Is green hydrogen the answer to the climate crisis? | DW Documentary

[@DWDocumentary]

This documentary is also available to watch in Spanish: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3ach6CEgbmHbNk

[@doobidoo095]

... CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is impossible. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, in particular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable, this summer you can see a unnaturally bright sun just as we did last year. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations). Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of Agenda 21 /2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref NESARA/GESARA) and has/is being promoted by The World Economic Forum. 'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists. The CO2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few. Welcome to the future! _________ I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet. Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is. When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case. NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the Dark Ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools. (NB: be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology. Eg. 'It only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.' This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. Clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).

[@web2yt488]

Hydrogen passenger cars are stupid. I charge my car at home for peanuts. Hydrogen is more about protecting legacy oil and gas companies than solving the problem efficiently. That guy paid more for his car and signed up to paying more per km...dummy

[@jedadruled984]

@@doobidoo095 Bro, you are seeing through the scam, thats not good, please let yourself be thorougly brainwashed by watching DW news 24/7. Thanks you.

[@SuperSatandevilst]

, besame mucho, Embrasse-moi, mon amour, que je puisse oublier, Besame, besame mucho, Tous les regrets de l'amour fait de tant de baisers... Oui, je sais bien qu'un beau jour on revient, Mais j'hésite, ce jour est si loin... N'y croyons pas, disons-nous, toi et moi, Qu'on se voit pour la dernière fois... Besame, besame mucho Embrasse-moi, mon amour, que je puisse oublier, le temps en fuite, et ma chanson n'aura plus qu'un seul mot: aimer.. Oui, je sais bien qu'un beau jour on revient, Mais j'hésite, ce jour est si loin... N'y croyons pas, disons-nous, toi et moi, Qu'on se voit pour la dernière fois... Besame, besame mucho Embrasse-moi, mon amour, que je puisse oublier, le temps en fuite, et mon amour n'aura plus qu'un seul mot: aimer.. Cette chanson

[@Pound_Shift]

Watch “Stan Mayer water car” , Hydrogen can be produced very cheaply but the rich will never allow that and that’s why electric cars

[@tripsquared_greenworks]

"Hydrogen is not to be taken lightly", had me cracking up. 🤣

[@Nunyabizn3ss]

Not too soon to add a little levity to the Hindenburg situation.

[@chris_louis]

me too... :)

[@crazypasta7749]

Hydrogen is a scam we don't even know if it works

[@MrOgMonster]

@@crazypasta7749 In what way do you think we don't know if it works?

[@nhanguyen3527]

@ryan cox Yea bruh, for the lightest element in the universe LOL

[@webvidpromo]

Well it's comforting to know that the submarines of the future, capable of launching nuclear missiles, will be environmentally friendly

[@MA-bi5ht]

🤣🤣

[@imatanyani]

🤣😂🤣😂

[@akilmanwaring7767]

underrated comment

[@longcours]

Actually they spend their time at sea doing nothing but polluting, and have not been launching any missiles for many years, so why not improve that ? Question is, if there is a war, how will they refuel ? 🤣🤣🤣

[@guilleport]

@@longcours let's hope and pray no war at all at any time!!!

[@TedApelt]

When considering the risk of hydrogen explosions, it is well worth pointing out that LNG (liquid natural gas) and propane are stored and shipped everywhere, and are more dangerous because, unlike hydrogen, they can pool on the ground from a leak before exploding. (A large LNG tanker could theoretically detonate with the force of a small nuclear weapon and would look like the famous Beirut explosion.) I still remember a video of a white misty fog spreading over the ground from a train carrying propane that derailed. That cloud became a massive fireball. If it was hydrogen, it would have quickly risen away.

[@stevealexander8010]

Storage is a huge problem, glossed over here.

[@jokers7890]

No its not. Hydrogen is not any more difficult to store than any other gas. This technology has existed for a very long time.

[@bogstandardash3751]

I imagine if it's hard to store they will not make too much of it surplus to the requirement?

[@dotter879]

@@jokers7890 It is way more difficult. Hydrogen is the smallest element. It leaks trough everything. It's totally different because of this.

[@mwngtombing4970]

Thanks DW for bringing up such a important topic/content for the public.

[@imantsjansons5009]

Eh. In the presentations the green enthusiasts think that materials to green solutions will come out of thin air, in abundance and in the totally friendly to nature way. There already were small lies in the presentation. Hydrogen facility had only lonely wind turbine depicted, in reality, most likely, 50 wouldn't be enough. And in reality the hydrogen car contains lithium ion battery too. Elon Musk would say, enlarge that battery and scrap the hydrogen, would be much cheaper. Mirror fields in deserts, why not, but what about sandstorms ? etc.

[@emuriddle9364]

I agree. Nevermind the trolls. I'm glad there are still people trying to look for solutions. Unlike the fools who think that gasoline is somehow green energy.

[@joeandorian7719]

The problem with hydrogen these days is that you have to watch for the bait and switch by fossil fuel companies who want to continue extracting ground resources to create hydrogen. That is a dead end for us and is NOT the solution. Hydrogen will not be THE solution, but part of a wider set of solutions as long as we use it for the real purpose of independence from fossil resources and not just a continuation of that flawed model.

[@thesuperyou2829]

I came here to write exactly the same. Thanks

[@eachday9538]

"Green hydrogen" vs "Blue Hydrogen" and "Black Hydrogen"

[@Battleneter]

Exactly, the article REALLY glossed over making Hydrogen from "Natural gas", this process emits more freaken carbon for the same energy than just burning the Natural Gas directly!. 100% cleanly generated Hydrogen is a pipe dream at this point.

[@louisfriend9323]

The wider clean solutions being nuclear, natural gas and that's about it. Forget wind, solar and other inefficient technologies.

[@shuzzbot]

Unlike the E revolution, who doesn't go around raping and destroying the plant digging up rare Rare Earth Metals for EVs!🤣

[@TheSchiffReport]

All Germany needs to do is to outsource the production of its green hydrogen needs to a north african country where there is plenty of sunshine , wind and uninhabited space ....that would be the wisest thing to do for Germany and Europe in general

[@meetadi4u]

No country would outsource their key energy needs like that (However pragmatic it may be )

[@AJ-np3rn]

But see what happened In Africa, Americans discovered it , did research , build infrastructure also giving a fair share to saudis but after some years the Saudis politically took over the most profits

[@slevinkolebra]

Climates always changing special kids, mother nature can take care of herself...she hasn't needed your help for billions of years

[@SI-vb7hd]

@@meetadi4u It happens all the time. See Gas and Russia for example.

[@theodorwicklin2976]

If its cheaper it will happen automatically as noone would buy the expensive German alternative. No need for the government to get involved

[@otukenforests4132]

There has been a saying for many years: “Hydrogen is the energy (means/source) of the future”. The main concern is what if it remains as such for many more years to come!

[@1stSilence]

Only lobbyists and their sheep sing the song about the hydrogen car. There will never be a hydrogen car for everyone.

[@ermitanyoed4185]

@@1stSilence unless SWB pinpoint the exact location; you can't explore duterium; the answer to climate change.

[@longcours]

H2 is not an energy, it is a storage means. It first divides the energy you input by 2, then leaks 0.5% to 3%/year. Those pushing it as the solution to all energy ills are just intent on selling something on it…

[@kevingooley6189]

Hydrogen is an means of storing energy just like a battery. They will need to prove that the round trip efficiency of Hydrogen is better then the battery.

[@hamsterminator]

Always seeing the eco fascists fighting hydrogen, as if there is an alternative technology available that would work for aircraft or heavy industry. As ever, they are disconnected dreamers who think energy is magic and hydrogen is something invented by the oil companies.

[@peakproofuk]

So currently green hydrogen can only be created when there’s an over supply of green energy - hydro or wind typically. Otherwise it will always cost more as it’s a lossy conversion from electricity - even if that’s green electricity, it’s a costly conversion.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Pretty much, Hydrogen is essential an energy storage medium for applications that can't easily use electrical energy directly. (aka eliminating toxic batteries, space shuttles, etc). There is always an energy loss (to the local environment) during energy conversions, so the the less conversions of energy the more efficient at the end of the day. P.s. Solar isn't green, it imports energy from outside of the biosphere and is extremely inefficient in conversion.

[@robertfox6940]

It isn't a practical science even for a theory designed to break a military and an economy. Let's call a spade a spade.

[@agaragar21]

@@axle.australian.patriot ....all energy forms are at a negative loss.....think about it, its a false comparison....think of what goes into making gas and oil from Millions of years of dead organics.....your just discounting the facts and stating Untruths !

[@raybin6873]

@@axle.australian.patriot Got any better ideas?

[@viktorianas]

Being a hostage of Russian gas is not costly?

[@danielm4696]

The inefficiency of the green hydrogen cycle is an insurmountable obstacle for it being used for anything other than niche applications where batteries can't work. Also, using only surplus electricity from renewable sources to create hydrogen means that the costly equipment is unproductive as it sits idle for a lot of the time, making it even more expensive. Storing surplus electricity in a battery is over 90% efficient, and capital costs are also much lower - hydrogen will never compete without a massive breakthrough in efficiency. Just because it is technically possible doesn't mean it will ever be economically realistic.

[@Jamie-Z]

It depends on the objective. If you want zero emissions then it is the only option. Electricity sounds great but its uses are extremely limited and most people who live in cities where it is most useful cannot park in the drive to charge up normally from normal coal based power stations. Electric has range issues etc. as well and short lifespan which makes them a waste problem which means they are the exact opposite of green. The best option for hydrogen is to build solar plants in the Sahara (like the one already in Morocco) but no one wants to extend the Arab power. The infrastucture of the oil industry could easily be changed to hydrogen.

[@MDP1702]

@@Jamie-Z *most people who live in cities where it is most useful cannot park in the drive to charge up normally* These people need to park their car somewhere at night no? So it is just a matter of deploying low level 2 chargers to regular streets so people can use them at night. Besides that you need to ask yourself what these cars are used for: travelling to work? charge at work. Go to the shop: charge at the shop. ... Essentially there are more then enough possibilities to charge, however they need to still be rolled out. And if you really have no other choice, fast charging is available too. *Electric has range issues* The current hydrogen cars have a marginally better range than several EV's, who sometimes are much cheaper than those hydrogen cars. Besides you'll need quite some hydrogen refueling stations, which are very expensive. For that same price you can place around 30 fast chargers, that you can disperse over a wider area, meaning less time lost going to a station vs hydrogen. And if you have a car that can go 500km, that would be more than fine enough for almost anyone, considering you can't really drive further than that in 3-4 even when constantly driving at a speed of 130km/h (which is the highest limit in a lot of countries/regions). And after every 3-4 hours of continuous driving you are advised to take a 15-20m minute rest anyway, during that time you can also go to the bathroom, eat or drink something, stretch your legs, just shut your eyes, ... In regards to trucks/semi, 800km seems to be a good range considering you'd be able to drive that range in around 9 hours at the usually top speed of 90km/h. Beyond that you'd exceed lawfull time limits in the EU and can be fined for driving too long. And realistically most trucks won't drive non stop for 9 hours at the max speed. Tesla semi have a claimed 800km range fully loaded, if that is correct, there really isn't a reason EV trucks aren't a good option for regular trucking. Only for multiple driver trucking would you need hydrogens range (and even then, what is losing 30-60min at a fast charger considering the cost savings driving on battery power?). *as well and short lifespan* What lifespan are you talking about? The batteries? Current Tesla batteries already are expected to last beyond the lifetime of most ICE cars, this also goes for several other EV parts (like the motors). So I don't really see what you are pointing at. *which makes them a waste problem* Not really, all EV parts are recyclable, even the battery (several companies already achieved a 95%+ recycling rate). *The infrastucture of the oil industry could easily be changed to hydrogen.* I don't agree with that, it is quite a different infrastructure you'll need. Only general things like docks for ships wouldn't need (much) changing.

[@MDP1702]

@@CL-gj9mf *The "inefficiency of the green hydrogen" is the same than the fuels actually used in our cars* With the difference that these fossil fuels are just taken from underground, they are useless when not used (though obviously better not to use if we have better alternatives), whereas hydrogen is created with the energy we alreade have generated and can use directly with for example batteries, thus the energy loss from hydrogen use is a net loss, the energy loss from fossil fuels not. I suggest you look at the EROI of fossil fuels and hydrogen before making such a stupid statement. *but you don't talk about the pollution induced by the big batteries of your "so good electric cars" with 90% efficiency* That is made up for in a couple years. Furthermore with high rate recycling (which several companies can already do), we can keep reusing these battery materials afterwards, seriously reducing any polluting impact batteries have. *The price to pay in CO2 freed in the atmosphere, to extract these rare earths is too high* You realise hydrogen use will also create more co2 pollution? First by the need of installing 3 times the necessary renewable capacity and secondly the fuel cell materials etc will also need extracting. *And extracting these rare earths are done with petroleum* Because they obviously still need to be electrified. Do you think a hydrogen system will only use material that was mined by non-petroleum means? *No more petroleum, no more big batteries!!!* 'No more petroleum, no more hydrogen'. There you have it. In fact currently: 'no more petroleum, no more civilization', just great. However if we can electrify everything we can, including everything in the manufacturing of batteries, the 'no more petroleum, no more batteries' stick wouldn't be correct anymore.

[@MDP1702]

@@CL-gj9mf *You don't see that, at our scale of existence petroleum isn't a sustainable vector of energy.* Actually I do, but whether you like it or not, at this moment we live in a petroleum civilization. EV's, renewables, ... are exactly what is needed to change this. Hydrogen will/should only be used where electrification by direct use or batteries isn't possible, like in shipping, airplanes, industrial applications (for example steel production and industry that requires high temperatures), ... *Petroleum isn't useless, it store CO2 out of the air we breath, and out from the water we live in...* I clearly meant useless in terms of energetic value to us, not in terms of carbon storage. This was completely in regards to your comment that hydrogen is as efficient as fossil fuels, which is actually really bad for hydrogen since we need to put all that energy in it first, we don't need to this with fossil fuels. * it doesn't exist* Yeah, it does. Several small companies already are capable of recycling lithium batteries at 95%+ efficiency. The main reason these are new pretty small companies is because they were founded with the vision of recycling EV batteries, before EV batteries the recycling market for lithium batteries just was too small to be interesting. *We aren't ready for fully recycling plastics* Completely different thing. Just because we can't fully recycle one thing, doesn't mean we can't recycle a completely different thing. *Fuel cells already exists* So do batteries. And their recycling. *If you choose others solutions you choose to engage war with China for the control of minerals and rare earths ressources* Most battery resources are not in China. *You can't electrified industrial moving engine* Depends what you understand under it. They even already electrified enormous mining vehicles that transport the mined substance, though for now it is still situational. And there also are already electric tractors for agricultural use if I am not mistaken. *So we will have to use methane produced from agricultural residues* While I like the idea, it isn't practical. I personally thought about that too, but the only way to do this is to have cattle sit in well isolated barns and having a system to get the methane from that air, doable but not really profitable and definitely not for mass scale use in industry, more like personal use of the farmers or surrounding area at best. *ITER is the final research step from 80 years of climbing efforts* ITER is not the final research step unfortunately. All ITER is meant to do is show we can get more energy out of the reaction than we put in and do so at a large enough rate to be able to produce enough electricity in another plant. Even after that we'll need to see if it will be commercially viable, building actual testplants that can produce electricity, ... And for now there still is no certainty ITER will do what it is meant to do. Yes, normally it should, but we can't know for sure. Even fusion scientist say that we don't need to expect any real electricity generation from fusion reactors within the next 30-40 years, even if ITER is succesfull. By that time we need to have fully electrified our civilization already.

[@chrisheath2637]

@@Jamie-Z I do believe that you are coming from the perspective of several years ago, with essentially refutations of EVs, that were (and still are ) promoted by the oil industry, and the existing ICE manufacturers. They have big pockets to promote negative publicity around EV adoption - verging on lies. Problems with EV charging are relatively simple to solve- the infrastructure is already in place.

[@NackDSP]

Big oil loves Hydrogen. 1. They can sell you dirty hydrogen now. 2. It is very complex and expensive, so it consumes lots of money that could be spent on useful alternatives to oil. 3. It is ultimately just an inefficient flow battery. There are better alternatives such as iron flow batteries.

[@q.e.d.9112]

I agree about big O’s motivations. However green hydrogen’s potential to almost eliminate the massive carbon footprint involved in both steel manufacture and aerospace travel plus the inevitable overproduction of power from renewables is going to make green hydrogen happen. Unless, of course, we (me, you and the rest of humanity) decide that we’re sick of the consumer society, sick of the notion that more automatically means better, sick of looking for ever more exotic locations to visit and turn into carbon copies of suburban America and sick of a system that INEVITABLY concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

[@SuperReznative]

@@q.e.d.9112... and can provide water.. for people in arrid climates, like sunny deserts. Hydrogen is being produced in Volcanic regions as well.

[@dubistverrueckt]

Good documentary - very comprehensive despite limited time. Unfortunately, that's not enough explanation for people without some knowledge to really understand the content. Also, it completely left out that nuclear reactors are ideal for producing carbon-free hydrogen: the enormous heat from nuclear reactions far surpasses that of the massive solar-heat installations, so it can split water into hydrogen and oxygen using the same process but at much higher production rates. Since the reactor works as well independent of location, it can be built in Germany or wherever the hydrogen is needed instead of importing it from thousands of kilometers away.

[@-OnTheRun-]

lol well that defeats the point of green hydrogen...its red hydrogen, producing nuclear waste to be stored for millennia beneath the ground. Efficiency takes a back seat to a clean environment.

[@dubistverrueckt]

@@MJAldridge6 Huh? What? Did you even read what I wrote?

[@dubistverrueckt]

​@@-OnTheRun- The waste is only more radioactive than background radiation for three hundred years, NOT "millennia." At that time its fission products have decayed completely. What remains is only dangerous if you dig it up, grind it into a powder and inhale it or ingest it but not if you leave it alone and sleep 10 years in front of it. furthermore, the "waste" is a blessing, in that the byproducts of energy production remain concentrated in ONE place instead of being broadcast into the atmosphere where they kill millions of people, plants and animals, ruin ecosystems and waterways. But, hey, go ahead save yourself from your dreaded nukes and enjoy kids becoming retarded from the mercury in their tuna sandwich, or your brother dying from lung disease and future extinctions from global warming!

[@Jamie-Z]

The problem with nuclear is that it is by far the most polluting option out there. Not only damaging lives today but for tens of thousands of years. Hydrogen provides a viable option for a clean future which nuclear does not. The only advantage to nuclear is that while electricity goes out the front door weapons go out the back door.

[@donaldwilliamfry]

Hydrogen...like the Hindenburg? Nuclear reactors...like Chernoblyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and many to come? All volitile and disasters that will happen. These options, especially nuclear, are far more dangerous than fossil fuels.

[@willvanmoss]

Hydrogen is a great way to store excess renewable energy. It's not 100% efficient but it could theoretically be up to 94% efficient to hydrolyze water with this energy. The problem is we need to desalinize a bunch of seawater for this too. Though once created the water could technically stay in a circular loop forever.

[@notafantbh]

Which also lowers the sea level! lol

[@ayushtieari385]

😂😂😂 94 %

[@imantsjansons5009]

Converting electric energy to hydrogen is ineffective way to store it. There are loses everywhere in the process. Loses when water is splitted, loses when hydrogen is compressed, losses if it is liquefied, losses converting it back to electricity when used by fuel cells or otherwise.

[@dariozanze4929]

Several companies such as Plasma Kinetics are developing polymer based films which store hydrogen, so there is no need to compress/liquefy it. Storing it comes with much lower energy losses and it does seem like a safer way of storing hydrogen. There are still large losses when converting hydrogen into electricity in fuel cells or god forbid combustion engines, but honestly it doesn't really seem so bad anymore.

[@GS-zc4sk]

I totally believe it. Because they hardly even mention the huge problems these alternative energies create. Some is fine. But we can't have 35 States covered in windmills to fuel the remaining 15. Some is fine. But they want a new industrial revolution. So they'll force the issue via "green" campaigns of manipulation.

[@imantsjansons5009]

@@GS-zc4sk I think the semiconductor shortage has taught the world something. The fact that demand does not always guarantee supply. Especially if too much is outsourced to China and other countries. Small, good pilot projects paid by taxpayers does not yet mean that all this can be done on a large scale. In addition, small projects with hydrogen fuel not always work well. Riga, (Latvia) municipality as experiment bought 10 hydrogen buses, 6 on line 4 are being repaired all the time.

[@andreiarama8745]

Why even care about loses and how ineffective the process is when the electricity can be green and free ? Who the F cares if the environment wins ? The big companies facking cares

[@imantsjansons5009]

@@andreiarama8745 "when the electricity can be green and free" What , exactly, is for free ? Wind turbines ? "surge in demand for electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, and other applications requiring permanent magnets.. almost total US dependence on China for separated rare-earth and the magnets" .Chinese will not give magnets "for free".

[@maistooo]

Use solar and wind power to produce hydrogen! Clean and renewable cycle.

[@renatosureal]

What happens when the wind stops and it's cloudy for weeks ?

[@likhon2541]

@@renatosureal then use hydrogen to produce electricity

[@luisquinones6998]

Nuclear is the only way.

[@asajayunknown6290]

Wind and solar are far less environmentally-friendly than their "advertising" suggests. Valid technologies, but there aren't enough raw materials on Earth to power everything we want to. And, wind is especially deleterious to large birds, and no recycling of carbon fiber or fiberglas blades.

[@cabonegrojohnpatrick6930]

Solar and wind aren't sufficient to produce enough energy and require vast area it is dependent on the climate, therefore, it is unfeasible to other countries.

[@bobdeverell]

Hydrogen is not a Primary fuel, in effect it is simply an energy storage technology. What is proposed is to use hydrogen instead of using batteries or other storage media. This wasteful process may be a useful interim technology for certain heavy applications but logically it will be displaced by efficient nuclear processes in the future. Because you can does not mean you should.

[@chigglywiggly]

Methanol seems to me be a better energy carrier for renewable sources of energy

[@addicz2]

Batteries mean another deforrestation

[@chigglywiggly]

@Chitragupta What does it degrade the performance of?

[@mth469]

What efficient nuclear processes are you talking about. Will we have a nuclear reactor in our car like I'm Back to the Future.

[@johnevans6218]

A battery that doesn't degrade and doesn't need precious minerals, which can refuel a vehicle in seconds from our existing refuelling network, sounds good to me !!

[@fbkintanar]

A very informative film. I didn't know about the work on directly converting sunlight to hydrogen, without using hydrolysis which is inevitably less efficient than using the electricity directly. I agree with the woman who says 17:30 hydrogen is not suitable for light passenger vehicles at the moment. It may stay with heavy trucks for several decades in most countries. However there are some places where hydrogen for light passenger vehicles may make more sense earlier. Perhaps Japan and Korea, if they aggressively convert their economies to hydrogen with the help of imports, may find it economical to use hydrogen for light vehicles and shorter trips earlier than most countries. And the work on hybrid drive trains is also interesting.

[@koblongata]

Their argument is always like give us multiple times more money than what is required for BEVs to work and a few decades and we can prove it... But it can end up an expensive disaster that fail to achieve climate goal too, why risk it I just don't get it.

[@veronicalogotheti5416]

from where are you

[@veronicalogotheti5416]

the simio world maybe

[@TechnicalShivam-bh1hv]

Thanks DW For Amazing Documentary❤❤❤

[@DWDocumentary]

Thanks for watching!

[@czarquetzal8344]

Well-researched, timely, relevant!

[@fieldlab4]

I wish they had touched on the status, trade offs and comparability of liquid ammonia as a hydrogen source, which has more energy density.

[@rizvansvarshik]

Какой умный Юхан по твоемуㅐ2 полученный иза аммиака более теплоемкий чемводород? Спасибо за ликбез.

[@vikramshah6433]

How do you separate NH3 to Nitrogen and Hydrogen? How do you make NH3 with solar power?

[@fieldlab4]

@@vikramshah6433 You burn it and deal with the nitrous oxide using a catalyst, or you use a catalyst to separate it at temperature and release the nitrogen, or something like that, but these details are why I wished ammonia was mentioned and the details elaborated. Any method used to make hydrogen should support modification to generate ammonia, and I'm guessing biological fermentation makes ammonia more efficiently than hydrogen. Also, NH4 or hydrous ammonia has even more energy density.

[@rolandsj8880]

🤣

[@rolandsj8880]

@@fieldlab4 Where do you get billions of tons of Ammonia ? :D from waste water ?

[@xjet]

Hydrogen is *not* a fuel... it is simply a method of storing energy. Hydrogen is not simply mined or harvested in the way that coal, oil or other traditional "fuels" are. We must create hydrogen before we can use it and this requires significant amounts of energy -- or it can be produced from the reformation of methane (a fosil fuel). The problem with methane reformation is that it creates huge amounts of CO2 as a byproduct and is still reliant on the oil industry for the raw material. Even once you've created your hydrogen (likely at a huge energy cost) then you must store it, transport it and use it. Each of those stages has a number of problems that are not easily solved. To create useful levels of energy density hydrogen must be highly compressed, converted to a liquid or compounded with a metal in teh form of a hydride. All of these methods require *further* energy inputs (which further erodes the overall energy efficiency). Highly compressed hydrogen also requires very strong containment and produces the dangers that any highly pressurised vessel represents. Liquid hydrogen must be stored at cryogenic temperatures -- making it cumbersome and impractical for most purposes with bulky insulation further compounding the complexity of the problem. Metal hydrides require heating to release their hydrogen and, you guessed it, that's even more energy being wasted. Finally, turning hydrogen into useful work generally requires a fuel-cell so that it can generate electricity. Fuel cells are very expensive and their delicate atomic-level membranes are very susceptible to being damaged by *any* contamination of the fuel source. When you look at the amount of energy involved to create, store and transport hydrogen it is an inefficent "fuel" at the best of times. When you consider that the vast majority of hydrogen used today comes from fossil fuels it is not a green energy source. Great idea... but unfortunately it remains "a promise" rather than a "practicality".

[@Saitham83]

Amen

[@rikukoskela2791]

Australia is going to be a Green hydrogen super power within the next 10 years.

[@xjet]

@@rikukoskela2791 Given the concessions and support that the Australian government is providing to the oil and coal companies we won't be talking "green" hydrogen though. And to be honest, I don't think hydrogen will live up to the promises being made for it for quite a long time (if ever).

[@aga9618]

That's crude, linear thinking at its finest.

[@luciferthestar6797]

This gives me hope. TY DW ❤️

[@gonzalodeubelbeis9320]

In the south of Argentina an Aussie company is gonna build the biggest project for producing green hydrogen. I was surprised they did not mention it in this report

[@md.moinulislam9467]

MASHAALLAH khub valo video......

[@davidgeary490]

Thank you. Great video! Green renewable hydropower will serve as a good electrical source for making hydrogen. Eg. in Canada we have excess hydropower , so we could use it especially at off-peak times, night time, to make the hydrogen. At the moment Canada is at 67% renewable energy overall, a leader among G7 countries, 4th best in the world. 60% of that 67% is hydropower. And our federal government is finally , at long last, planning development of a hydrogen infrastructure. Our solar regime in the country's western great plains region is among the best in the world too!

[@DWDocumentary]

Thanks a lot for watching and for your positive feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to comment and are glad you liked the documentary!

[@TommyLangzik]

1. Our government needs to focus on GREEN Hydrogen though, not BLUE Hydrogen (which is even more carbon heavy relative to using gas/oil). 2. Canada is also still clinging to Nuclear power, otherwise we wouldn't have the excess hydropower that we sell to the U.S. Personally, I haven't seen much in Ontario & BC [relative to my visits in Germany] in terms of renewable power or innovation. Canada is EXTREMELY LUCKY to have the natural resource abundance that it does; if left to rely exclusively on policy, we'd be doomed.

[@Bartonovich52]

You don’t need energy storage for excess hydroelectric power. That’s literally what it is! Pumped storage that’s already there!

[@wilywascal2024]

In Alberta, Canada has the largest production of tar sands, one of the dirtiest fuels, polluting its rivers, soil, and air! Canada's ecological footprint pre capita was graded at 8.17, just below the U.S. at 8.22 (2016), which is higher than European nations. Some small oil-producing nations like Kuwait and UAE produce far more greenhouse gases because of their refineries. But the problem is about more than just who is producing the most greenhouse gases or who is producing the most green energy; it also involves who is consuming the most products made with those greenhouse gases, who is most exploiting Earth's resources faster than they can be renewed? Now, the figures given were for per capita, but if we look at national rankings without regard to population and other factors such as China and the U.S. being major exporters, then those rankings change. But one could well argue that per capita ratings are a more accurate and fair measure. In that regard, Canada is on par with the U.S., Oman, Mongolia, and Australia, the only five in the world which require more than 6.7 global hectares per capita. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT PER PERSON: The Ecological Footprint per person is a nation's total Ecological Footprint divided by the total population of the nation. To live within the means of our planet's resources, the world's Ecological Footprint would have to equal the available biocapacity per person on our planet, which is currently 1.7 global hectares. So if a nation's Ecological Footprint per person is 6.8 global hectares, its citizens are demanding four times the resources and wastes that our planet can regenerate and absorb in the atmosphere. Here are the ecological footprint national rankings from Global Footprint Network for the five worst nations: 1. China China has an ecological footprint of 3.71 hectares per capita and a biocapacity of 0.92 per capita. China’s total ecological deficit is -3,435.62, the largest in the world. As China’s economy continues to rapidly expand, people’s incomes are rising, and, as a result, so is their consumption. With the largest population of any country in the world at about 1.4 billion combined with inefficient resource use, China is depleting its resources quickly. 2. United States The U.S. has an ecological deficit of -1,416.05. Its ecological footprint per capita is 8.04 hectares and its biocapacity per capita is 3.45 hectares. The average US ecological footprint is about 50% larger than the average person in most European countries. The U.S. has more suburban sprawl, less public transportation, and uses more energy and water per person than other comparable, developed countries. Additionally, California has the same ecological footprint as France. 3. India India’s ecological footprint per capita is 1.19 and its biocapacity per capita is 0.43 hectares. India’s total ecological deficit is -878.05 hectares. India represents about 6% of the world’s ecological footprint. India, like China, has a population of over 1 billion people. While India’s ecological footprint is relatively low, its biocapacity is much lower, leading to its large deficit. 4. Japan Japan’s ecological footprint is 4.65 hectares per capita and its biocapacity is 0.59 hectares per capita. Japan’s ecological deficit is -547.18 hectares, the fourth-highest in the world. A majority of Japan’s ecological footprint is made up of Japan’s carbon footprint. If everyone lived based on the Japanese standard of living, we would require the equivalent of 2.3 Earths to support the world population. 5. United Kingdom The U.K. has the fifth-largest ecological deficit in the world of -483.83. The U.K.’s ecological footprint per capita is 4.20 hectares and its biocapacity per capita is 1.08 hectares. Between 2014 and 2016, the United Kingdom’s carbon footprint dropped 11.7% driving the country’s total ecological footprint down by 8.8%. Although the U.K.’s ecological deficit is the fifth-highest in the world, the country seems to be moving in the right direction. A note on hydropower: In addition to methane, hydropower can have significant environmental effects such as fish injury and impact on downstream water quality. By diverting water out of the water bodies for power, dams remove water needed for healthy in-stream ecosystems thereby disrupting the natural river flows. Dams also slow down the flow of the river. The size of the reservoir created by a hydroelectric project can vary widely, depending largely on the size of the hydroelectric generators and the topography of the land. Hydroelectric plants in flat areas tend to require much more land than those in hilly areas or canyons where deeper reservoirs can hold more volume of water in a smaller space. At one extreme, the large Balbina hydroelectric plant, which was built in a flat area of Brazil, flooded 2,360 square kilometers-an area the size of Delaware-and it only provides 250 MW of power generating capacity (equal to more than 2,000 acres per MW). In contrast, a small 10 MW run-of-the-river plant in a hilly location can use as little 2.5 acres (equal to a quarter of an acre per MW). PS: Love Canada and Canadians, so don't get the wrong idea. But we also need to be realistic about the problems and their causes. Had always admired Canada as being very environmentally conscious, but with the Alberta tar sands, Canada placed greed before the health of humans and the environment. Canada is by no means alone in this area; plenty of other nations are guilty of the same. My own country, the U.S., is likewise a large source of the problem, and we need to do much more to change our own policies and lifestyles. Greed may improve quality of life in the short-term, but it is inexorably killing us and destroying quality of life for all of us in the long term.

[@rizvansvarshik]

А россия стоит. На пороге развития ионных узлов решается только вопрос устранения в процессе эксплуатации озона.зато кпд электрического ионного узла будет 90 процентов

[@deepthought5411]

Thanks very much for another great documentary.

[@antigonemerlin]

I just got a perfect ad for a heat pump company. I didn't even notice it was an ad until it finished. KZbin, take note, this is an example of a good ad!

[@evangelist6277]

Hydrogen is one of the more sensible options put forward and should in time replace petrol, diesel etc

[@DiyNuke]

I still think it will take ages for it to be really green. And thats mostly because of transportation cost and compression costs So far electric is still the way to go for now Lets not forget that hydrogen has been around just as long as any other fuel.

[@jasavak]

@@DiyNuke its a scam . It takes 100kwh of energy to create 23kwh . Defiantly not green . its more like an idea to keep oil companies in business by selling another commodity.

[@patrickstarrfish4526]

You do realize hydrogen is explosive, right? There is a reason why the Hindenburg exploded!

[@panaceiasuberes6464]

Hype! Takes more energy to scrape it from other elements in order to be usable as fuel than to use it as fuel.

[@lukasdoms7483]

Rly? Ok

[@panaceiasuberes6464]

@@lukasdoms7483 "The concept was simple, explained natural-gas proponents serving on the state’s climate-action council. Industrial hydrogen suppliers had long used a process called steam methane reforming (SMR) to produce what the industry calls “gray” hydrogen from natural gas-a system that accounts for 95% of all current hydrogen production, but releases large amounts of carbon emissions. Emissions-free “green” hydrogen can be produced using water and renewable electricity, but that tends to be more expensive than making gray hydrogen. The solution, gas-industry representatives said, was to pursue a kind of carbon compromise. Instead of making expensive green hydrogen, industrial gray hydrogen facilities could be outfitted with carbon capture systems that buried their emissions underground. Voila: A new color in the hydrogen rainbow-safe, clean, abundant “blue” hydrogen to power the economy of the future." There you have it. 95% of current hydrogen is a by-product of fossil fuels. How amazing.

[@PazLeBon]

@@panaceiasuberes6464 the most abundant gas in the universe. Its difficukt to comprehend we have to create our own

[@jokers7890]

You make no sense. Hydrogen is a element, it is not made from other elements. Hydrogen is not 'made' using energy, it is accumulated. This is basic physics.

[@panaceiasuberes6464]

@@jokers7890 I literally copy/pasted you an article from Time magazine. If you're too dumb to read then this conversation is over.

[@Peterblack12]

Japan and Germany investing heavily in hydrogen. They have been leading the world in technology for the last 80 years. Even if some of those invention have been for war

[@supriyatiwari2173]

Uytttr%Aa

[@bizling]

4:55 80,000 Euro? I could have a used Range Rover V8 diesel and change for a fun car! The masses are not able to afford such vehicles.

[@kevinrogers326]

New tech is always expensive but prices decrease when production is scaled up. With your thinking we would not even have any transport at all.

[@user-lq4hb6bk1m]

It’s relatively new technology, so in a few years time these cars will decrease in price and will be subsidized by governments as their aim to become climate neutral

[@robbylianto6756]

Love this DW channel 👍👌

[@DWDocumentary]

We appreciate your comment!

[@nephos100]

Or reduce the need for energy...

[@BradNemeth]

I saw a German U-boat and for some reason forgot all about the topic of renewable energy haha

[@vojtechfarkas885]

Silent, deadly and now with extra benefit of being clean. Can't dominate the world, if there is no world to dominate :D

[@j05hau]

The reason that hydrogen technology hasn’t been developed yet is solely on the basis of profit. The military have working examples of the technology because it’s beneficial to the government to have a stealth submarine, among other examples. Oil and it’s lobbyist proponents have long and successfully suppressed our advancement in technological areas regarding energy production. If the focus was less on capitalism and self-interested growth and more on a collective advancement for the good of the planet and its inhabitants, we would’ve had hydrogen vehicles LONG ago. We need to wake up to the fact that it’s the economic ideology that’s killing us. Capitalism is NOT a breeding ground for ingenuity, it’s the grounds for the commodification of everything - regardless of the value or damage a product / service provides. Which skews priorities and forces some great technologies underground, and changes people’s focus into clambering over one another to reach the top of the money pile.

[@johnpatrick1588]

I'm looking at science/tech people telling me about green hydrogen but get distracted and question just how smart they are when wearing masks outside.

[@TheAnticorporatist]

Actually...I know that I look like a tool, but wearing a mask outdoors has been AMAZING for my allergies/hayfever.

[@mrpatchy9950]

A very informative documentary the Hydrogen Fuel cell technology and developments and challenges are explained in a very lucid way.

[@Cordycep1]

I dont know why US govt is just to focus on charger station & Lithium mining, they should be developing H2.

[@ethimself5064]

Green Hydrogen can also be made from Hydro Electric Dams.

[@laftiskuno1357]

Plug Power is already on it.

[@MrTomtomtest]

Hardly green... Dams destroy whole ecosystems. Carbon neutral is what you mean.

[@ethimself5064]

@@MrTomtomtest Where I live 90% of Electric power is by Hydro Electric Dams. Lotsa lakes and rivers

[@SoCalFreelance]

A good use for excess power generation.

[@ethimself5064]

@@SoCalFreelance Yep

[@zhubajie6940]

For transportation, the specific volume is too great. A typical jet airliner would need half the seats to store liquid hydrogen of equivalent energy.

[@patrickstarrfish4526]

“Green” hydrogen is a sham. First, unless it is coming from Nuclear power, there will never be enough solar or wind to create hydrogen in scale. Second is the explosive nature of hydrogen, in addition to storage volume due to poor energy density. A nuclear reactor produces enough energy to fuel an aircraft carrier for 20 years. A short haul plane using propeller drive could be powered directly from a small nuclear reactor. Germany can’t even stay warm this winter, going green without nuclear power is impossible. The “green agenda “ and transition is fine, but the bias against carbon-free nuclear power makes no sense.

[@subhagatadatta3032]

Germany - talks about green hydrogen while importing gas from Russian arctic.

[@jokers7890]

Thats a good thing....Russia helps Germany, the U.S. and big oil destroy it.

[@simmerke1111]

Yes. While also having 40-50% of their energy coming from renewable sources. Get off your high horse.

[@subhagatadatta3032]

@@simmerke1111 yeah, stilll increasing coal production after premature & stupid closure of nuclear power stations. With falling power production in solar & wind & record energy prices let's see how long the honeymoon lasts. Trust the French to teach the world the full power & capabilities of nuclear energy.

[@simmerke1111]

​@@subhagatadatta3032 They've been at this level for neigh a decade. Even exporting electricity before the global shortage. And likely will continue to do so for a while to come. Let's see how long the french will hold on with their outdated nuclear plants before they start cracking. One of those is right at my countries border and should've been out of service 20 years ago. Humanity can't be trusted with them, as they've proven time and time again. Not doing proper maintenance and keeping them in service decades too long. We'll see how this ends.

[@jimboTTT]

@@simmerke1111 russia wants to help germany, but germany likes america which destroy it ...

[@paulgracey4697]

This shows me that the hydrogen interests are elbowing aside the direct uses of surplus green electric production to divert that resource to their preferred system of storage. That they can maybe remove some of the extra steps used in that hydrogen production is a long way off, so the existing methods will prevail for the time being. The cheaper brown hydrogen from natural gas pipelines already amortized means if the research money runs out society will be stuck with natural gas burning for steel production and natural gas conversion to brown hydrogen for those submarine's fuel. The priorityfor the economy should be renewable electric energy production and storage for battery storage, even distributed storage in the growing fleet of EVs connected to the grid for long periods of each night. IF there remains surplus electric generation then produce green hydrogen. This would most likely be done in the south of Europe and piped in to where it can be used for steel production or some forms of longer range air travel. Those submarines are a niche use and minor to the size of the environmental problem we seek to solve. As to the fuel cell cars, they will die a natural death in that marketplace. They already are being surpassed by long range battery powered vehicles on sale today. Your petrol vehicle collector driving the Hyundai has but one excuse that makes any sense at all, that 5 minute fueling. Ask him what he has to do when that brown hydrogen fueling station runs out, or the nozzle freezes connected to the car. Both those things happen quite frequently where I live in Southern California, the second most hydrogen fuel cell car using region after Japan.

[@atohms]

Totally agree! Hydrogen needs to be applied where it makes sense. Airplanes, long-hauling trucks & indeed producing steel.

[@davidsharrock5704]

Hydrogen 27% efficient BEV 64% efficient. Enough said.

[@iansmith6728]

It only makes sense to make ammonia to displace the 200000T/y ammonia consumption in fertiliser, plastic manufacturing, heavy haulage and aero applications.

[@jcgamer892]

@@davidsharrock5704 throw away battery tech is a great thing for the environment......for short sighted people such as yourself

[@peakproofuk]

@@jcgamer892 what do you think is short term about batteries? Bearing in mind the facts I mean - 20 years in EVs, another 20 in static storage, then fully recyclable.

[@EyFmS]

3:40 I like Mr.Ralf Oesswein mentality, we all know progress is inevitable and the only thing getting in the way is the greed of profit from monopolies.

[@86Sporty58]

put a card in the spokes

[@ToneyCrimson]

Fusion imo is the key to climate crisis, but hydrogen is a nice step until we get there.

[@NarutoSSj6]

Hydrogen is a good replacement for the battery reliance in electric devices. Another use for storage from green energy plants. The biggest problem is the storage of hydrogen, which is the reason to why it hasn't retired those batteries.

[@vojtechfarkas885]

Fusion won't help us with climate. We haven't even achieved it yet, and even if we do (in the next 20+ years) the price of it will still be huge issue. We need solutions now.

[@Boris_Chang]

On a related note, it would seem that living/working aboard a submarine for months underwater is probably the closest/best training for astronauts preparing for long-range missions (e.g. Mars).

[@mbitetto67]

04:11 It may be nitpicking but, in the venue of professionalism, one should take the time to quality control check. It is important to maintain credulity.

[@peterfireflylund]

Credibility? Credulity is generally not a good thing...

[@folk.]

6:40 H burns hotter than HC and has 1/3 of the ED. As of today it's not a viable alternative to HC in jets.

[@1Animeculture]

In denmark we have a longterm project of making an artificial island out at sea to our west. Our plan is to make a massive windfarm where the exess energy will be used for electrolysis of saline water. We will have oxygen that is either released or bottled and hydrogen we will use for fuel for the ships out there. Effectively we make fuel from the green energy if we on some days make too much wich we can use later.

[@onlooker774]

@Eternal Atake if you would investigate this aspect then will be surprised of how much fish love artificial riffs... the problem is not in the fish but in making those very co2 expensive turbine and all assotiated steel and concrete structures... do you have any idea about how much energy is required for cement production? Look deeper in to the energy problem and not only by green activist slogans, so far there is no such thing as green energy...

[@onlooker774]

@Eternal Atake unfortunately it's not only financially, in the core itself it is not sustainable, solar panels as an example do not pay back their energy required for manufacturing, and they become real problem as waste... ethanol fuel is another example, we use so much extra land to produce food which go as fuel, instead just using much smaller amount of petrol to produce just necessary food and leave the land to nature... everything these lunatics promotes just aggravates the situation and encrease pollution which is a real problem...

[@venomousowl5100]

Hey i saw a news about how Denmark's people slaughtered around 1500 dolphins for some shitty tradition ☹️I pray those people will suffer for their crimes

[@cg7089]

Tout crève encore même les poissons Quand bourgeoisie et gouvernement ont tous les passes les droits les libertés ... Rien de souverain ni de démocratique alors le vert est plutôt pourrie crasse dominante et persistante

[@jepulis6674]

@Eternal Atake Lol. Much safer than shipping oil.

[@jefferee2002]

I really like the idea of using hydrogen in an energy storage capacity directly at solar and wind installations. It beats having to transport the hydrogen and could help us agree on electricity being best for terrestrial transportation purposes. Remember, every step in getting hydrogen to a fuel cell vehicle costs energy and makes using hydrogen less efficient.

[@luisgutierrez8047]

Yes it's less efficient but on the bright side, it's way less polluting than batteries and solar panels. They require A LOT of mining AND produce a lot of e-waste. We shouldn't swap out one problem for another...

[@canadafirstdog9051]

yeah TV Show watcher . Only because you never research any of this windfarms cost more and use more energy to build than they produce . solar panel toxicity . costs per watt - go buy some at your Canadian tire - there minimal watts . not very useful electric black child labour cars ? congo cobalt mining - not 2 environmental the concepts are great . but the power tech source is not here yet its not like people are stupid . and use the best they can get WHICH IS NONE OF THE BS . YOUR SOLD ON .NOT RESEARCHING ANY OF IT

[@MrFujinko]

@@luisgutierrez8047 Without solar panels where do you get energy in the first place? Wind farms with blades made from fiberglass that can't be recycled? Wake up, hydrogen is a carrier not a source of energy.

[@luisgutierrez8047]

@@MrFujinko did you....you didn't watch the video till the end and it shows. Like????? They addressed that solar thermal could provide a path. Could be really good for middle eastern countries are they have PLENTY of sunny desert, CAPITAL and INCENTIVE to diversify away from fossil fuels while still maintaining dominance over energy

[@blomegoog]

H2 is high pressure, corrosive, temp sensitive, and explosive. Large tanks. Do you really want anything like that near where you live and sleep?

[@totoroben]

I'll believe it when I see it :D

[@donquixoteupinhere]

Very interesting, thanks!

[@hooberdoober576]

No. Thanks for asking.

[@thetomekyo]

to produce hydrogen one needs electricity. It is way more efficient and safer to use electricity once produced (since we turn the hydrogen into electricity anyway) instead. Hydrogen hype seems just another way to make money for the few who have big mouth and two agendas, where environmental good is the official one ...

[@jimmysee1234]

Hydrogen is far more energy dense than Lithium Ion batteries. Batteries are great for cars but heavy equipment and aviation require far more power than batteries can deliver.

[@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb]

H is for time shifting. But the conversion/compression/distribution will resign it to a tiny market. Any practical person quickly finds out the huge limitations. But it's a darling for the green crowd who couldn't tell you the difference between H, He, H2S. Sigh.

[@rayknn]

You forget about the fact that batteries are insanely bad for the environment and really expensive to make.

[@chrisheath2637]

@@rayknn Whereas fossil fuel cars are the darling of the green brigade...

[@rayknn]

@@chrisheath2637 I'm not getting your comment. In the whole entire 1 sentence I have written I have never said that I think fossil fuel cars are the way to go. What I actually said is that hydrogen might be a better idea than cars with batteries because they are bad for the environment :)

[@w__a__l__e]

i think batteries will have applications in short hauling vehicles and at home storage.. but larger scale power storage / long haul transport hell even space flight.will probably require something like hydrogen as it seems easier to scale.. also i wonder if you could use the heat from say a nuclear reactor to split hydrogen and oxygen.. vrs just producing steam then running a turbine..

[@Strawberryknight]

BEV can get charged easily at home or at any charging stations which you can find easily. A level-2 BEV charger costs only US$600. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the other hand are different stories. You can't charge at home, unless your house has the space and all the safety certifications and insurance policies to cover the hydrogen fueling tank. BEV with one full charge can travel 300km. Toyota Mira hydrogen vehicle right now is about 250-300km. It makes no difference.

[@coen270]

@@Strawberryknight maybe instead a plug in hybrid battery/hydrogen car could be used. about 100 km of battery range for work traffic, which you can charge at home or at work, + 400 more from hydrogen for long distance rides. Both technologies use electric motors so they are compatible. The benefit of hydrogen over using superchargers is that hydrogen is much more friendly for the grid, as the gas station could simply produce hydrogen at a steady rate during the day and store it. Superchargers work, but they generate very large peak loads, thus also requiring expensive infrastructure. If such a car were to be designed in a smart way it might even be possible to use the fuel cell as an electrolizer and fill it up slowly from something like a level 2 charger at home. There is also the point of storage, something we will need quite a lot of to overcome the seasons unless we go full nuclear. And since batteries are not a viable means of long term energy storage, you will have hydrogen produced anyway for during the winter.

[@MDP1702]

@@coen270 *about 100 km of battery range for work traffic, which you can charge at home or at work, + 400 more from hydrogen for long distance rides.* Problem with that is that hydrogen actually doesn't offer that much extra range with passenger cars. *The benefit of hydrogen over using superchargers is that hydrogen is much more friendly for the grid* The thing is that the grid can manage if it is updated/reinforced, it just requires funds. However this wouldn't be any different for these fueling stations and everything around it. *as the gas station could simply produce hydrogen at a steady rate during the day and store it* Except hydrogen needs around 3 times the electricity, so you'd still put some extra strain on it. And then you also need add the infrastructure to produce the hydrogen which won't be cheap either. And lastly most people can just charge their car whenever it is best for the grid, all they need to be able to do is plug in their car as much as possible. Fast charging really only should be done on longer trips or when you have no other options, so overall the fastcharging shouldn't put that much extra strain on the grid compared to your proposal. *it might even be possible to use the fuel cell as an electrolizer* A fuel cell doesn't have that capability and even if it could, the pressure in the hydrogen tank of your car is very high, so you'd also need a strong compressor in your car. If it was that easy to produce hydrogen at home and refuel your car, hydrogen cars might be more popular currently. *There is also the point of storage, something we will need quite a lot of to overcome the seasons unless we go full nuclear. And since batteries are not a viable means of long term energy storage, you will have hydrogen produced anyway for during the winter.* No, you really don't want to use hydrogen for that application, you'd need a shitload of storage space, making it very expensive. There currently are other storage options coming to market at this point that are more viable for something like this and in the worst case you'd just create a link to for example north African countries.

[@ttuliorancao]

Yes, nuclear reactors are a solution but Germany is kinda dumb in this aspect and hate nuclear like hell. They've spent billions on renewables and they're paying twice as much as for electricity and emitting twice the CO2 than France that relies on nuclear...

[@knoxville42o94]

Love how they all take their private jets to discuss climate change lol

[@wesone7429]

They are scam

[@aqeelnizamani]

Great job, depending on oil is more of a political problem than physical.

Please use the stereo of your vehicle to play the sound of an engine Mr. Oesswein. Not everybody likes the noise as much as you do.

[@markthomasson5077]

Was the Chairperson chosen for her eyebrows! Seriously, interesting, but not enough raised of the issues. Putting hydrogen in the gas pipes, which feed modified house boilers sounds fine, but burning hydrogen still produces NOX. Also rather put the cost to an all electric system and fabric / ventilation improvements

[@BADt0OtH]

This subject is an eyebrow raiser

[@jaredhill8721]

Nuclear energy can produce power for green hydrogen. Some advanced designs can produce temperatures high enough to break the molecular bonds in water and produce hydrogen more efficiently than with electrolysis.

[@JL-cn1qi]

Even tho nuclear has been used since the 50's no where on the planet is there even a single facility build to house the wast on a permanent bases. Every thing is put in " temporary" storage.? No one undertakes the masive building projects to house that safely, the stuff that stays dangerous for 2000 years. Not a single one ! They're just stockpiling it for the next generation to deal with. When that ever growing bubble bursts its going to poison large areas of land for thousands of years to come. Nuclear ends up creating the most dangerous wast ever know to mankind so politicians can just sweep it under the carpet for the next one to sweep it a bit further.

[@Massimo-d2e]

Interesting topic

[@fatwombat2611]

@@JL-cn1qi the world is going nuclear.

[@bobstar2683]

As an Australian that has to watch his coal fondling stooge of a prime minister bumble through a weak ineffectual plan for a green future, watching how the Germans do things makes me quite envious of good government.

[@mika274]

The Germans are heavily reliant on hydro carbons from Russia. And they need it a lot especially during winter. Everything is not as it seems. They are trying to make it on completely renewal energy but they are still struggling to make it at this point

[@gothenmosph5151]

Europe has been going heavy on coal since Fukushima. A nuclear scare moved them horribly on the environmental scale. Three European nations even outlawed nuclear energy after it. And that includes Germany who closed many nuclear plants to open coal plants which is now its main source of residential and commercial energy consumption. And that's to say nothing of all the natural gas importation - carbon AND political costs of it. Europe could solve that natural gas with fracking but choose local environmental impacts over global carbon emission ones. All of thatnis to say, there are problems all over my friend. But yes, Australia is also backwards like Europe with green energy preaching and massive carbon emission creation - particularly with coal exports to nations who don't even have "clean coal" (a farce in itself really, but still helpful over nothing) standards.

[@phalanx3803]

@@gothenmosph5151 why we didn't go nuclear here in Australia is still beyond me we have the largest know deposits of uranium and we use none of it for our selves.

[@hp2084]

Hydrogen can never be replacement for fossil fuel because of energy density. Hydrogen Under ambient conditions, a cubic metre of hydrogen provides some 3 kWh, equivalent to 0.003 kWh per litre. Pressurised hydrogen contains about 0.5 kWh/litre at 200 bar, 1.1 kWh/litre at 500 bar and 1.4 kWh/litre at 700 bar. Diesel Diesel fuel has a specific energy of around 38 mega joules (MJ) per litre. 38MJ = 10.555555556KWh

[@UrbanCraftTv]

Nice stuff.

[@groob33]

Short answer.... No. No it isn't.

[@ManicminerSG]

Simple, lobby to govt that all new house builds require to have solar, electrolyser, battery, fuel cell as standard with hydrogen stored using metal hydride tanks. Each house can then feed their own home with green energy and when batterries are full will then create hydrogen as a long term storage. This storage can be used as a battery backup or fill the car up. Lower the energy grid and become self sustainable.

[@Strawberryknight]

And a level-2 EV charger only costs few hundred bucks without any change to install anything. Hydrogen is a mess and you need safety certifications for the building and huge insurance policies to cover just the hydrogen tank. Also, fuel cell battery costs 10 times more than lithium-ion battery. When you can use electricity to charge directly lithium ion battery, why would you use the electricity to power the electrolyser to generate hydrogen and then charging the fuel cell battery?

[@sixtus9559]

I think your normal house doesn't need a hydrogen tank, a battery can save enough to power a house through a few days.

[@aaronparys1750]

No need for all that tech stuff House should be Passive/Net-zero ....Solar on the Roof and maybe a vertical/Wall Turbine to help ....Look at energy efficient house before Storage/Conversion tech

[@peterndungu7]

Very informative documentary !!!!

[@globalnomad4074]

cleanest power so far

[@TheLegend-nx3mm]

Stunning video I really hope this comes good. Well done. 🇬🇧 ❤ 🇩🇪 kind regards Danny uk

[@james4116]

There’s nothing impossible Einstein Said. E=MC Renewables Plus Solar = Hydrogen As A Platform For Storage Of Energy. Denmark produces too much solar doesn’t have storage so sells Surplus To Germany and European. But if you build a energy storage platform and stored the excess solar in the form of hydrogen produced by the excess solar in theory it will last forever!

[@MrTonyHeath]

He acrually said E=MC squared.

[@Law24809905]

In other words as long as your held hostage by big corporation. You can go green.

[@tkzsfen]

Yes and no - look who is on the forefront of hydrogen production. Good old Big Oil. They have the knowledge and resources to do it before anyone else. There are simply no political measures to make them hasten the process.

[@Law24809905]

@@tkzsfen absolutely i posted 3 links to different articles. Which showed how badly researched this documentary is. Relating to hydrogen technologies, which are out there today, that would enable the average person, to be completely off the shackles from big energy companies & they got removed. One was a company that won a million dollar prize. For a home fuel cell unit. The other for a 170 room apartment block in Sweden which is 100% self sufficient & how a company which has developed hydrogen tech produce from rain water. Clearly they don't want the average person knowing this stuff.

[@Karyabs]

Hype. You need a lot of energy to break hydrogen from compounds. Where's this energy going to come from?

[@Pound_Shift]

Watch “Stan Mayer water car “ hydrogen is much cheaper and easier to create than most people think, He applied for patents in 13 different countries and was offered $1 billion from Saudi Arabia for his patents

[@jokers7890]

Wrong.

[@bogstandardash3751]

The sun? There is about 10 mins of this video devoted to how they intend literally use the sun and water to create free energy? Did you not get that far?

[@paycation3966]

The accent is perfect. I love it

[@Fogaata]

Great comment to end on! Great video!

[@frederickherring4550]

As an ex-Submariner, these boats are cool

[@Patrick-jj5nh]

submariner called herring?

[@MattyRouter]

Not when It breaks down and no body saves you.99% of ex submariners are alcohólics,is that cool?I have 2 in my family,so I'm speaking from experience...

[@frederickherring4550]

Well, You know, I've heard them all. Bin called Herring's in, Kipper, Fished.@@Patrick-jj5nh

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

It's not how great it's use is, but how hard it is to break it's atomic bond with oxygen! You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in. It takes more energy and natural resources to produce the hydrogen, storing it, contain it, and delivering it... than what you get out of it in the end. This is true about any and all energy sources we use to power things. Even solar and wind energy have a negative environmental impact! The laws of thermodynamics cannot be circumvented yet, and very well may never be!

[@PT-cu2fg]

Your point is so glaringly clear Robert. Why do so many “intelligent” people not see this? It’s because their livelihoods and wealth are tied to denying fundamental facts. These people become a mutually reinforcing tribe which is self perpetuating. Beyond this, we are essentially out of time. Governments will be busy dealing with drought, heat, flooding, infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, population migration, etc. increasingly in the near and long term. There won’t be enough money or time for this Quixotic quest.

[@floro7687]

Huyndai stopped the production of hydrogen cars, if I remember correctly?

[@ByungKang]

False

[@0909rst]

There's no climate crisis.

[@newbrands12]

Beautiful Nature🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@PatLyoutubepage]

i feel green hydrogen at best will be a niche with limited use for a few reasons. first is the higher energy input required to produce any given unit of energy. second is the energy density/output of such system for mobility is way less than fossil fuel or nuclear. its the same reason why we don't use solar powered air compressors and cold gas rocket thrusters in cars/trucks/boats/planes etc

[@ЕленаЛюбарская-ю4р]

As a professional chemist with a Degree working in energy sector I would say it's doable, but not as smooth and easy as some people paint it. Starting from transportation, which requires very serious pipeline system refurbishing. It needs the significant technology shifting as well. The same with the "green energy". One can produce it but cannot replace the conventional energy for the moment. Predicting all environmentalists outcry I would suggest increasing nuclear power generation. It's much less scary than seems if done properly.

[@runs_through_the_forest]

@@ЕленаЛюбарская-ю4р thanks for your voice of reason, for now fission is the only real green power plant option, and germany has seemingly gone mad with climate neutral bs, how could wind/solar be neutral when for both there are down times which need an alternative which in germany is brown coal, solar creates a toxic waste pile in the long run, and wind needs enormous production efforts which simply can't be "neutral". cheers

[@ЕленаЛюбарская-ю4р]

@@runs_through_the_forest Thanks, mate. Please also keep in mind that nobody cancelled the Energy Safe Protocols yet. It still states that a developed country isn't Energy Safe and Independent if >20% of energy production is climate (weather dependable). Solar, wind etc clearly falls into that segment. That's how it stands atm. What the future holds? One day we'll find out I guess.

[@ЕленаЛюбарская-ю4р]

Just to prove what I said above: look at the current natiral gas crisis in Europe. You can easily say that's because of notorius Mr P but that's stupid. One particular reason is that very quiet summer didn't allow sufficient wind farms energy production.

[@runs_through_the_forest]

@@ЕленаЛюбарская-ю4р ok didn't know about that protocol, i'm more looking into astronomy and solar physics the last few years, and trying to have a decent understanding of plasma physics phenomena as it's essential to keep up with astronomy with most new insights being related to magnetism on cosmic scales.. more on the tech side it's sad to see how fusion can't seem to reach the threshold of break even or more.. anyway have a good one..

[@jedics1]

Its a shame this segment didn't focus on the solution to hydrogens efficiency of 20% because that is why we aren't already using it, I can only see hydrogen working if we have an excess of power from say mega solar farms in the deserts of the world but only after our needs have been met from the farms and by that time batteries will have become cheaper and faster to charge so hydrogen will need to compete with that also. Making energy from water and creating water when burning hydrogen is attractive to everyone but nothing in this segment indicates a solution to the abysmal efficiency problem it has.

[@luispenalozaambriz3254]

I think they did cover this? 18:10 of the video.

[@WXRBL666]

Hydrogen production is also a way to store energy to balance the peak/trough of the grid. on the other hand, battery technology has its limit, the energy density will not increase forever, so the charging rate. my concern over hydrogen is its safety compare to the battery and fossil fuel

[@kz6713]

We need something the regular people can afford lol, until then my Civic will get me around

[@DukeOfCurling]

Steering wheel and wheel base at 19:04 are from Fanatec (sim racing equipment)

[@tomhermens7698]

For sure. It is there to be used. Brilliant.

[@kenyup5424]

It’s hype, so far the costing of storage of hydrogen is way way high

[@koblongata]

Yea, production and storage and pumps aside, transporting fuel around the world is bafflingly inefficient and costly too... They just want to keep using the old infrastructure and make money from it, not about saving life on Earth, not a tiny bit. They never change.

[@addicz2]

Nah. You just EV fanboy 🤣

[@symmetry08]

So, steel smelting will use most produced Hydrogens so cars better run on batteries. Leave H2 for airplane and for commercial use.

[@BHPGH]

The vast majority of people drive < 50 mi (80 km) daily. Lugging around more battery capacity is extremely inefficient when considering the cost and resources to build that extra capacity plus the extra weight. Hydrogen tanks + electrolyzers make more sense in these regards. Analogous to today's PHEVs, Hydrogen tanks + an electrolyzer in combination with a 50 mi battery may be the perfect future compromise for folks with home garaging who can recharge overnight. For the rare trips exceeding the battery limit, they could then use hydrogen. Also, in the U.S. only 50% of personal vehicles are garaged which means only they have access to home charging. Currently, BEVs only make sense for folks with garages and not coincidentally the enthusiasts are in this more affluent demographic. The time required to charge at a public fast charger continues to BEVs prohibitively inconvenient otherwise.

[@sixtus9559]

Battery technology is moving forward forward so charging times won't be a huge problem in the future. The range is even nowadays on a similar level in comparison to a combustion car. Hydrogen needs to be used in steel and chemical industries because they need something in their chemical reactions that takes the place of coal. Coal "pulls,, out the oxygen, the reaction looks like this:" FeO2 + C= Fe+Co2. So instead of using carbon hydrogen is used, you get the same reaction but switch out the C with an H.

[@florinmoldovanu]

8:05 you clearly decompose the water molecule into its constituent parts The process turns water into energy? How is this renewable???

[@AndyGeesGarage]

When it is oxidized it recombines with oxygen making water

[@rushanwasim3349]

The electrolyzers are powered by renewable energy, that's what makes it green.

[@puneetmishra4726]

Because we have more than enough water. I think the right word is inexhaustible.

[@ananto_kusumo]

. . . after the electrolysis process there is a recombination of oxy and hydro it will become water again. real renewable energy . . . water becomes water again . . .

[@RoKuSa007]

Florin I highly doubt the education system in your country 🥴

[@V6turbo]

This new era of Hydrogen has Hindenburg written all over it.

[@rafaeltavares6928]

Yes, definitely

[@thorddespace2773]

How long can the know-how people avoid speaking about nuclear power?!

[@mazimadu]

Yes long

[@barryrudolph9542]

Not for much longer because solar and wind cannot sustain our growing energy needs and when the shortage of power becomes itself an existential threat the fear of Nuclear Power will be over shadowed by the fear of the lack of energy.

[@ADeeSHUPA]

@@barryrudolph9542 uP

[@pidinik]

In Germany? It seems now that since they buy nuclear electricity from us in Czechia (and we, locals, have to pay much more for it because of it) they can avoid it in theory forever. The consequence is ofc that people in Czechia can't often even afford the energy created in their country but the 'green' and 'progressive' Germans don't seem to care at all.

[@pidinik]

@@TubeMeisterJC It's a controversial and difficult topic. As far as I know the irrational German nuclear scare is more about safety of the technology than about the weapon ends it's often connected to. If I remember correctly then the trend has been there much much longer but the last nail in the coffin was the nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011. There was no going back from the process since then. Sadly nobody told the allmighty German political and bureaucratic machinery that Germany is in contrast to Japan about 1700 kms from the nearest tectonic plate border and therefore the chance of a similar accident is next to non existent. Sadly this is not only Germany's problem. All our leaders around the globe are completely detached from reality..

[@hundun5604]

25:37 "Hydrogen...imported from Australia" Seriously? From the other side of the planet?

[@flame8388]

Twiggy Forrest effect. If you know you know.

[@dennisvandermeer8238]

Interesting documentary. But I kinda miss an explanation on how it can be safely transported without it affecting the metal that it is transported in (see Hydrogen Embrittlement). Without this you will have major costs involved with transforming the current infrastructure to make it suitable for hydrogen. Are current natural gas pipe lines that go to the houses all suitable for hydrogen or will they deteriorate within one to a few years and need replacement constantly which will drive up costs considerable?

[@theharper1]

CSIRO developed a process to convert hydrogen to ammonia, which is more easily transported and can also be used as feed stock for making fertiliser.

[@negotiatingwithdestiny]

Didn't know about hydrogen embrittlement. Thanks for bringing that up. And you are right, it should have been included in this documentary because that probably means that the existing natural gas infrastructure will not be able to be used to transport hydrogen without customization.

[@irimfiaz5917]

Retrofitting current gas pipelines to transport hydrogen instead will be interesting

[@jeremyacton4569]

Humans have a knack of making things very complicated.

[@dtom126]

Twenty years ago I was at a dinner party attended by professors and Deans of private colleges. In attendance was a man who was an attorney for a large fossil fuel company. After a few drinks, when pressed, he admitted his job was buying up hydrogen fuel cell patents among others. He informed us he'd been aware of hydrogen fuel cell tech for 25 years. Do the math. Fossil fuel producers should be heavily taxed for suppressing these clean techs.

[@disposabull]

Fuel cells do not produce any energy. You have to make the energy first and then put it into the fuel cell then get it out of the fuel cell to use. Changing energy from one form to another is expensive, you lose a lot of energy in the process. Hydrogen fuel cells just mean we have to make use more energy from the environment to get the same amount of energy to use to power our civilisation.

[@Strawberryknight]

Twenty three years ago I was in Toronto attending the first fuel cell seminar for automotive industries. There were Ballard, Hydrogenics, Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, etc.. After a few drinks and everyone got hyped up, it became a bidding war on buying the fuel cell company stocks. Then few years later, nothing changed in automotive industries. We started to see few hydrogen fuel cell cars from Toyota in 2011 and then disappeared. Instead we witness the boom of battery powered electric vehicles.

[@dtom126]

@@disposabull The ENTIRE issue here is reducing carbon emissions. Even in a break even scenario as you suggest we win because THE ENERGY IS CLEAN.

[@disposabull]

@@dtom126 Let me put this bluntly the only way to reduce carbon emissions is by getting rid of 7 billion people. We have the largest population explosion in human history, most of those people are very, very poor. To be in the global 1% you only need to earn $30,000 per year. We have about a billion people on earth who have physical or mental defects because of malnutrition. The only way we have a chance of getting to 2100 without a large scale die off is nuclear fission.

[@dtom126]

@@disposabull I find your arguement oversimplified as well as ridiculous. I understand the issues you are speaking of and see them as somewhat related to the problem and only marginally and tangentially related to the SOLUTION.

[@ashokkaul476]

India is going to be world leader in production of hydrogen as in two different laboratory of world class institution of IIT Jodhpur and Mumbai have successfully completed process of extraction of hydrogen from water bypassing the costly technology of electrolysis by using catalyst . Government of India has already set up high powered committee to see where hydrogen can be replaced in bulk users of energy.

[@TheGoncas2]

Lol

[@micahimpanis3713]

CO2 is plant food, CO2 makes plants drought resistant. Green the deserts and grow crops. Cooler deserts from plant cover will return rain to speed the greening. More water in the atmosphere will grow glaciers and polar icecaps. That in turn will eventually lower ocean levels.

[@rizvansvarshik]

Хорошо относитесь к путину и мировой океан начнет обязательно понижаться.

[@siddhantjain243]

you dont mean to say deserts are not necessary

[@MaviAntwerp]

Green the Sahara and you'll destroy the Amazon.

[@micahimpanis3713]

@@siddhantjain243 no, but deserts have been growing for thousands of years since the ice age. We could do with less of them.

[@micahimpanis3713]

@@MaviAntwerp that is not the case. Growing useful plants elsewhere will take the pressure off of currently productive islands. Only the polar regions will be less hospitable due to growing ice.

[@Hahaha41241]

This is amazing.

[@cujbaion1]

hidrogen it's usable in industrial area pipe network for processes, also oxygen for torches, acetylene, and so on

[@Mr1234543211]

That is the hype, to get money