brayton cycle?

[@usingthecharlim]

The prof is more accurate here. Siemens and GE like to lie by using lower heating value to shaft power. However, real efficiency is HHV, which is 0.9xLHV. And shaft power needs to be converted. Then you add in generator/transformer losses, energy use on-site for pumping water and starting losses. Real efficiency is 49% for UK CCGT, which is typical.

[@tomkelly8827]

Can you cover OTEC next? Ocean Thermal Energy Converters. In the ocean, where it is deep and there is a large temperature gradient between the top and bottom of the ocean, a gas like propane or butane can be boiled by the warm surface water and condensed by the cold bottom water and a turbine can be driven by the boiling gas. There are some in India and Japan and one in Hawaii

[@chrisE815]

Did he ever do a video?

[@bernardcwalsh]

About 26 years ago I got a job as a temporary "manufacturing technician". We manufactured Molten Carbon Fuel Cells (MCFCs). So much fun! Working with many engineers from University of Illinois. We made the Anodes, Cathodes, membranes and Matrix components and assembled them. The technology has seemingly been abandoned. As far as I can tell. To impracticable.

[@jimj2683]

Is it possible to make a fuel cell system that can use hydrocarbons (for their superb energy density)? I understand it is possible to reform the fuel and extract the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell, but then the energy from the carbon is lost. Is it possible to push the carbon atoms through one type of fuel cell while pushing the hydrogen atoms through another fuel cell?

[@philipmurtagh5093]

I love this man's lecturing style and content. Excellent. I do have a little bone to pick on this one however. The numbers are a bit out of date and we have neglected the rather large cost of burying or storing away the CO2. Let's face it.. we have to dump this stuff and CH4 is even worse as a GHG. Green H2 from electrolysis has come on by leaps and bounds heading to zero precious metals and getting down to less than 8 cents per kWh. And I think the FC life is improving as well...a big issue. The reason green energy from wind and solar is still pricey is that curtailed output is so high. Storing it economically is now possible and we have no CO2 sequestration to worry about.

[@mrblack888]

Making low CO2 your goal with energy production is just stupid though, as all industrial scale energy production is going to create a lot of CO2. Cost should be the only factor, then the market will do it's work.

[@BentHestad]

Excellent lecture! Thanks, professor! Great channel! Greetings from Trondheim, Norway!

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

Hydrogen economy: Perhaps for heavy vehicles the disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells will be less than the disadvantages of chemical batteries. The long recharge times and low energy mass-density of batteries are fairly small problems for a family car, but become much more significant for commercial heavy vehicles. Also, in a future where major energy sources are intermittent, there is a place for industries which have high energy demand but low capital costs and easily stored products. This allows running your production facilities intermittently only when electricity is very cheap. Generating hydrogen could be such an industry. (Water desalination might be another.) While these arguments are plausible, I don't know if the economics will work in real life.

[@petert3355]

The comments regarding the family car is very dependant on what country you live in. For a country like the UK, a 400 mile max range, is more than adequate for general use. For a country like Australia or the US, a 400 mile range means that for a large part of the usage of said car, recharging is required during the trip, and a 1 to 8 hour recharge cycle becomes a serious problem.

[@muntee33]

Our country is moving towards massive renewable energy harvesting infrastructure to be utilised in conjunction with hydrogen production facilities to satisfy industrial needs such as shipping, mining, electricity production... etc etc. Hydrogen IS the way of the future. Just not for people that operate independently if Hydrogen powered their private transport. (Ie; Hydrogen can be made at home... and populations exploiting this principle would be immune to external influences designed to maintain control and intentions over a specific/wider population. Be a bastard if international sanctions had zero effect or reason for concern for a ‘rouge’ sector of a governments society.)

[@AnalystPrime]

@@petert3355 It's true you need to recharge during a long road trip, but most people do not drive hundreds of miles each day, or even each week. Even those who do can easily charge their car because they would still stop at a gas station during that trip if they use an ICE. And believe me, if you have just driven hundreds of miles in one sitting you don't just want to stop for five minutes, you will want to use the toilet and probably eat something, and if it takes extra five minutes after that to charge your batteries to full anyone with first grade math skills can tell you that your trip does not get catastrophically delayed by waiting for less time than you spent stuck at red lights during your trip so far. Also, sitting still for a long time is a health hazard, that's why you shouldn't stay in front of a computer for the whole day either. OTOH, with general infrastructure improvements chances are it will be easier to put your car on a train and do that trip of hundreds of miles in cheap comfort instead of risking a drive in bad weather and dodging roos. Or fly, as planes will also switch to using H2 or electricity. There are really very few reasons why you would want to bring your own car along when renting one only for the time you use it is cheaper. Eventually people will have to admit that they are not going to need a car that can cross Sahara without stopping in their everyday life, and if they ever feel a need to drive across Sahara they should not use the family car meant for short shopping trips for that.

[@petert3355]

@@AnalystPrime fair comment, but none of that addresses my point. You speak of ICE rapid charging, yes they can "fully" recharge the lithium ion batteries in about 15 mins. Latest information I have on that technology is that it also damages the lifespan of the battery and capacity by 1-2% each time. Not sure people will accept that. As for general infrastructure projects like rail, tell me exactly how many new rail lines are being built right now in lets say Australia? This is my point, small country, small distances, electric cars make sense. Freaking huge country, huge distances, electric cars don't. Hydrogen fuel cells do though.

[@AnalystPrime]

@@petert3355 Huge distance + single payment for building a railroad = Greatly lowered transport costs and faster travel times. Also, a million people do not buy a new car every couple of years, which is one reason why it is not popular. Another is that the current administration probably won't be in power when it is ready and working, so politicians generally cannot be trusted to do anything about infrastructure.

[@yamilabugattas3895]

Excellent video, really interesting. It would be great to update the numbers to 2019.

[@kenbridgeman8590]

I went to the University of Illinois, many eons ago, and never, unfortunately, had such a great professor.

[@markolenin]

Best Professor ever!!!

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

The Bloom Box elements are supposed to last 10 years, but is that 10 years of continuously producing the full 100 kW? If not, then the price per kWh goes up accordingly.

[@stevescholey3479]

I really appreciate this video. Also understanding the economics and Hydrogen manufacture technology will change with time. CO2 reduction and healthy planet are key requirements. How can fuel cells or any other invention to be invented fix this requirement (open question) ? I wish I new the answer.

[@eugeneleroux1842]

Thank you for a well explained presentation.

[@kibashisiyoto6771]

Ballard Power says their PEM fuel cell membranes are good for 30,000 hours now. They are typically designed for transport applications. You can get devices to create hydrogen through electrolysis for 1 kg of hydrogen (energy equivalent of a gallon of gas) it takes 55 kwh of electric energy to produce and pressurize.

[@joecraven2034]

Brilliant! Love these videos. So where does the waste heat go from an 800 degree machine? Is it recaptured somehow? During winter in Minnesota I can think of some uses.

[@timlindsey4326]

The near term prospects are actually better for large scale transportation (semi trucks, locomotives, ships) than grid storage. The Tesla semi truck requires a 13 ton battery pack. The Nikola fuel cell semi truck replaces that ballast with < 200 pounds of H2 and achieves nearly twice the range.

[@waynerussell6401]

That didn't age well!

[@timlindsey4326]

@@waynerussell6401 $300 billion in pending projects globally is a good start. www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/021821-global-hydrogen-projects-accelerating-with-300-billion-proposed-investment-report

[@waynerussell6401]

@@timlindsey4326 "The Tesla semi truck requires a 13 ton battery pack. The Nikola fuel cell semi truck replaces that ballast with < 200 pounds of H2 and achieves nearly twice the range." My concern is the lies.

[@timlindsey4326]

Wayne Russell those estimates are from a peer reviewed paper written by scientists at Carnegie-Mellon.

[@waynerussell6401]

@@timlindsey4326 Putting aside the much documented arguments around the inefficiency, cost, and safety of a hydrogen economy and the close partnership of Shell and Saad Al Matwi with Carnegie-Mellon, my argument is with you disseminating the quoted falsehoods. The head of Trucking Jerome has stated in many presentations that the Semi has the same load capacity as a diesel equivalent. Testers of the prototypes have verified this. The weight of a Semi battery pack has been calculated at 5 tons, with a short term likely 3.5 tons with the likes of a 4680 cell pack. The Nickola claims are bogus. They lied they had a working prototype. Totally discredited company with the ex CEO under SEC investigation. cleantechnica.com/files/2021/02/Why-Battery-Electric-Vehicles-Beat-Hydrogen-Electric-Vehicles.jpeg carbuzz.com/news/tesla-was-not-lying-about-semi-truck-s-performance-specs kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIu3dJqKqcuCfZY twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1323932811414437888/photo/1 hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/

[@luiz11091109]

Good presentation but please update some of the information. A typical NG combined cycle plant today surpasses 60% overall thermal efficiency and not 40% as stated

[@wendlerkurt]

I invested in Bloom Energy recently. Glad to see the technology being promoted.

[@ankitvatsa769]

How much profit till now?

[@wendlerkurt]

@@ankitvatsa769 100% gain

[@Kruglord]

Hey, here's a question I haven't heard addressed yet. I heard on the radio that a new technology is able to produce hydrogen from oil (that part is old news), but it does so in the reservoir, so the H2 comes out but all the carbon rich compounds stay underground. If I'm not mistaken, that sort of process is like digging hydrogen out of the ground. Would that be able to change the nature of the hydrogen economy?

[@karlreisa3872]

Kruglord its either energyintensive because you heat it and produce h2 and coke or you produce gaseous carbon co /co2 which is difficult to keep in. The well

[@jimj2683]

The last part of the video is the most important. Many places around the world have terribly expensive electricity. Then the hydrogen imported will probably be more economical than using a BEV.

[@sarcasmo57]

Didn't realise that I needed to know that. But now I do.

[@tadashiogitsu]

When renewable energy sources occupy significant amount of our total energy supply system, intermittency of the energy sources will necessitate scalable energy storage system. It is for this reason, hydrogen is considered to be an important energy carrier. In particular, for renewable energy resource poor countries, I cannot think of the other ways to import CO2 free energy. Assumption about using fossil fuel as source of hydrogen as *permanent solution* is generally held misconception about the use of hydrogen. Otherwise, this lecture is very informative and helpful.

[@dragoraan7247]

Any chance you can discuss LENR as a possible 3rd type of nuclear reaction? Would love to hear the Prof's thoughts on it. Thanks for the videos. Cheers.

[@ChitranjanBaghiofficial]

I loved this video, please make more videos about energy carriers and hydrocarbons. I wonder if fuel cell can be made as efficienct as electric batteries without CHP.

[@douglasfilipack1747]

man, how this video have only 127 views??

[@Fingolfin3423]

Great teacher.

[@JandCanO]

If it runs at 800 C could you use the excess heat to run a turbine? Just thinking of ways this can go in a bigger system

[@carljaekle]

What about using hydrogen in aircraft, either to be burned in place of jet fuel or used in light weight fuel cells? Is this possible, likely?

[@benterrell9139]

I think you need to consider energy density. The hydrogen tanks on the aircraft would possibly be too big.

[@carljaekle]

Ben Terrell It would have to be cryogenic Hydrogen, liquified. Batteries have very low energy density. What’s the alternative?

[@MrTkharris]

@@carljaekle Even liquid hydrogen has a very low volumetric energy density, better than LI batteries but still rather low. It may seem counterintuitive, but kerosene (the main component of typical jet fuel) has much more hydrogen in it than liquid hydrogen does. Roughly speaking, this is because kerosene packs like 20-40 hydrogen atoms per molecule while hydrogen only has 2. Energy density of kerosene is ~ 33 MJ/L, liquid hydrogen is lighter, but only ~ 10 MJ/L. So you'd need a huge cryogenic tank for the same flight. Even if you could hydrogen at the same price per joule as kerosene we wouldn't use it in planes. This is not to mention that hydrogen burns hotter so you'd need special materials in your engines and you'd need to replace them more often. Also, hydrogen is explosive whereas kerosene is a kind of diesel that is hard to combust at room temperature. Nobody wants another Hindenburg so there would be a lot of safety concerns to address. Nothing beats hydrogen for specific impulse, which is why it's sometimes used in rockets. It was the fuel for the Space Shuttle's main engines. Recall the size of that tank, btw. Even so it appears that methane is beating out hydrogen in modern liquid rocket engine designs because of the volumetric energy density problem with hydrogen.

[@carljaekle]

@@MrTkharris By volume, liquid hydrogen has low energy density, but by weight it has high energy density. The prime advantage of using hydrogen would be that it produces no carbon dioxide when it is used in a fuel cell. Use of a carbon based fuel, like jet fuel, or kerosene, and burning it obviously produces a lot of CO2.

[@artiefischel2579]

I'm confused about the 800 C temperature. Do you mean that's the waste heat it generates, or that's the temperature you have to maintain in order for the reaction to occur ? Because if it's the first, can't you reclaim some of that?

[@usingthecharlim]

Both. The process releases heat, ~50% is waste heat (~50% efficiency). But the process needs to be 800C, which is maintained while its running, but requires a start-up process otherwise. The waste heat can be used, but its typically isn't.

[@MrTkharris]

The short answer is both, and yes, but to give you some perspective, in a typical car you get about 20% of your chemical energy to the wheels, about 50% is radiated through the radiator and everywhere else on the engine, and the remaining 30% goes out the exhaust (at around 400C). The average American car is around 200HP, so you get 300HP of heat energy out the exhaust, which is like 220 KW. Since he said that the device is rated for 100KW at 50% efficiency, you're going to get 100 KW of waste heat per second at max load. And that would be true of any 50% efficient device for whatever that device's operating temperature is. I imagine that these boxes are well insulated to protect people and also so that they can maintain the operating temperature, and that most of that 100 KW of heat energy comes out the exhaust pipe. So pretty much every car is venting about twice as much hot gas heat energy as one of these boxes does. For some physics pedantics, and maybe get at the actual root of the confusion, temperature is measured in degrees C or F or equivalent; heat is measured in Joules or BTU or equivalent. So if you hear a physicist talking about temperature, they are not making any statements about heat energy. A low density plasma with a very high temperature could have a lower total heat energy than a cold milkshake of the same volume, for instance.

[@alexw6311]

Won't you get a bunch of ammonia as a byproduct as well if you just use air as a gradient as opposed to concentrated oxygen?

[@haliax8149]

No. That would be a godsend though, as the Haber-bosch process is expensive to run. The separation of the N2 nitrogen bond requires energy, and since there is no energy input here that's impossible to perform.

[@Damocles16]

Oh, yeah! I know all about fuel cells : I've watched Apollo 13. Plus the flight director's loop with real time commentaries! You need to put all fuel cells on battery A, then shut it off to keep some power for re-entry. Easy as a power surge in a RBMK reactor!

[@dogphlap6749]

Thank you. Just how long will the current crop of automotive hydrogen fuel cell membranes last either in years or better yet in kWh or in Joules ?

[@kibashisiyoto6771]

Ballard Power says 30,000 hours for their newest version.

[@dogphlap6749]

@@kibashisiyoto6771 Thank you 30,000 hours is roughly 3.5 years. I'm assuming that must be lifetime since first exposure to H2. Armed with the name Ballard Power I did a search and came up with the figures of 5,000 to 10,000 hours of use for those cells in current production H2 fuelled vehicles or 225,000 to 450,000 miles at an average speed of 45 mph. Better than I expected.

[@kaya051285]

Many of your videos are good but some of the information you cite seems completely incorrect which makes me wonder what else is incorrect. For instance you suggest a combined cycle natural gas plant is about 40% efficient which does not correspond to other information on the net which says new CCGTs are 60-63% efficient. The difference between what you say and what the utilities say is huge

[@erik7726]

Also, he calls PEM fuel cells toys, which is ridiculous. The current Toyota PEM fuel cells weigh 50 kg, is 100 kW power, and fits under the passenger seat of the Mirai car. The amount of platinum in a modern cell is abount same as in a diesel catalyzer. Already quite mature and practical tech.

[@pyreaurum676]

I could be wrong but I believe these were all filmed in 2015 or before which could explain the differences.

[@MarkAShaw64]

Correct, he has just done a Q&A session and he refers to the fact that all the videos were done quite a few years ago.

[@TonboIV]

@@erik7726 Hydrogen cars are still nonsense though, because you need electricity to make the Hydrogen, and between the electrolysis and the fuel cell, most of the electricity you put in is lost. If you use electricity to charge a battery instead of make Hydrogen you can get better than 80% efficiency. Hydrogen cars only start to make sense if you have a huge supply of very cheap, non-polluting electricity you can afford to use very inefficiently for the sake of convenience.

[@treizTUBE]

Hydrogen solves the energy storage problem, the fact that it isn't as energy efficient as electricity is off set by the faster charging times and cost reduction of not having a massive battery on board, etc etc etc.

[@justgivemethetruth]

But what about the cost to heat the Bloom Box up to 800 C? That must take energy too ... how does that add into the total cost of ownership?

[@AufBerghofNAM]

just ignore the bloom box

[@km5405]

the price of the raw solar panels is quite low. how feasible would a electrolyzing facility be that generates hydrogen during the day by just using the DC output directly?

[@km5405]

solid oxide fuel cells would be 50% efficient or more efficient. so it would have a net efficiency of 25%. the real point you would do this is it simplifies the system you need. just water and directly connected solar panels. the result is generally more portable fuel. .... using the waste heat or some more sunlight to heat and put the water under pressure is not a very high tech operation either and might make it more efficient, for pressurizing clever tricks with hydrostatic pressure could be employed to create hydrogen gas under pressure without having to run a seperate gas compression system .... one option that might be better still is to refactor the H2 into CH4 using CO2 from the air in a simple process as its easier to handle and works readily in available infrastructure.

[@WayneSmith-lo8be]

Thirty years ago, Exxon created a way to put GASOLINE in a vehicle, break off the HYDROGENS to run a hydrogen engine. When one goes to another gas station, the CARBON is removed and disposed and the vehicle is again filled with GASOLINE. This was meant to be an interim way of weaning us off of GASOLINE. Exxon also created linings for electric batteries that were light by stronger so as to allow for electric VEHICLES to be economical and/or increase miles one can operate an electric vehicle.

[@MrDwschofield]

How about the cost to heat the Bloombox?

[@Fox_McCloud]

Aren't there now (as of 2021) combined-cycled natural gas plants that exceed 60% efficiency?

[@thomassarigiannis]

Yep. Even 63%

[@maxheadshot3287]

I missed the costs of maintaining a temperature of 800° at the end.

[@Kiyarose3999]

The UK HFC company could ‘Ceres’ has developed and manufacture HFC that only require a Steel plate with a Ceramic coating on one side, no Platinum etc!.Also Combined Heat and Power HFC ( CHP-HFC) make HFC technology very efficient for domestic and small buildings etc.

[@nathanhaiduk2957]

Does it provide 3 phases

[@browir1098]

thank you for wonderful insight

[@nikodimaleshkin7689]

Professor, Thank you for the lessons. I regret that I can not be you student. One question. If you burn 1m3 of hydrogen you get 3 times more of Kkal of energy than burning gasoline. My question is - if what energy you get just only taking 1 electron? How is it energy effective vs burning. Thank you for the answer.

[@abstractexchange5057]

Hydrogen is the only right energy carrier on the earth in the present era. No other variant. In far future, hydrogen is the necessary prerequisite for new future fuel of energy. It is the mass. Any mass materials can become fuel for energy by the similar formula E=mc2. To convert compound material to energy, it is comfortable firstly to split compound materials to the simplest form- the hydrogen, then convert hydrogen into energy with more percentages. Nuclear fusion reactors can generate energy from hydrogen (isotope), but it is only a very partial case of human known form of converting material to energy by E=mc2. Hydrogen is not only the most abundant element in the universe, but also the most simple basic element in the universe. So hydrogen is the key factor for almost future high energy technologies. It is now the time to stop any doubts about up-coming hydrogen era. It is right now the time to accelerate and race hydrogen economy and technologies. There must be now 2 waves for hydrogen : 1/BUILD HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FACTORIES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY STATIONS, AND EVEN FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY STATIONS, FOR NUCLEAR FUSION ENERGY REACTORS. If build networks of regional hydrogen production factories, then any townhouses will have small stable lucrative business of selling electricity to network of hydrogen production factories anytime by equipping household small solar farms (200m2) very cheaply because of no batteries. All cities can go to the new global trend of CITY RENEWABLE ENERGY ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE, in which all roads will have photovoltaic top roofs at the centers along roads with roof pillars along center lines of roads. CITY RENEWABLE ENERGY ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE urges installing all renewable generating devices/systems anywhere, then sell electricity to networks of regional hydrogen productions factories. Any city houses and buildings can install photovoltaic top roofs to automatically sell electricity to networks of regional hydrogen production factories, and no problem of wasting excess energy, no battery necessary. 2/ In storing hydrogen and distributing hydrogen, we must use standard sized compressed hydrogen gas canisters parallelly with other methods, for example, pipeline transfer and hydrogen liquid storing. Produce standard sized compressed hydrogen canisters. Distribute standard sized compressed hydrogen canisters everywhere. Buy hydrogen by exchanging empty standard sized canisters for standard sized full compressed hydrogen canisters. This method of exchanging is not the most effective, but is the easy and reasonable way to distribute hydrogen anywhere. Any mini shops can be warehouses for hydrogen canisters. For example, a mini shop can store 300 standard sized compressed hydrogen canisters. If it does 50 exchangings of hydrogen canisters per day, then it is normal small retail business. Motorcycles and human sized robots and machines require only comfortable small sized compressed hydrogen canisters. I guarantee that producing compressed hydrogen balloons is easier and cheaper than producing AAA batteries. Hydrogen can seep through small gaps of cheap material, but if hydrogen leaks 1gr-10gr per month for balloon 1kg, then it is not a problem. We can not build hydrogen loading stations anywhere, we can just build hydrogen loading stations in important places, but we can distribute hydrogen canisters anywhere in any angles of societies. Hydrogen has energy storage coefficient, which is nearly the maximum limit for all known chemical mechanisms. It means that ALL FUTURE POSSIBLE CHEMICAL BATTERIES WILL HAVE ENERGY STORAGE COEFFICIENT LESS THAN HYDROGEN. So . ANY HUMAN SIZED MOBILITY ROBOTS AND DRONES MUST BE POWERED BY HYDROGEN. A lot of army vehicles must be powered by hydrogen too, because of efficiency, even without counting environment profit. The most economic fuel for passenger aircrafts is hydrogen. New concept of hydrogen battery, which is the combination of hydrogen production factory + hydrogen fuel cell module. In very compact small spaces, people still can not construct hydrogen batteries. But in larger spaces, for example in areas of energy plants, people do already can construct hydrogen batteries. Should note that hydrogen battery has best energy storage coefficient, best energy converting coefficient, best energy powering coefficient for almost future possible chemical batteries. It means that all future possible chemical batteries will have less energy storage coefficient, less energy conversion coefficient, less energy powering coefficient. It also means that all companies, for example Tesla, should take ready hydrogen batteries for energy plants instead of their "mind bogglingly stupid" doing and improving other chemical batteries for energy stations. Many people, especially EU governments still do not estimate enough important role of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the key factor for renewable energy in offshore and building marine society. Far offshore wind energy, ocean wave energy, tidal energy and even ocean solar energy must live with hydrogen. Hydrogen is the key factor for energy-autonomous floating offshore social ocean units too. It is impossible to effectively use ocean energy without hydrogen. HYDROGEN ECONOMY WILL CHANGE GEOPOLICY IN EU, because hydrogen economy is the most reliable way to make EU to be less depended on gas suppliers for winter warming. Best cooking is powered by hydrogen fuel cell, because our traditional cooking creates toxic CO2 + NOx directly in apartments. When we use more renewable energy and turn off fossil stations, we need some reserved solution to reduce consequences of disasters, it is the hydrogen storing and distributing. If we use more nuclear energy or even nuclear fusion energy, then hydrogen is a must have, because it is not effective to continuously vary power of nuclear energy stations, so there are always excess energy from nuclear stations into hydrogen. Hydrogen is best intermediate energy carrier for storing and distributing on the earth, especially when combining hydrogen storing and distributing with nuclear energy stations. Hydrogen is the only possible instrument to import and export renewable energy worldwide. You can not pack all energy of period 3 months of solar farms into chemical batteries, but you can pack all them into hydrogen to sell or distribute hydrogen worldwide. It is normal to setup mind that many renewable energy stations are EXCLUSIVE ONLY FOR PRODUCING HYDROGEN, BUT NOT FOR GENERATING DIRECTLY ELECTRICITY. I think that international corporations, especially EU governments, Japan, Korea should soon cooperate with African countries and middle east countries to build network of solar plants + hydrogen production factories for the exclusive business purpose : producing hydrogen and selling hydrogen. America and China, Australia have very big resources of renewable energy (solar, wind), and they can harness much only with hydrogen, then can be big hydrogen exporters too. Many people complain that it takes so much electricity to receive hydrogen in electrolysis process. Maybe they have offside worry. Electrolysis process requires so much energy, but all energy is transferred into chemical energy of hydrogen with very small loss. In other direction, hydrogen fuel cell extracting all chemical energy of hydrogen directly into electricity with very small loss. The most remarkable difficulty of hydrogen is storing hydrogen. We need some energy to pack hydrogen. But even with that, many detailed countings show that the cost of hydrogen from renewable energy can soon be lower than gas in near future. In the hydrogen economy, battery electric vehicles can be useful too. But hydrogen vehicles can be as popular as battery electric vehicles in the near future when there are much hydrogen production factories worldwide. Hydrogen cars even can be more popular than battery cars. Many people laugh and doubt about the future popularity of hydrogen cars, they list some reasons, for example, high energy cost. But the main reason of the future popularity of hydrogen cars is not in hydrogen cars. The reason is that, people must use hydrogen as the only reasonable artificial energy carrier on the earth. Any comparisons between battery cars and hydrogen cars are no meaning right now, because we do not have hydrogen now. (We have very less hydrogen, and we are still using fossil fuel). But when we tend to stop fossil fuel, then we must produce a lot of hydrogen. Renewable energy is volatile. Nuclear energy can not continuously change power. Energy itself is volatile too, but only energy carriers are stable. We must synthesize our artificial energy carrier, which is hydrogen, when we stop using natural energy carriers, which are natural gas and oils. So we will have a lot of hydrogen in the future. And the question is that what will you do with hydrogen in transport ? The usual answer is that we will use hydrogen to generate electricity to charge our battery electric vehicles. It is acceptable answer, but it is not so good answer. The other answer is that we can use directly hydrogen in hydrogen cars. When we stop fossil fuel, then of course you will charge your battery cars at night time from hydrogen. The forever uncomfortable problem of charging time of battery cars will be the forever reason for a lot of people to use hydrogen cars. Small battery cars have battery weight about 500kg while hydrogen tanks have weight about 40-100kg. And the last thing to note is that, hydrogen is not more dangerous than other gases and petrol. Hydrogen has big energy storage capacity, but when burning hydrogen in accidents, IT DOES NOT CREATE ACOUSTIC DESTRUCTING WAVE TO ENVIRONMENTS. It means that hydrogen burning is less destructive than gasoline burning.

[@sonpham2577]

And Thermochemical cycle has much more efficiency (50-60%) than solar PV.

[@MrEuroWolfie]

@abstractexchange5057 Hi there - would you please let me know where could I read more about this information you shared in your post 4 years ago? Is there a website or book that you can refer me to more details on this subject?

[@abstractexchange5057]

@@MrEuroWolfie hi, they are sophisticated info in content. But there be no particular literatures .

[@tarjei99]

What is the cost of the heat? Does the system generate its own heat? What about cooling?

[@lazarus2691]

Fuel cells generate a fair amount of heat. About half as much as a comparably powerful combustion engine, which ought to still be enough for cabin heating purposes and such. Cooling is acheived in much the same way as a regular car, with a radiator, albeit a slightly smaller one.

[@thatyougoon1785]

if you would also use it in a location with a high demand for heating, you can place it inside and get electricity as well as heat, just have to make sure the exhaust can be lead to the open air. I'm not so much for fuel cells though as an energy source. It still pollutes, which I hope we can all agree on must be stopped. However, if you can use them in the combination of electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, I'm all for it. Of course, this process is very energy wasteful, but if you place the process inside where heating is required and you use it to balance the grid by taking in energy when there is a surplus and putting it back on the grid when there is a shortage, I'm a 100% for it. Hydrogen however still requires storage, which requires space, materials, and energy. This problem could partially be solved by placing it underground and use it as premium long-term energy storage and act as a peaker plant. Expensive, but better than long term energy storage in batteries.

[@haliax8149]

A synthetic fuel economy is a far better option. These should be used as generators and nothing more. A fuel cell that burns methanol would be 100% ideal.

[@Jim89M]

Can we use these methane fuel cells to power electric ships?. Is it economically feasible?. I can imagine an electric cargo ship that utilises magnus effect rotor sails, fuel cells and is covered with solar panels.. minimum pollution, as methane is much cleaner than heavy sulfur marine oil the marine industry currently uses, no oil spills and much more efficient

[@lannesromain1453]

Want some additional could info? Hydrogen Gradient is the main way your cells make Energy!

[@lcan4296]

What about the neutrons?

[@JustNow42]

Hydrogen is also usefull in itself, In Japan they are heavy into H cars and filling stations. The thing with methane is that it emits CO2 and that is absolutely something we do not want.

[@timrosencrans7955]

That assumes you are producing the methane as fuel. If you are diverting it from the atmosphere buy collecting it. The CO2 from it’s use is far more desirable than it’s release. ANd it is far less CO2 than gasoline produces. A fuel cell reduces that even more I would guess a methane fuel cell produces less than 1/4 the CO2 of a gas engine.

[@JustNow42]

@@timrosencrans7955 CO2 is bad however you produse it.

[@timrosencrans7955]

Ole Stilling no it’s not. Excess CO2 is as a greenhouse gas. But Methane is much worse.

[@hurc661966]

Cars are beginning to have built-in solar panels. It should run an atmospheric water generator to constantly collect water that will be used for drinking and growing plants and trees for food. If you miniaturized a water splitter you could run a fuel cell (Electric) vehicle. Yes........ " WATER " the wonder fuel for all things. Start the hydrogen economy. We can do this!......

[@lazarus2691]

Atmospheric water generators are horrendously ineffcient, about a dozen times more power hungry than desalination. They are only useful in niche locations. It would make a lot more sense to just collect rain from the car's roof. Even then, it doesn't make much sense. Cars have a lot less roof space than houses. If your goal is to collect rainwater for drinking or plants, then collect and filter it at home. If you want to make fuel, collect and split it at home. Also, most houses don't need to worry about getting worse milage from added weight, on acount of them not driving around very much.

[@hurc661966]

@@lazarus2691 Then we will naturally make all components not only more efficient but also multi-functional. Most of the earth's population is located mostly near the coast where it is humid and there is plenty of water. An atmospheric water generator would work well there. Or you could just find a place to fill your tank with water. Just about any facility should have a water spigot . You could propably ever piss in the tank and run it through the filters and split it to make on demand hydrogen to power you car. What do you think?

[@daniellittle7846]

I would use hydrogen fuel cells as more efficient batteries for grid-scale energy storage so you can provide grid stability.

[@TileBitan]

but that aint efficient. The energy lost in charging up batteries is low. The energy lost in electrolysing water is inmense, it is a horribly inefficient reaction. It's better to use mechanical moving parts and using some kind of potential or just spin a wheel. These are viable cause the energy lost at the mechanical-electricity conversion is low.

[@antaresmc4407]

PuMpEd HyDrO

[@saceves3925]

you have to think more carefully about the advantages of hydrogen and not get stuck on simplistic considerations like "batteries are more efficient." Hydrogen does have advantages for vehicle propulsion despite lower production efficiency (to be accomplished in the future from solar energy so no emissions). Advantages of hydrogen include: (1) 5 minute refuels vs. hours for EVs, and (2) tanks are cheaper and lighter than batteries. An economic and practical evaluation will show that this is the way to go, and the case for hydrogen gets better and better as you move to larger vehicles like buses and heavy trucks that consume a lot of energy and are continuously on the road.

[@lazarus2691]

>5 minute refuels vs. hours for EVs The Model 3 can charge from 0 to 80% in 30 minutes, and the Porsche Taycan can do the same in 25 minutes. That's not 5 minutes, but it's not 'hours' either. And there's no reason to expect that this won't continue to improve. There's also the counterintuitive fact that the average person will usually spend less time *waiting* for an EV to charge than they would a gas or hydrogen car. Because most of the time, people are refueling after driving around their local area for several days, not on roadtrips. This means that if they can charge at home and/or work, they would never be waiting for the car to charge in the same way one stands at the pump waiting for a gas car to refuel. Now yes, on roadtrips it is the case that they will be waiting for 30 minutes or so, but statistically this represents only a small percentage of cases. BEVs make more sense for 80-90% of people who have access to charging at home or work, and don't regularly travel furthur than their daily commute. > tanks are cheaper and lighter than batteries But tanks do not a FCV make. The battery in a BEV is equivalent to the entire fuel cell stack in a FCV, since both have the same function of supplying electricity to the electric motor. And once you acount for the fuel cell, air intake, filter, and various pumps, the comparison is not so favourable. Compare the Tesla Model 3 LR RWD to the Toyota Mirai. The Model 3 has a slightly higher range of 325 miles to the Mirai's 312, yet it weighs less, 1726kg vs 1850kg. Pricewise, the Model 3 is about $10,000 USD cheaper. It is also faster and boasts more storage space, since batteries can provide higher peak power and are more compact. >An economic and practical evaluation will show that this is the way to go That seems very unlikely. The basic effciency limits fuel cells, as well as producing and transporting hydrogen, means than a BEV will always be cheaper per mile, probably by a factor of about 3. Although currently it's actually a factor of 7, with FCVs costing 21 cents per mile compared to an EV's 3 cents per mile. Why use 55kWh to produce 1kg of hydrogen, which can propel a PHEV 80 miles, when that same 55kWh can propel a BEV 240 miles? Even if all our energy comes from renewables, that doesn't mean there won't be a cost associated with it. Not to mention that it's cheaper to send electricity along some wires than to truck and pump hydrogen around. Also, building EV infrastructure is far cheaper. Aside from home charging meeting most of the demand, a public EV station costs about 10 times less to build than a hydrogen station.

[@saceves3925]

@@lazarus2691 Yes, 30 minutes’ charging time is about 25 minutes longer than I like to wait at a fueling station. And you are right that many people will charge at home but having to plan your road trip around finding charging stations and waiting for 30 minutes while the battery charges is not very practical. But you are right, electric vehicles are great as long as you stay near home. Cost of today’s Mirai being produced at a few 100’s per year is not a good indication of what large-scale production costs may be. I believe large-scale fabrication will reduce cost of fuel cells much more than batteries that depend on lithium mined in Bolivia and transported for processing into a battery. EV chargers are certainly less expensive than hydrogen fueling stations. However, the calculation has to include how many cars each serves. A hydrogen fueling station may cost ~$1M, but it can serve ~1000 cars (5 minutes per car has a cost advantage in addition to a time advantage), so the cost per vehicle may be ~$1000. How much is it for an electric charger? We tend to get stuck on efficiency when it matters less every day. What matters is vehicle cost of ownership. Considering the projected reductions in cost of renewable energy, it seems that capital cost will be the dominant factor in determining cost of ownership - not efficiency. Any ideas on large vehicles? How about pickup trucks, buses, heavy trucks? Once vehicles start demanding megawatt hours’ worth of energy storage, carrying batteries literally becomes a heavy burden. Despite what Elon Musk may say, I believe it is very impractical to build an electric 18-wheeler. Accepting this very straightforward fact, then we will agree that we will have hydrogen vehicles in our future. And considering that a hydrogen refueling infrastructure will have to be built for these large vehicles, why not use it for personal vehicles with improved flexibility and driving range? I will finally point out that I am not against electric vehicles. If 20 years from now we all drive electric cars, I will be the first to celebrate, because the ultimate goal is zero emissions transportation, whether it is propelled by hydrogen or not. I am, however, against simplistic and premature dismissal of potentially good ideas. And I welcome a good and informed dialog.

[@markgigiel2722]

How much CO2 is released in a methane fuel cell versus burning it?

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

It is the same chemical equation. One CH4 molecule results in one CO2 molecule whether by burning or by fuel cell. So if both the fuel cell and the power station have say 50% efficiency, they will have the same CO2 emission per unit of electricity. Increasing the efficiency will give you more electricity per kg of CO2.

[@markgigiel2722]

@@michaelwoodhams7866 Thanks

[@timrosencrans7955]

Michael Woodhams the thing is they don’t. A fuel cell is much more efficient up to 3x more efficient. A methane fuel cell should produce less than 1/4 the CO2 of a gas engine.

[@goncaloaguiar]

Combined cycle gas turbines can have efficiences up to 57%, way more than 40%...

[@sirnikkel6746]

the methane fuel cell sounds rad as all hell. Imagine having a biomethane or normal natural gas source with a cheap and efficient generator nearby

[@AquaMarine1000]

Cost of the subsidy not included. You could buy a good diesel powered generator for that price.

[@Sparticulous]

Hydrogen / fuel cell is not carbon neutral then if it uses natural gas? Was that not the whole selling point people were pushing?

[@wujekcientariposta]

So couldn't we simply use hydrogen fuel cells exactly like we use li-ion batteries for energy storage? Rather than refuel hydrogen simply plug it into the wall like you do with batteries? From what I understand hydrogen fuel cells are higher densisty energy than li-ion and don't have charging current and temperature limitations? Would be a trade off in effieciency, but for transportation maybe it would make sense? Is the effieciency so low that it doesn't make sense?

[@AximandTheCursed]

It's largely impractical to store or transport hydrogen in a gas form, as it is very reactive and highly flammable, plus even pressurised the energy density is low compared to petroleum. They have found a workaround this by transporting it as ammonia (NH3), but it takes energy both to turn hydrogen into ammonia, and vice versa, increasing cost, both in terms of energy and production. And no, you could not recharge it by plugging it into a wall, you would need to top up the hydrogen stores.

[@Soordhin]

Well, fuel cells do not have any energy density at all, they simply convert stored energy from chemical form to electricity with a certain efficiency, around 50% at best in current technology. Add to that the efficiency of producing hydrogen in the first place, currently mainly produced out of natural gas with a huge CO2 footprint or out of electricity with a certain efficiency as well, which then has to be stored and transported which in itself costs a lot of energy (either cool it down to very low temperatures to keep it cool or pressurize it a lot to keep its volume low). If one takes the energy produced by a windmill, stores it into hydrogen, transports it to fuelling stations, then fuels a hydrogen car, the total system efficiency is at best at 25%. 75% of the energy produced is lost. Compare that to a battery electric car instead, the energy produced by the windmill has to be transported to a charging station and then stored in the battery on board the car and used there. The total system efficiency in this case is around 75%, only 25% of the energy is lost. Yes, we can use H2 to power cars and especially when driving long distances fuelling up is fast (provided no one used the fuelling station right before you have to use it, in that case you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes to pressurize the gas), for day to day use it is much more convenient to plug the car in once its parked in your driveway and always leave home with a fully fueled car.

[@leovanderlinden9758]

I love his explinations, but why is hydrogen different from batteries I mean both need electric energy that comes from fossil fuel

[@shawncalhoun1363]

Fuel cell would make excellent sense if you had a well on your property and sold your mineral rights for lifetime free natural gas!

[@fjalics]

Hydrogen fuel cells have a much lower round trip efficiency than BEVs, so they will remain more expensive to fuel. You can't fill them at home. The fueling stations don't always work. There isn't a single fueling station in my state. Good luck going coast to coast like you can with a Tesla.

[@andrewlambert7246]

Forgot to mention that if everyone uses gas then the price would go up and after that there will be no more gas because of the limited supply.

[@raymundhofmann7661]

If i would still live in Germany a Bloom box would look attractive.

[@klausschroiff4405]

Assuming that we are going to use renewables for electricity generation, it'll probably translate to a massive over-provisioning of solar and wind power stations - just to have enough electricity available in worst-case scenarios. This overprovision means that there'll be lots of excess electricity that can be used for producing hydrogen. We may not need hydrogen for cars but for heavy trucks, ships and backup power (substituting natural gas). There is the usual argument of economics - but the effects of climate change have a price tag that should be added to fossil fuel. An obvious example are the economic costs of the bushfires here in Australia or the collapse of the tourism industry due to the upcoming death of the barrier reef. At the moment we are socializing these costs (aka the tax payer pays for this) whereas the companies who caused this pay nothing. If we did the total calculation, fossil fuels would be uneconomical.

[@maniek11]

So why German or even Greece military makes their submarines running on hydrogen ?

[@willarnolles2938]

I'd imagine a power source that ran at room temperture with no moving parts would be very quiet.

[@maniek11]

@@willarnolles2938 And thats why its the real energy source of future.

[@raymundhofmann7661]

The benefits outweigh the disadvantages there. Fuel energy density, waste gas, noise, waste heat might be the main things. For passenger cars it becomes inconvenient. Complicated, expensive refuelling and fuel distribution, overall higher cost and lack of infrastructure. Enormous amounts (space, investments) of solar and wind would be needed to hydrogenize private mobility in a "clean" way, it would solve the storage problem of solar and wind though, but still not cost competitive.

Learned something. CO2 is actually released in the process.

[@Soordhin]

Yes, if a carbon based fuel (like methane) is used. Not if hydrogen is used.

[@my_namejeff9770]

in methane, not in hydrogen.

[@dd_ranchtexas4501]

He didn't tell us the cost of bringing it to 800C and keeping it there. Doubt that there is zero cost for that.... But how MUCH cost? A little? A lot?

[@MihaiAndreiMereuta]

I think it's integrated in the efficiency. When he says it's 50% efficient that means that power going in + start power vs power out. Just a lucky guess.

[@Azerkeux]

What if we had the infrastructure sufficient enough where the hydrogen is produced on site at the pumping stations using electrolysis during night when electricity is cheap. A sufficient enough infrastructure would wash out the economic inefficiencies, no?

[@haliax8149]

The variables you mentioned don't change the true cost of these systems. The math at the end shows that these don't even make profit, they break even at the end of their life. It's so stupid that people think this is the way to go.

[@mhchoudhurymd]

He seems unimpressed by the prospect of the Hydrogen Economy. Yes it’s 95% dirty fossil fuel based but the clean green Non fossil fuels based Hydrogen is being made with solar energy and water using nano technologies. Check out (HYSR) Hypersolar which is sponsored by the UCSanta Barbara and University of Iowa at Iowa City. But green clean Hydrogen is here . Commercial production will be soon attempted. Thanks .

[@AnalystPrime]

It would make great sense to connect all the renewables and the grid to a plant that only produces hydrogen when there is enough wind and solar to have surplus, effectively using the hydrogen as an energy storage, but we would also need to put a carbon tax on hydrogen not made by water electrolysis powered by renewable energy to keep the clean hydrogen as the only economically viable one. Building a production plant and the power source will raise the startup costs little too much, so it is easier to just promote building more renewable energy, that way there will be more overproduction on sunny windy days, meaning more cheap electricity for projects like that.

[@AnalystPrime]

@Matt S Agreed, solar panels are for buildings, nuclear, CSP, wind, geo and ocean hydro are better for grid level production. Though If we develop even better and cheaper panels and storage, there are literally millions of square miles of public land we can put panels on without bothering animals or people. Except for anyone who wants to kill us with pollution of course, but those a-holes don't count.

[@AnalystPrime]

@No face man Only problem is getting those made. Mini reactors might manage it with less red tape, but currently building a NPP takes a decade of getting permits, another decade or two of building and inspections, at least ten billion dollars, and a safety zone of near hundred square miles around the plant-not that most people _want_ to live nearer than ten miles of the plant anyway. You might need a hundred or more windmills to produce as much power, but building those takes far less time and only costs one or two billion.

[@MrTkharris]

I don't think that the main problems with the hydrogen economy have much to do with how clean or green it is sourced. Even if all of your hydrogen was produced from water with solar power, it would still need to compete with batteries and other fuels, and hydrogen almost never seems like the right choice in terms of transportation, storage, and energy conversion. We do need to build out a decent manufactured fuel economy of some kind at some point but I hope it's better than hydrogen. Maybe ammonia or ethanol with work for a lot of applications. For grid-scale energy storage you're also out competed by things like pumped water hydropower, flow batteries, and liquid air technologies which all seem to be more efficient and safer at large scale than any water-hydrogen cycle technology.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

Huh - TOTALLY Missed SOLAR and WIND as sources to make Hydrogen. Google "Arena hydrogen plant Brisbane Australia" and "$160 million solar farm and hydrogen plant at Heywood"

[@hosmerhomeboy]

how is the cost of electricity these days in ozz?

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@@hosmerhomeboy Given that the current Government is a "coal or bust" climate denying set of buffoons, pretty good. The spot prices have just drops around $20 per MegWattHOur (25%) in the last three months as the new Solar and Wind Farms have come on line. www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-volume-weighted-average-spot-prices-regions

[@Marinealver]

Got to love all this research provided by Google and Wikipedia.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@@Marinealver Nothing wrong with Google and Wikipedia, most of the time they have authoritative references. Feel free to be specific

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@Matt S " You need about 13km² of space filled with wind turbines or solar panels to produce between 700-1000MW," You ARE joking, surely. The average coal station destroys 60 sq kilometres of land digging the coal up.At least you can graze sheep and cows in a solar farm. or grow plants

[@markgigiel2722]

Hotcakes really don't sell that well.

[@turbokrypto7875]

when was it recorded ?

[@joseylastborn8790]

In the first few seconds you qualify mechanical propulsion horsepower as electrical in the case of the decades-old hydrogen economy. This entirely ignores using the precious metals to produce heat as in catalytic Heat which many people have in their tents when camping. I recently was in my State University's science Library looking at some of those monographs or maybe it was just different authors in a book. Instead of putting Frac th methane in they said you could put the thin film photovoltaic produced hydrogen in the pipes and insulate homes better so you needed less British thermal units. They did detailed modeling with thin film costing far more than it has for a long time. I don't think that this video is fair to the hydrogen economy. Now of course we can do far better than electrolytic hydrogen for the Platinum Room heaters and of course we don't need to use air to convey the heat to our bodies smart watches can monitor for overheating and that makes a huge difference in an electric blanket etcetera culture. Cashmere doesn't last forever but it sure is a bargain compared to Central Heating and Cooling. Man-made microfibers can outdo the heaven of such wool what the word economy means is that it's a fair competition and the government can be petitions to kick the asses of the fossil fuel industry into the gutter so that we can do things rationally smartly Greenleaf cheaply better. Your classes are editorials pretending to be some sort of science or engineering take it to the Wall Street Journal and those young girls in the front would seem to be signaling something white file going on over there.

[@muntee33]

What about Hydrogen and Nitrogen from ammonia? What about using metals/alloys with specific attributes and characteristics, placed in a specific configuration, within a specifically tuned chamber and with the properly tuned signal wave pulsed through it to maximise the effects of a resonant oscillation, intrinsically linked to that of the atomic bonds between H and O2.... Therefore splitting the molecule into its elemental components at a FRACTION of the energy used when overcoming these atomic bonds by the brute force approach of pushing sufficient Amperage into the system that a resulting ‘attractive’ force becomes greater than the force of the molecular bonds. This ‘brute force’ approach is what your science teacher demonstrated to you 20-30-40yrs ago.... Maybe the Russians can help with these ‘abstract’ technologies produced by pursuing true scientific rigour, yet again? Lol.

[@DavidJao]

Ammonia is produced from hydrogen, so using ammonia as a hydrogen source would be circular.

[@MrBjorntsc]

Or solar

[@to33x]

Time to short NKLA.

[@bjorkman2k7]

Just realizing this guy need to draw and write everything mirrored, pretty impressive.

[@mikeedwards350]

They just flip the video. Jacket buttons are on the wrong side.

[@haliax8149]

No sane company or investor is interested in these. If you're selling power you barely break even. Keeping it in private enterprise is the only route to success, so arguing that it could be a public endeavor is absurd. If they were cheaper, and if we could push efficiency to 70%, they might pay bills. Citing California as a place where this could work is also ridiculous. California artificially makes this profitable by taxing the hell out of fossil fuel based power companies. That doesn't mean that it's resource efficient at all. It means that we use taxpayer money to fill the holes.

[@MrTkharris]

I disagree. There are many sane investors who would be more than happy to make money off of California's tax payers. This might sound counterintuitive but one of the most promising things I saw from an investment standpoint was the fact that the capital costs were like 6x the operating costs. That's promising to me because those are the kinds of costs which are often easily driven down by mass manufacturing. We saw the same dynamic with solar cells. Solar cells have gotten more efficient per watt of sunlight, but not by huge margins. However, because essentially all of the cost of solar power is the initial capital expense, mass manufacturing have brought the _price_ per watt down dramatically. The same wattage that cost $50k ten years ago is about $10k now. The cost for residential solar is bottoming out because installation costs (in the US) is now typically higher than the material costs. Public investments in manufacturing (mostly by the Chinese government, but also through tax incentives in places like California) fueled this to the benefit of investors and buyers, and hopefully for future generations in terms of energy security and environmental stewardship as well.

[@canadiannuclearman]

Toyota makes the Mirai a good hydrogen power car

[@lazarus2691]

While not a bad car, it is inferior to the Model 3 in almost every regard. The Model 3 LR RWD costs about $10,000 less, and costs about 7 times less per mile to run. It weighs slightly less yet has slightly more range. It goes a lot faster, and has a lot more storage space, better safety ratings, and many special features that the Mirai lacks. It also has only about 30% the CO2 emissions. About the only thing the Mirai can boast is the ability to refuel a lot more quickly, a few minutes vs half an hour or more. However, that is countered somewhat by the current lack of hydrogen stations, while the Model 3 can recharge almost anywhere, including at home.

[@srour87]

the point of using Hydrogen and not natural gas is that when you use natural gas you'll still have carbon emission.

[@timrosencrans7955]

But the natural gas already exists and CO2 is much more preferable.

[@LawrenceRhodes]

All hydrogen in this country comes from natural gas. Fool cells are not cost effective. Only in California. Every where else they did the math.

[@timrosencrans7955]

Lawrence Rhodes They did the math in California. It’s just that there emissions hold a higher value. Due to congestion and population density. In General Methane is more cost-effective but certain use cases the lack of carbon dioxide emissions will make hydrogen superior, such as confined space usage. Eventually hydrogen will be cost-effective in a more general sense but I don’t see that happening quickly. I suspect that methane and battery storage will be the more effective solution for much of the future.

[@LawrenceRhodes]

@@timrosencrans7955 Unfortunately California used modern math. Didn't work.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

Well, he's not hiding that he's pushing a barrow. Does it pay well?

[@mattcero1]

"Hey people please buy these." Yah! that costs the tax payer so there's still cost. Money doesn't grow on trees guy.

[@jkvdv4447]

Mabe the $850000 is the actual cost without tax breaks? Not sure.

[@mattcero1]

@@jkvdv4447 Maybe, but even Elon Musk has had huge government help, by the billions, to build his Teslas and his new battery factory in Nevada or AZ.

[@r3d0c]

@@mattcero1 oil & gas has gotten trillions in subsidy in the last 10-15 years

[@Bitterrootbackroads]

There is a hard to find video on YT, search for "Bloomdoggle" from DDP foundation and get the rest of the story. I've lost interest in the Illinois Energy Professor once I see he is part of the failed academy.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

"Doctors for Disaster Preparedness is a 501 non-profit organization located in Tucson, Arizona. The group is closely affiliated with the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a politically conservative nonprofit association advocating numerous discredited hypotheses including AIDS denialism." Bloom Energy has problems getting the product to commercialise their scientific development. SO? "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $163 billion over budget, seven years behind schedule, and will cost taxpayers about twice as much as sending a man to the moon."

[@Bitterrootbackroads]

Ray Watson , and THAT is why they call it a swamp! Just because somebody else can get away with screwing the taxpayers does not mean everyone should be allowed to do it. When they say it's the money, it's the money. When they say it's NOT the money, it's the money. It's ALWAYS the money.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@@Bitterrootbackroads Nothing to do with "screwing the taxpayers". Governments and Taxpayers contribute to promising new technology, and it doesn't always work. The point is that you can't cherry-pick "green" project failures and ignore all the others that occur. Google "Salton Sea Disaster", "Three Mile Island", and the whole Apollo Space program.

[@veleriphon]

It's all well and good, until someone does the brutal math.

[@LawrenceRhodes]

Wind, solar and hydro are much more cost effective.

[@timrosencrans7955]

Not at all portable though.

[@LawrenceRhodes]

@@timrosencrans7955 I don't exactly know what you mean by portable. You might be speaking to range. If that is the case then how would you get your FCV cross country as all the fuelling stations are in California. The only state to drink the hydrogen Kool aid. Google hydrogen hype.

[@LawrenceRhodes]

@@timrosencrans7955 This is the real future of transportation: solarteameindhoven.nl/stella-era/

[@timrosencrans7955]

Lawrence Rhodes LP is available about every 5 miles.

[@timrosencrans7955]

Lawrence Rhodes I bet you’ll drive one on a solar roadway. Experimental toys are not the future.

[@wazza33racer]

hydrogen gas is the worst thing ever to store and handle,it burns without a flame, explodes easily when it mixes with air, and is extremely difficult to make into a liquid. Its the worst idea ever UNLESS its made into an excellent fuel called Methanol. Then we can burn our Methanol in an Achates-2 stroke engine and get 55% thermal efficiency............so all our vehicles can use existing fuel distribution systems, be made of common and cheap materials and we wont need to decimate the planet to obtain vast quantities of rare earth metals,copper,cobalt,nickel,platinum,lithium etc etc. AND we can avoid spending trillions of dollars to upgrade the grid to charge up the millions of electric cars,buses,trucks etc.

[@tombarron8741]

Hydrogen is a non starter in the race to clean energy. A non starter. This means it falls at the first hurdle. It isn't green. The second hurdle is irrelevant because H2O fell at the first hurdle but that is cost. 3rd hurdle is insignificant because the 2nd hurdle will never even be attempted because H2O fell at the first hurdle but let's talk about it anyway: overall efficiency. No wonder people are calling fuel Cells 'fool cells'

[@kevinmichaelbergman8276]

They are still Junk than lol