Solid Hydrogen Explained (Again) - Is it the Future of Energy Storage?

[@KafshakTashtak]

I have done PhD research on this topic. The Metal hydride we were going to use was very very expensive which made it unpractical. But we shifted focus to Solid State Ammonia storage which can be used for hydrogen storage as well. The principle is exactly the same, except it works with halides. Some metallic hallides can store ammonia at very high gravimetric storage densities which makes it competitive to solid state hydrogen storage. The operation pressures are not high, materials are inexpensive and environmentally safe, and the storage pressure is below room temperature, so there is no risk of leaking.

[@niallmccourt]

Would love to know more on this

[@infocat13]

Use this and battery storage for shipping at sea, Off shore wind and solar for recharging.

[@infocat13]

North Sea wind to recharge ships at Rotterdam:)

[@KafshakTashtak]

You can look into ASME Power and Energy conference, Journal of heat and mass transfer, and Journal of Energy resources technology. You need to find papers on the topic.

[@lazyremnant380]

In your opinion, do you think it's possible for metal hydrides to replace LH2 on rockets someday? Is it possible for hydrides to release its hydrogens fast enough to satisfy the huge mass flow requirement (kilograms per seconds) of a rocket?

[@cartossin]

Please address all the points in the busted. I know he's snarky, but he's a credible scientist making correct points. It's dangerous to promote disproven concepts.

[@LoneWolf0648]

this whole channel is "amazing new material" or "major breakthrough" and other clickbait titles... the LACK of proper research done is obvious and it comes out as more of an ad for the company making this impossible product, like the solar roadways that have failed over and over.

[@olegglushko8124]

@@LoneWolf0648 It's beyond obvious to anyone who uses their brains on a daily basis

[@stefengullicksen314]

Matt the physics don't add up.

[@dc000n]

This channel is bullshit

[@englishrupe01]

@@JS-xf4ov LMAO

[@gregbailey45]

Another popular hydrogen storage method is conversion to ammonia. The technology to do this, and reverse it, makes energy transport via ammonia quite viable, as well as purely for energy storage.

[@2012listo]

Here here! This, and liquefied air, should be our sustainable future.

[@chrisheath2637]

A possible downside with ammonia, is its toxicity. Leakages could be problematic...

[@daleatkin8927]

@@chrisheath2637 true, but so is leakage of gasoline, or for that matter heavy metals, we are just more comfortable with “familiar” dangers…

[@unclejim1528]

@@daleatkin8927 Not the best comparison, gasoline will stay in a bucket. Ammonia is more like propane (uses same storage tanks) it wants so get out (up to 140 psi? in the sun, though ammonia hydrogen combo might change this). And the way I see it ammonia is more dangerous because large leak or confined leak WILL have arial effect, while propane MIGHT (depends if it finds ignition source). Both can kill, painfully. Ammonia is dangerous, and everyone that can stay away from it does.

[@MitchFlint]

Noooo! Bad idea.

[@sapidzombie]

Matt, you are so good at bringing us new technologies. Can you please do a video explaining how the earth is flat so we can finally put that to rest?

[@CogsOz]

Nice follow up Matt, which clarifies a few points, but I do have a couple of lingering concerns. You said, "When the hydrogen leaving those chimneys hits oxygen and combines with it, you get water vapour and those white plumes that you typically see coming out of them." Hydrogen doesn't spontaneously combine with oxygen to form water vapour. It requires the application of intense heat which then starts a self sustaining massively exothermic reaction, ie. it combusts. This is the exact process by which we extract energy from the hydrogen. If the gases in the chimney are hot enough to initiate combustion of the hydrogen (around 650°C I believe) when it hits air, then cooling it to the point it doesn't damage the hydrogen recovery apparatus is going to present its own set of challenges, and may negate the benefit of the hydrogen being available there in the first place. Secondly, I tried unsuccessfully to find more information about the energy requirement of dispensing liquid hydrogen. Where did you find the figure of 10MWh per ton (the link in your citations is dead)? I may be over simplifying, but simply allowing liquid hydrogen to absorb ambient heat at ambient pressure will convert it back to a usable gas with no requirement for an external energy source. Further the cooling effect could be used to advantage for other industrial processes. What am I missing here?

[@mikkoliukko]

A great mark of a man is his desire to learn and honesty to admit when he is wrong. Thank you for a great video

[@UndecidedMF]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@YourDadVR]

@@UndecidedMF Can you do a video on flow batteries?

[@jessegriffin9]

I am learning English and your videos help me. Unlike boring lessons and lectures, I can watch your videos for long hours.

[@UndecidedMF]

Glad you like them!

[@chrisbarrett2512]

As an investor of multiple decades, I have been interested in Hydrogen for almost 50 years. I always appears to be just around the corner, but the corner never is turned. Holy grail of renewable energy, or fool's gold? My head says that at some point a true breakthrough will occur, and be it hydrogen, or some form of fusion, or something out of left field. Just hopefully some energy platform that has little or no impact on the earth, and its animals, air quality, and other impacts. The earth takes care of us, but we do not take care of this earth, that must change. An excellent follow up and no reason to apologize. The field is changing rapidly, so picking the new ideas out of all of them out there is not easy, especially in a changing environment.

[@thegreataynrand7210]

If you are that old you should have realized how much environmental progress and improvements have been made over the years.

[@christopherbarrett9749]

@@thegreataynrand7210 I do! However, as always, we could be better guardians of the earth. Native American had a different view, the view was the earth could not be owned, we are supposed to persevere the earth for the next generation... Conceptions of the way we interact with the earth, could be improved, but hard to change...

[@thegreataynrand7210]

@@christopherbarrett9749 The truth is the environment is getting better constantly and we find better ways of doing things.

[@PseudoFiction]

@@christopherbarrett9749 - Both you and Matt have the correct attitude about how we as a species need to change how live to make a sustainable planet, but you're first comment about being an investor undercuts that attitude a little. However beneficial new technologies can be to the planet will always be secondary under the capitalist framework to making money. Matt always has a cost analysis about what the video topic is so he's keen to this as well. All it all, it isn't the science that is holding us back. Also don't take that other guy serious, they put Ayn Rand in their screen name, you can you tell they are full of shit.

[@KafshakTashtak]

What parameter (cost, techincal issues, etc.) do you think will cause that breakthrough? I mean what do you think we should focus on while developing these systems? I have done PhD research on this topic, and am interested in developing such systems. but never had the chance to get funding for a startup.

[@Kangenpower7]

At 8-9 minutes into this video, you show for 3 seconds a 9 MW hour hydrogen storage tank that will be connected to a 1 MW hydrogen power system, that can allow emission free power to the grid during peak power needs! That is fantastic, and worthy of it's own video.

[@corujariousa]

Thanks for the effort. This second video is definitely better than the first. I appreciate your videos.

[@brushstroke3733]

Why can't we challenge a person who consistently puts out unscientific claims he repeats from not so credible or reliable sources?

[@stephencrowther524]

You can,put out videos of your own,or be specific in your critiques.

[@Kwolfx]

@@stephencrowther524 - Well, for one metal hydrides are not referred to as solid state batteries, because they are not that. They have the potential to be used in a solid state battery, but by themselves they are not batteries. You have to have electrodes attached first and a specific place to attach them. That's kind of a basic error and it's made in the first 30 seconds of the video. Using fuel cells in a submarine works, the idea it could be used in any kind of aircraft is insane. The weight makes it impossible. Matt compares, the energy storage of GKM pellets to the energy stored in the lithium ion battery in a Tesla 3. OK fine, but you can't actually use it in a car or vertical take off aircraft. You have to heat up the pellets but you don't have to heat up a lithium ion battery. You just hook it up to an electric motor and it works. Heating up the GKM pellets takes space and the weight of the equipment that does the heating. Then there's the fuel cell and it's weight. Then there's the engine that actually burns the hydrogen. Not only do you have to take it's weight into account, there will be heat energy lost in that process, a lot of it. Plus, I forgot the energy needed just to get the hydrogen in the first place, seeing as there aren't any natural pools of hydrogen we can draw on. At least Matt mentions the efficiency; make that lack of efficiency, of hydrogen as a fuel. This isn't about science, but Matt makes a big deal about the company getting a relatively small government grant to study the feasibility of it's hydrogen storage idea, but a study isn't proof by itself. It's just a study. Wouldn't you want to know how that study turns out before you start declaring victory in the energy wars? Here's a link to a video that gives you an honest explanation of the potential and very real difficulties of using hydrogen to replace fossil fuels. It's somewhat depressing, but there's no BS in it, unlike some videos I can think of. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJzPoGeQZrikoac&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder

[@davejack8973]

Keep CRUSHING Matt and the TEAM at Undecided ! MUCH LOVE FROM NORTH OF THE WALL!

[@UndecidedMF]

Thanks, Dave! Me and the rest of team undecided appreciate it.

[@dutubarn]

Can't wait for the re-redo, nothing here is correct.

[@QuicksilverSG]

Correction: Nothing here to correct.

[@1LY4x8s96r]

@@QuicksilverSG Right? So tell me how he firstly said that 300ºC was needed to release H from the metal and out of no explanation, that he just said it was only 95ºC, and after that he even says only 60ºC, and no explanation on how that was possible. I'm not even going to mention about the efficiency and "low cost" subject. He just spoke for minutes without really explaining anything. Throwing some shallow information and no explanation.

[@QuicksilverSG]

@@1LY4x8s96r - Agreed, there's literally NOTHING HERE. Hence, nothing here that can be corrected.

[@MrTomyCJ]

@@1LY4x8s96r He was talking about different techniques. When he talks about the 60ºC , he instantly mentions that it's an improvement over the 300ºC figure mentioned earlier. What's with these shallow critiques?

[@synth1002]

how much you are paid by ev idiots?

[@rolyantrauts2304]

Thanks Matt great info once more, personally the balance with 'dumb down' & 'science' for me is spot on the mark.

[@lightwoven5326]

Thanks for this, your throwaway comment about metal hydrides going back to the 1930's. My Uncle who passed away in the 1970's talked about 'Solid Hydrogen' and where he was working achieved this. This now makes sense, though as a 11 year old I got ribbed mercilessly about me talking about it at school. For me, it's a little satisfaction that he wasn't off his head and that those who mistreated me were wrong. Made me smile. Strange World we live in. Sometimes we shoot the messenger because we know the majority is right.

[@Mmmmilo]

So: you didn’t do any research for your last video, you were called out, and your response video is just a bunch of deflection and pedantry without admitting that you were just categorically wrong. OK! How can anyone trust you if THIS is your methodology?

[@UndecidedMF]

We did do research and spoke to people who work in battery and hydrogen research.

[@Mmmmilo]

@@UndecidedMF you asked this company what third-parties had validated their research, and you literally just accepted their lie without checking ANYTHING. You believed the equivalent of “my girlfriend is super hot, but you don’t know her because she goes to another school.” Then, you didn’t even do the most basic research into hydrogen capture, which would’ve shown that what they’re proposing is not only impossible currently, but absolutely ludicrous physically. Etc. Etc. Etc. And then you create a clarification video in which you ignore almost all the valid criticism and simply try to reframe your mistakes. You’re Streisanding the hell out of this, and I can’t fathom why. Just say “we didn’t research this and created a stupid clickbait video, sorry” and move on. Sheesh.

[@martinsander4118]

@@UndecidedMF The argument about hydrogen capture from flue gases alone is enough to fatally discredit the whole video. Hydrogen is a very flammable compound - it will combust in coal plants or incineration plants due to high heat and presence of oxygen. The resulting flue gas from these plants is composed of mostly nitrogen, water and some CO2. All of this would have been easily discovered through a Google search and is usually teached in high school or below - we learned that air is mostly nitrogen, and if nitrogen (mostly) is inert, most of the flue gas will logically also be nitrogen.

[@phillipharrison886]

@@Mmmmilo Clickbait miracle technology is the new snake oil salesman; you give him too much credit to think he would admit the mistakes and recant

[@andrew13651]

@@Mmmmilo BS - You are taking an even more extreme position than ​ @Undecided with Matt Ferrell . Matt owned that there was more to the equation and even explained why every single aspect cannot be elaborated on in 10-20min KZbin posts. At this point you are bandwagoning Matts good faith attempt at creating a constructive debate similar to a kid with a laser pointer messing with a cat. Overall this video was informative, it had real facts that are close enough to be representative of truth for the broader message being conveyed. I am a chemist and I know a bit about metal hydrides - and I can tell you that Matt and team undoubtedly spent a boat load of time converting, compiling, rearranging and serving all the info contained into a useful video. I mean the guy even said - "[this is a jumping off point not an end all be all video]" Take your snake oil BS somewhere else - and tell your fellow trolls the same!

[@maxthelionxmax9220]

Getting very close to that million mate !! Keep going

[@UndecidedMF]

Thanks. I still find that crazy.

[@maxthelionxmax9220]

You deserve it mate . I watch all your videos and my niece is now also watching . It’s good to get kids listening to the right stuff and not rubbish TikTok videos I said It last year but honestly Fbr robotics is going global soon. The robots will be building houses down the road very very soon!

[@JasonColemanCalifornia]

Making corrections is one of the main reasons I watch. We appreciate it.

[@kimoandrews5802]

He should just delete his account.

[@philippeodouard6378]

Hi Matt Thank you your very extensive coverage. The technology has evolved greatly from your previous video. I am the CEO of SolidHydrogen and we make metal hydrides with release of the hydrogen at ambient temperature. No more heat is necessary. we can store 60kwh per 100kg of metal hydrides and make the hydride at a very competitive cost compared to previous technologies. We can store at a pressure of 30 bar which is the typical it comes out of an electrolyser. No compression necessary and it stores hydrogen at 99,999% purity which is compatible with fuel cells like to those used in automobile or trucks. It reduces the cost of hydrogen substantially as compressing can cots 25% of the H2 you compress and purifying can be half the cost of a Pressure Swing Absorption solution. Today, you can get twice the endurance of a car using metal hydride compared to batteries at the same weight . Keep updating you video... metal hydride is here to stay and help decarbonise.... Philippe Odouard

[@thirsty_dog1364]

Dumbing it down to reach more people works. Downside you come off as not informed to some people. Clearly it's a balancing act on any program trying to get new information and updates out. Great review Sir!

[@blg53]

Matt, there is something fundamentally suspicious about the whole process. It talks about "pushing" Hydrogen atoms into metal's chrystalline structure creating hydrides. That implied absorbsion, like water gets absobed into a sponge. But a sponge filled with water remains a sponge with water filling up the gaps. Hydrides however, are a totally different beast. Hydrides are not metal anymore with chrystalline gaps filled with Hydrogen, they are chemical compounds of metal and Hydrogen, a result of a chemical reaction. Saying that that Hydrogen is pushed into metal structure making hydrides is the same as saying Chlorine is pushed into chystalline structure of Sodium creating table salt! Salt is not Sodium anymore, just like hydrides are not metals anymore. So, to release Hydrogen from hydrides you need to overcome not crystal bonds, but chemical ones. You are aware of the amount of energy needed to release Chlorine from salt, don't you? Unless a chemical compound is unstable (eg explosive or combustible) the bonds are strong so not sure where such low energy requirement calculations come for. Could you please clarify if you can.

[@olegglushko8124]

Are you unironically expecting him to answer? haha

[@blg53]

@@olegglushko8124 I know, just kidding. The whole project looks like a scam begging for funding from the gullibles..

[@Kujo174]

He clearly isn't aware of anything you said. They don't have any scientific understanding of the matter, which should be fairly obvious from their videos. They just repeat snake oil claims from those companies.

[@dantealexander9863]

@@Kujo174 what do you mean?

[@lafamillecarrington]

The difference is the reversibility of the process - metal hydrides are relatively easily converted back to metal and hydrogen. Salt - not so much! Overall, the process is between water in a sponge and sodium and chlorine reacting. Crystalline.

[@idea-shack]

I've seen metal hydrides for hydrogen storage to feed fuel cells in action first hand a decade ago. The cylinders they were stored in used ambient heat to charge and discharge over hours, they merely got hot when charged and cold when discharged. Was impressed. Sure, if you operate at high rates, you need active cooling or heating to achieve the high rates or it becomes self limiting, but it depends entirely on your power needs, you might not need them is you are content to work at lower rates.

[@Jaybo79]

Love you for openly accepting and then addressing shortcomings. Not that I know of any from videos prior, but if you're willing to admit that you can be wrong/shortcoming, you have my vote and continued interest!

[@denvera1g1]

This video is put together so much better than the last video. I know that much of what is needed for publication on youtube is playing to the lowest common denominator, and thats really hard in short form media if you have to explain things and cite sources.

[@TheyCalledMeT]

11:03 a very very different story than [i paraphrase] "so market disrupting it got banned by the government" ... no it was just the typically slow bureaucratic process of taking years to consider consequences and granting or refusing a patent .. btw. very good message here, humble and going trough it in detail, huge thumbs up

[@dataandcolours]

You can quite easily tell by the way he speaks that he has no clue what he is talking about at all, he has just remembered sentences he does not comprehend or makes no sense. How on earth can this guy have 1 million subscribers??? Come on guys!

[@yeh.80]

Son, wheeres my glasses, I can't see the physics from here!!

[@lagging_around]

Since when do we have H2 in exhaust gases? We have H2O, NOT H2 in those streams.

[@ronvmt]

Loved the content, this is indeed the future. We got to identify all the puzzle pieces and then put them In order.

[@niefali]

If anything its really good to see so many different approaches to the energy problems.

[@hermannabt8361]

I'm looking forward to Thunderf00t's video on this.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

Yes indeed. Matt should have watched that in the first place.

[@ZE0XE0]

it just came out a few days ago.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@@satunnainenkatselija4478 I understand your concerns, but the storage medium is already in operation. Lookup "Ammonia to Hydrogen Metal Membrane Separation Technology" , they are already building the plant to make green Ammonia for transport of Hydrogen.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

@@ZE0XE0 I notice he just did another one on one of Matts bloopers. "Matt Ferrell says stupid things about Magnesium" I unsubscribed from Matt, he is just getting too unreliable and ill informed.

[@ZE0XE0]

@@dnomyarnostaw he mentions the bloopers early on, but goes into more scientific detail later in his video.

[@fightocondria]

Maybe it would be worth while to have you and TF talk this one out? I'd watch that video. I felt like this screamed scam tech the first time around. You may have had the wool pulled over your eyes mate.

[@amedeeabreo7334]

Worth considering: The most dense form of hydrogen storage is by connecting hydrogen atoms to carbon atoms. This is done by a process called photosynthesis.

[@MrTomyCJ]

And to release that energy you just need to burn it! aka fossil fuels.

[@andrew13651]

@@MrTomyCJ Agree, but I think by now we all know the reason for exploring other areas. For instance why not look into converting coal into hydrogen for the energy and carbon for the soil to regrow new plant matter and eventually create a system to essentially just increase the cyclic rate of fossilization to fit humans insatiable appetite for [things on a silver platter]. Fossil fuels do work, errryday! All it is is reworking the formula to emit a ['less controversial' matrix of stuff]. Say you dont believe in climate change or global warming or whatever ppl call it now. Thats fine, but you have to see the economic opportunity that is afforded from the enormous amount of people who do believe CO2 acts as a thermal blanket and is an 'bad' thing (like we know; earth survived much higher levels of CO2 before, and who's to say humans couldn't too? Mars is on the table but creating our own oxygen on earth isn't?) Its all BS to attempt to make more money for more people. That is the eternal dilemma of economics there are the haves and the have nots, and pretty regularly the have nots are far more numerous - then all of them have an avg of more than 1.1 children so theres more people chasing the same stuff and blah blah blah it all comes down to timing. But getting so caught up in whether CO2 will cause North America to sink, or on the other hand not caring and simply recognizing the burn rate of fossil fuel reserves is faster then they are replenished and that is an obvious issue - both present a problem that requires solving. So my approach is lets solve something and stop wasting time regurgitating the same complaints Ive been hearing since grade 10. Sorry TomyCJ you are not even close to the worst offender. I actually like and support burning fossil fuels to keep the world running as it currently does. Most greenies dont understand why solar and wind will never be enough to sustain 'the world' any better than burning fossil fuels while also retaining our general way of living (aka being able to get this message to people Ive never met via the internet lol)

[@andrew13651]

Pithy, I like - problem is human population rise vs photosynthetic rate.

[@laus9953]

@@MrTomyCJ when burning hydrogen, there is ZERO co2 produced

[@peterkorek-mv6rs]

Right. If You have a standard of life of an Australian Aborigeny or Bhutan Citizen it will be enough. If You are a US or Western European Citizen You need additional energy. If it is a Fossil fuel You usually take it from places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or Russia. The consequences You can see in the Evening News today.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Yeah, there is a reason the show is called UNDECIDED, not only it's technically not clear, it's complex and there are many actors, from power and control at the government level to investors trying to make their money back, from vendors to fans and ONGs producing misleading material, because of bad intentions of simply because it's impossible to know and the best data they have points in one direction. So great job.

[@troygrover6441]

This is very interesting concept for storing vast amounts of entergy underground. Especially in a Thermal Solar Field that is already operating at high temperatures. Great Video.

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

There might be an economical turmoil but there is no doubt that this is still the best time to invest.

[@wilsonjudson1650]

Best time to invest? thats funny though because in the last four months I have lost more than $47,900 in stock market which is the biggest I have loss since I ventured into stock investment.

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

you could be right or wrong . i once had similar problem but now its a different ball game for me because I was lucky to have met TERESA JENSEN WHITE, a financial manager and stock expert, I have made more than $165,000 in 6 weeks under her supervisions

[@dorissteve912]

Really? people are cashing in from the stock market and frankly speaking its comforting seeing someone admit to the fact that they actually seek help from professionals. please how can i reach TERESA ?

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

search her name on the internet to reach her

[@dorissteve912]

thanks for the info . Found her website and it impressive

[@jharbo1]

Thank you for explaining and answering questions. Very noble for a YT channel. Your credibility has risen greatly, lol. About hydrogen for the future: yes, right? Each year, we get a little bit closer to finding a replacement for fossil fuels. Wind is wimpy and solar works best where the sun shines almost 365, but neither are going to power trains, planes and ships.

[@drhubs7049]

Great work man. I can imagine this work isn't easy. Keep it up! You are a valuable resource to lots of people

[@AquaCoalaNest]

Reading a white paper, and accepting all that is promised = hard work in the USA (probably).

[@youtube.really.stole.my.handle]

What scent of Snake Oil did you buy?

[@drhubs7049]

@@youtube.really.stole.my.handle I like his content. Gets you thinking and helps you keep up with tech

[@drhubs7049]

@@AquaCoalaNest perhaps. I personally like staying up to date on technology and see the possibilities. You don't change the world staying in a box

[@AgenteSmart]

Well Matt, the criticism was not on whether it is possible to store hydrogen in a metal hydride. The critics were aimed at Plasma Kinetics' claim to store hydrogen in some sort of light-actived material which their own video can't choose between being shaped as a disc plate or a rolling tape. In order to be light-activated, it must be thin. VERY thin. So as long as it can't stand its own weight, it will need a mechanically appropiate foundation, which will be heavier than the hydride layer and its stored hydrogen. And here's were Plasma Kinetic's claim falls apart. Along with their stress on "being so good the US military forbid it", which means they pitched it too well, not that they actually made it beyond faking it...

[@dnomyarnostaw]

Exactly. It was a real "spin" exercise, avoiding his original nonsensical coverage.

[@pierredeloince9073]

Really - REALLY - interesting. Ty so much... In the end, the comments made you bringing up many facets of the topic. A lot of work we can figure 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@markolson4660]

Thank you very much for the repeat/re-evaluated video. I found the first half (about the science) to be very well done. And doubly kudos for looking back and reviewing your own performance -- that's the mark of someone who is truly trying to do a first-rate job! (I'd welcome more videos where you go back after a time and examine progress in technologies you have reported on previously.) Unfortunately, listening to your presentation about Plasma Kinetics in the second half, all I hear is red flags (a mixed metaphor!). They are saying "We've got great stuff, but we can't tell you anything because it's all proprietary! Trust us." While this occasionally turns out to be true, 98% of the time it turns out that the company was actually desperately searching for funding to build something they *believed in*, but didn't actually have working...and which never works. (And too often it's an actual fraud.) I think you'd do a lot better avoiding such a heavy focus on things you can't verify for yourself. In this case, it appears you are still too trusting of the Great and Powerful Oz.

[@UndecidedMF]

Appreciate the feedback. I’m in a trust but verify mode of thinking with Plasma Kinetics. They’re working on pilot studies, so we’ll know for sure if this was smoke and mirrors. I’m definitely keeping tabs on this.

[@chrisheath2637]

@@UndecidedMF (Sometimes , people working on an innovative product, find it hard to see the wood for the trees, and it can seem (to them) that there is a rosy outlook for future success, whereas they are actually heading for a dead-end. Equally, of course, people may be overly pessimistic, with setback after setback, and yet be on the verge of a massive breakthrough !. It is, naturally, massively difficult to know the future...)

[@RandyTWester]

@@chrisheath2637 Some things about the future are fairly predictable, for example solar panels are now relatively cheap and can be manufactured at a large scale, northern economies need energy in the winter but can produce more, in summer, and small electrolyzer + big storage fits that seasonal storage use case better than batteries. It doesn't mean they won't also use batteries, because solar doesn't work in the dark and never will, but they will never use batteries that charge in June and discharge in December. Except flow batteries, maybe.

[@Spencer-cz8lj]

One issues with a video like this, and a channel like this in general, is the reliance on manufacturer/corporate provided info - I remember one other company doing storage like this that thankfully I never purchased anything from, because their specified performance was so grossly incorrect it was definitely false advertising. There's a lot of random youtube tech channels doing reviews on "future tech" that never comes about, and a good percentage of the time it's not because they just need more time it's because the origin of the information was grossly untrustworthy and the goals set by the management are not realistic, generally to the major frustration of their engineering team. I'd love it if these companies performed as well as they said they could, but it's definitely a "believe it when it happens" situation.

[@danchadwick1495]

Hi Matt, graphitic Carbon-Nitride works much the same way holding Hydrogen up to 10% of the gCN total mass. Made of urea and sugar. Releases hydrogen at 300°C. The difference here is solar exposure is all that is needed to separate hydrogen from water.

[@luislongoria6621]

Careful, there might be a shortage of "pink salt" for Big Macs!

[@tomkelly8827]

Thanks for the follow up Matt. Yes as someone who lives off grid with solar and batteries in Canada, Hydrogen storage has always intrigued me. How to store all that sun from those long summer days for winter? Metal hydrides sound interesting for vehicles but I would guess that they are cost prohibitive for stationary applications, although great if you need to save space. A tank full of metal sounds like it would be quite expensive to expand, much more than an empty compressed air tank. From my research I am thinking that ammonia or methanol have more potential with large gas bladders under the lake or ocean getting a nod of approval as well

[@wannabewallaby1592]

Good work to follow up on past, discussed topics. Let's keep the discussion going!

[@ernestestrada2461]

A family member works for a major power company in California which uses solar power to pump water up hill to a reservoir to generate power at night. He says the system loses 20% (80% efficient).

[@trolololgast]

Hey student electrical power engineer here. Everything is about efficiency because this is what drives ROI. My first guess is this project can only exist because its has a big funding. Once this stops, 80 % efficiency is not going to cut is... I wanna be hopeful but also realistic. Would love to be wrong and learn more about this

[@amjrpain919]

Considering the amount of hydrogen available versus all other energy compounds, this is the direction we will inevitably follow. And I anxiously look forward to the day we can cheaply and responsibly utilize this technology!

[@amjrpain919]

@Phil Ware only currently...

[@GeorgeMonet]

Hydrogen is not available. You have to spend a large amount of energy to break the bonds of the chemicals hydrogen is found in.

[@amjrpain919]

@@GeorgeMonet people are making hydrogen generators at home, using electricity from a wall socket...

[@Artimidorus]

@@amjrpain919 That's not a hydrogen generator though, is it? It's using electricity and will always produce less than you put in. So they are making hydrogen, but it's losing money (hence, costly to do). They also aren't creating enough hydrogen to really do much with in a home setting. It's basically just a science experiment.

[@ninjapenguin120]

I think that at least for the mid-term, hydrogen only really makes sense in a few applications, like city buses for example. My old college town just ordered hydrogen fuel cell buses (with rooftop tanks) that they fill with hydrogen produced from their own solar plant. There's no reason a vehicle like a local bus can't use hydrogen, especially when you only need to build the infrastructure at one or a few depots. Diesel buses are so expensive to maintain in comparison to electric modes, but the overhead wire infrastructure of trolleybuses, and the recharge-time and service-life issues associated with batteries are big problems. I see locally-produced hydrogen for bus transit granting the best of both worlds.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

And gaseous storage works just fine.

[@williammeek4078]

Battery busses make more sense. For the electricity used to make that hydrogen, the busses could literally travel 3x further.

[@Matzes]

so the produce solar electricity...to turn it into h2 on terrible efficiency, to run expensive fuel cell busses. rather than just putting the electricity straight into a battery with very few losses.... yea doesnt seem smart

[@stewartleslie3292]

@@williammeek4078 But how long will it take to charge electrical batteries compared to filling up on hydrogen? Buses don't make money when they are waiting to be recharged. Then there is the daily grind of the batteries being used for public transport, will it be up to the task or will the life of the battery drop significantly? My view is watch what the military is testing as that what will ultimately be the final decision of any government, and there isn't an army in the world that's going to sit back and wait 8 hours for a main battle tank to fully recharge. And the most promising is what the US navy is working on. It can run on the current global fleet of vehicles with minimum modifications of the engine which means we don't have to scrap over a billion engines. www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/

[@GeorgeMonet]

@@stewartleslie3292 City buses don't make money in the first place. They lose money. And most buses don't need to be in service for many hours of the day. So taking a long time to charge isn't a problem for city buses. What matters most is cost and dependability.

[@DaveBo270]

Well done Matt! You obviously care a lot about what you do, allowing you and your team to shine brightly.

[@TheOtherClips]

Ya spoke too soon kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYKniaSFm6hpZ7c

[@andytroo]

Thanks for taking the time to go through all of this. I don't care that this is a longer video. If it is well sourced and informative I would listen to a 1 hour video. Most people watch more than 1 video in a row. If there is more content in the second half of your video than whatever would play next, that is a win.

[@TheOtherClips]

Unfortunately, it's not well sourced information

[@rhiantaylor3446]

Very helpful, though I will probably need to watch again in case I missed something... I agree that poor Hydrogen round-trip efficiency is only important for certain use cases. For long-term storage of what would otherwise be "waste" or surplus electricity, it is not a barrier. This illustrates how stored Hydrogen has a good fit with renewable energy sources which produce electricity when they want to, rather than when we need it e.g. wind blowing at night across a wind farm.

[@kgrach]

The main problem with the last video was Plasma Kinetics. They (Plasma Kinetics) people really scream scam. Just because somebody looked at your stuff doesn't mean they like or agree with what you did. The USPTO is really crap and will let you patent anything, so later you can sue the people who really figured out how to do it.

[@jonathanw11]

The main problem with the last video (and this one) is that it makes it clear Matt doesn't understand anything that he is trying to communicate. Channels like this benefit no one and really go to show why proper science communication is so difficult.

[@maladaptedmalarkey]

For me, it’s all about discovering new approaches to old problems, particularly replacements for fossil fuels that objectively perform better with far fewer emissions. Is this the case with hydrides? Possibly. I think you made the case that it is plausible that hydrides will be an economical replacement for some use cases currently met by fossil fuels. Thanks for taking a closer look.

[@youtube.really.stole.my.handle]

This technology existed over 30 years ago.... Scientists would know this was a legit way of transferring and storing energy. But this is literally snake oil and Matt is a snake oil Salemen

[@ohanachemdry808]

Wow....Hydrogen storage is moving along at a faster pace and addressing the safety of storage and release.....this sounds very promising for heavy industrial users such as ships, trains and possibly for construction and farming equipment....

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

I wonder what kinda ideas people are going to think up for us to do with all these giant holes we dug looking for things like lithium.

[@he8535]

This was a great video If you ever are running low on ideas for videos I am more than willing to watch old topics revised and improved like this one

[@chipbrown433]

Saw this when we got in last night and I have to wonder whether Dave Borlace is gonna send a "friend" to mess with your kneecaps for horning in on his Sunday release turf. I like that you took us on a deep dive when you felt like you needed to improve on a previous release and not seem too dependent on one startup's marketing. Bravo!

[@SuperFlamethrower]

8:48 The part I was missing is where an electrolyzer is used to "recharge" the hydride It goes from H2 to water with the fuel cell and back to H2 again using the electrolyzer.

[@maozedong549]

I like these longer and more explanatory videos better. ....you could start making more of these videos.

[@UndecidedMF]

Good feedback. Thanks.

[@stephensomersify]

Opinions on Solid Hydrogen remain opinions until tempered by FACTS - Your videos help this process - albeit in 12 Mins. All good food for thought, - - - old git, UK

[@JorgeGarcia-ff3mu]

Good job on the video! I don't share your pessimism for the use of hydrogen in small EVs. Also, I don't understand the energy efficiency argument when Green Hydrogen is made using free renewable energy. I feel that all of the so-called drawbacks of using Green Hydrogen in EVs have a scientific/engineering solution and think (hope) that Li-Ion battery EVs will be abandoned as a dead-end solution as they have a HUGE environmental, and socio-economic impact, which is almost never taken into account in viability analyses. No doubt someone is working on the need to do away with Pt Ir electrodes and precious metals in hydrogen fuel cells and electrolysers. I hope to live long enough to drive an economical Green Hydrogen Fuel Cell EV one day. No range anxiety, no 40-minute waits at the refueling/recharging station. Thank you again for the interesting and thought-provoking video.

[@Dev-lc4cd]

Love this channel, every new video, I almost always think its the best one yet, but this one is undeniably so. Though I'm not finding much info on my particular interest, decentralized energy production and storage, like the idea of a thorium reactor in every home, and the engineering of homes that minimize dependence on enclosed spaces (obviously, such a thing is geographically dependent).

[@kimwarburton8490]

if you havent already, take a gander at off-grid living solutions, but to be honest, most use geothermal, solar, wind and/or hydro combined with batteries and earthen heatsinks combined with air flow solutions and window angles for optimal conditions to reach passive house standards so as little energy is needed as possible I dont like the idea of thorium reactors in every home, because half the population is below average intelligence. As safe as thorium is, it is not idiot proof

[@gregbailey45]

@@kimwarburton8490 agreed, good as I believe LFTR's are, they are more suited to municipal or district level use where expensive monitoring is more practical. I wish more people would consider their use.

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@gregbailey45 would be good for hospitals and industry imo where theres already a pool of people with appropriate talents

[@kimwarburton8490]

edit, and high energy demands

[@gringo1723]

Beats the hell out of a SMALL THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE in every abode... 😎

[@rutessian]

Wow .. 14 days underwater. Amazing! Nuclear subs can't even begin to compare to that, with their 3-4 months.

[@jackholman5008]

6 months in war

[@davidbowerman6433]

But a battery (as was the point) can’t compete. This is also one of the quietest sub ever built. Battery boats are by far deadlier. And why DARPA is helping the navy research it.

[@rutessian]

@@planexshifter Nope, but if they want to use it as a battery, I doubt they'll put it in contact with water, they might just keep it inside the submarine where, usually, there isn't any water.

[@michaeltempsch5282]

And if you don't want to go nuclear, but still want weeks of submerged ops, there's the Air Independent (liquid oxygen and diesel) Stirling motor subs from for instance Sweden. Silent enough to first get in and "kill" a US aircraft carrier and then evade the escorts...

[@ammakko]

I am convinced that Solid State Hydrogen storage will have a key role in seasonal energy storage. The efficiency won't matter when we will have too much electricity produced in the summer and need it in winter. The VOLUMETRIC density of this technology is great.

[@mariandyp.9801]

I THINK THIS TECHNOLOGY HAS A GREAT POTENCIAL FOR IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND WILL BECOME VERY APPEALING, AS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. VERY INTERESTING AND GOOD PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

[@mp6756]

Lol No matter how big or small the conversation there will always be more than one opinion. I thought was the reason for conversation. After your first video on solid hydrogen storage I wasn't expecting a solid hydrogen storage fuel cell system powering my house before years end. Since 2012 my home is powered by two PV solar panels arrays just under 10k on average 85% on my family's power is from sunshine. My father installed solar hot water on his house in 1977 I grew up in home where I could shower for an hour and dad never complained. The solar panels were built by Revere Copper and Brass and in the early 90s Dad needed a roof I took his three copper panels and they are still on my roof making hot water today. I am still running the very same closed loop circulator pump today and the parts are still available. We should all be looking forward to better our future but not discount what has been available for the past 45 years. If I had long a term storage solution I wouldn't buy any electricity. Keep the videos coming the future is gonna be great now that people are paying attention.

[@FoamyDave]

Hydrogen binds too well. This means significant energy is required to "move" it from a free form to a storage from and back again. Thus the lower efficiency numbers quoted in the video when compared to batteries. It seems to me that it makes most sense when created with excess renewable energy and for "long" term storage (greater than 4 hours). Also, since significant heat appears to be part of the process, it is better suited to large industrial installations where the heat can be cost effectively stored/utilized rather than lost. So probably not passenger vehicles but more likely grid or industrial processes with large mobile applications falling into a special need category.

[@jooptablet1727]

Exactly. Store excess solar energy in summer and release it when the sun doesn't shine in winter. Even though it's inefficient, it does work. Hydrogen for passenger vehicles is idiocy, though. Batteries are a far superior solution. I think people are starting to understand that now.

[@infocat13]

co-locate this with molten salt storage for cogeneration

[@soulsurvivor8293]

@@jooptablet1727 With the energy requirements to liberate Hydrogen stored in solids yes, Hydrogen stored in Ammonia not so much. Ammonia stored and transported in slightly modified existing petroleum infrastructure and converted to Hydrogen at the pump is far more viable. There are efficiency losses in production however they can be easily offset by excess power production from outside the production facilities dedicated power production. The idea is to utilise Hydrogen for vehicles that require longer ranges and as a stored emission free fuel, not for metropolitan markets. Failing to realise that we need to use different solutions for different applications and taking the drawbacks that come with the benefit for the desired application would be foolish.

[@gringo1723]

Consider the efficiencies from the perspective of a PROCESS that shall definitely change (as Matt points out) over TIME!

[@da4127]

@@soulsurvivor8293 exactly, this sounds really good for electric 18 wheelers, definitely not good for small vehicles, but maybe even buses can benefit from it

[@petrkubena]

8:33 50kWh/100kg is significantly better than what is in model 3. Model 3 battery weights roughly 500kg and has only 80kWh. Even when talking about cell level energy density, you will not get much beyond 25kWh/100kg (250Wh/kg is traditional metric) in mass produced lithium batteries.

[@galfisk]

That's per kg of metal hydride though. The weight of the entire system will be much higher.

[@bertrandbolin7097]

I'm also interested in the statement of 50kWh/100kg. Is that just a claim by the company GKN or is it something that has been published and peer-reviewed?

[@justluke8730]

The big problem for me is, that even if it stores 50 kwh/100kg, if you convert it back to electricity in a fuel cell with 60% (current top values) efficency, 30kwh/100kg aren't that impressive anymore.

[@shorty1815]

Does this already take the needed heating into account? Also, the reversibility is usually quite bad, meaning that a lot of hydrogen is still left in the metal structure, reducing the efficiency.

[@Dayanto]

You should really do a video on ammonia. It's an efficient way of storing and transporting hydrogen that liquifies easily and has a higher energy density than even liquid hydrogen. All you need to add is nitrogen from the air. It can also be used directly as a (zero-carbon) fuel, and is receiving a lot of investment from the shipping insustry. We already have the infrastructure to handle hundreds of millions of tons of ammonia annually, which is about 100x more energy than our total capacity of pumped hydro. We're already seeing massive green ammonia projects popping up, and with rising natural gas prices, green ammonia is now actually the cheaper option.

[@GeorgeMonet]

No such thing as zero-carbon fuel as you still have to spend energy to produce it in large quantities in a time efficient manner.

[@gringo1723]

Superb addition to the whole concept! 😎

[@philippeodouard6378]

But ammonia is extremely toxic to man...and it needs a factory to make it at high temperature and store at -30degC. Not metal hydrides which are non explosive, non toxic and stpored and relesed at ambient temperature now.

[@FredPauling]

Thanks for elevating KZbin discourse to a higher level.

[@johnkeck]

I appreciate your openness, Matt. Keep up the good work with the great attitude!

[@youtube.really.stole.my.handle]

Hes still not being open at all lol. Hes a shill, Do your own research

[@markusschellenberg4684]

Go have a look at thunderfoot's latest reply. You will learn the differene between real science and pseudo science.

[@Marqan]

What I'm always missing from these kind of videos is a promise vs reality comparison for similar technologies, e.g. in this case lithium-ion batteries. Or how many claims and expectations for the project had to be toned down already from previous claims. For example in that last part of the video there was already a mention of gas tanks, even though one of the claimed advantages of the technology is that there's no need for them. This and the previous video felt more like "Hyped up with Matt Ferrell" rather than undecided.

[@kenirwin276]

Interesting. But, how does this compare with ammonia for hydrogen storage and transportation?

[@Spark010]

Great explainer video Matt. Looking forward to more hydrogen energy updates.

[@Spark010]

@@planexshifter 🤣

[@Chappy141]

Thank you Matt for the clarification. My company is actually scheduled to start a project with plasma kinetics soon. After talking with Paul & Stacy I feel that the technology has great potential it will just take time to work though all the challenges to produce a commercially viable product. Again thank you for the video keep it up!

[@UndecidedMF]

Interesting. I'm really looking forward to hearing how projects like yours work out. Feel free to reach out to me through my website (undecidedmf.com) if you'd like to discuss down the line.

[@Chappy141]

Yes sir will do.

[@hindigente]

I hope I don't come across as harsh or pedantic, I mean all that as someone who admires your work and just want to see it improve. The main issue with your previous video is that there didn't seem to be much to showcase other than a company's (rather fantastic) claims, since the actual science, verified as it may be, is concealed under a patent. While your presentation didn't feel deceitful, at least not purposefully so, it felt lacking, which may have made you come across to many as either gullible or as a mouthpiece for Plasma Kinetics. Personally, I think the problem stemmed from the choice of the subject matter (aka, an undisclosable technology) and had nothing to do with integrity, scientific literacy, communication ability, etc. You shouldn't refrain from talking about promising technologies and such, but those with such unsubstantiateable claims (even if through no fault of your own) shouldn't be the main focus of these videos. This very video, though, which had a greater focus on explaining some of the fundamentals and known issues of different types of hydrogen storage, is very much what I'm looking for in a channel such as this. As for the overly negative and often needlessly agressive feedback you had on your previous video, I'm truly sorry. These social platforms' engagement metrics incentivize aggressive behaviours between creators and the mob-like response that ensues. When one becomes a target, the "punishment" is always twentyfold the "crime". You don't own these insufferable buffoons anything. Cheers!

[@Kaziklu]

I love how you say "Needlessly Aggressive" while calling him Gullible The difference between the folks like you and him is this... he say the criticism and revisited the topic and accepted that some criticism may have been valid. You then felt the need to comment to justify your opinion of the other video which he addressed already... it is needless and aggressive in it's tone and being. Matt's videos have always had a fair bit of integrity and have generally felt balanced. He like any of us can get excited for new technologies. He presents that. He has never (or at least in the wider picture) seemed Gullible or a Mouthpiece. Yet you didn't like one video and felt that is what he seemed like. Which makes you either unwilling to research who he is before commenting or easily angered at anything you don't like which is either harsh, pedant, or just rude.

[@hindigente]

This is a grave misinterpretation of what I wrote. I tend to be very clear and precise in my communication, often at expense of conciseness and eloquence. Specially in writing; specially in public platforms; specially in a non-native language, as English is to me. This doesn't mean I'm always literal, but that I make an active effort to avoid multiple or misjudged interpretations and most certainly refrain from purposefully conveying what I mean "between the lines". Never have I called Matt gullible. I invite you to reread the excerpt "may have made you come across to many as either gullible or as a mouthpiece for Plasma Kinetics." paying extra attention to its first 8 words. Far from a claim about my personal opinion of Matt, this is a claim about the likely opinion of a considerable chunk of that video's audience. Rereading the whole sentence, it should be clear that instead of coyly calling him gullible, I'm simply laying the reasoning for some of the negative feedback he received. Rereading the very previous sentence it should be clear that I don't believe the verifiability (or the lack thereof) of Plasma's claims to be an issue. It is preposterous that I would therefore deride someone for believing what I think to be believable. Rereading the two following sentences, it should be even clearer that my opinion of Matt is far from what you made it out to be, as I explicitly dismissed his integrity, scientific literacy, communication ability and even responsibility for substantiating Plasma's claims as explanations for the negative feedback he received, asserting instead that it stemmed from the subject choice. So far I've been very defensive in my response, meticulously explaining both what I think and what meant in my comment. I could, however, even more lengthily respond the unreasonable assumptions you made about myself. But I won't. Instead, I merely suggest that you more attentively read what you want to respond to, taking time to ponder whether your assumptions are merited and impoliteness is warranted.

[@Kaziklu]

@@hindigente Now you are hiding being pedantry of language. The simple fact is that you chose to belittle in this comment. Suggesting someone "may come off" is no different than saying you did. You ignore his past work. You ignore his character instead impugn it based on a single video based on your assumptions. Then after he revisits the topic you continue the attack... saying well this is good.. but you still suck from before... and that is how your comment comes off. You can hide behind pedantry all you like... you clearly designed your comment as a shield. Then use "English as a second language" to try to avoid criticism further. You knew exactly what you were trying to do... it is clear and poorly obfuscated.

[@hindigente]

Should you reread my last comment, you'll notice English not being my native language is merely an aggravating factor of my manner of communicating. As I told you, I tend to be clear and precise regardless, but I am so more intently under certain circumstances, such as writing in English in a public platform. Frankly, your framing of it as an excuse gives me the impression that you're deliberately misinterpreting whatever I write the least charitable way possible. I should also remark that the excerpt you took from my sentence is much less important to my argument than the two words that followed: "[may come across] to many". Not only is there no indication that I am myself included, but the rest of the text contradicts this ludicrous interpretation outright. Of course, this is because that passage was about explaining the negative feedback, not my personal opinion. This is relevant because I didn't get that perception (that Matt came off as gullible or as a mouthpiece for Plasma Kinetics) from the video itself, but from the negative feedback it received. Since I so patiently endured your seemingly deliberate misinterpretations of my text and your distasteful assumptions about me, I suppose I did earn the right to be a bit pedantic, so I'll make a small correction. I said English was not my native language, nothing about it being my second.

[@Kaziklu]

@@hindigente ​ @Hindigo What I get from you is that you are arrogant, pedantic, and belittling. I didn't misinterpret anything. Again your comments are conceded and self important. You endured nothing patiently. You insulted a person needlessly taking advantage of anonymity to belittle to make your self feel superior. You comment was totally needless. More so is at no point did you say you felt bad for leaving the impression you did. You demanded I re-read because you couldn't have been wrong.. I must be too stupid to read your comment right. Because no one is your intellectual equal... Just like Matt can't be mentally competent enough to have understood what the criticisms of his first video was... You had to make sure he knew you thought he came off as a shill or gullible because he as a native English speaker couldn't have the ability to understand the comments... that is addressed directly in the video. So you as a superior polyglot had to explain it to him. And it can't come off conceded, insulting or just crass because you are " clear and precise in my communication" which you aren't... clearly. As my original comment and my comments since are a direct response to how you come off in your communications. You are self important, pompous and crass. Not "clear and precise". You also lack just basic manners.

[@ryanthescion]

I dislike how much focus in new tech like this is always given to cars, a sustainable future doesn’t need really great batteries for self driving cars, it needs cheap,reliable, and accessible public transportation

[@davefish2280]

Okay, so what if the best cheap, reliable and accessible public transportation system is exactly that, a fleet of self-driving battery-electric vehicles? You want to go somewhere, you call up the destination on an app and it sends you the nearest car with enough battery to make the trip. It can come to you wherever you are, you don't get much more accessible than that. No drivers, so they can run 24/7, and cheaply. When they run out of battery, they just drive themselves to the nearest charging station.

[@ryanthescion]

@@davefish2280 i dont see how fleets of thousands of cars could be more reliable, cheaper, and safer than a train and bus combo.

[@STEVEARABIA1]

This depends a lot on what metals will be needed as a matrix and how available they are globally. Definitely has potential

[@tombouie]

Thks & this reminds me of how bottled acetylene works: Acetoning of acetylene when storing it in a cylinder is vital to the safe and effective storage and functioning of acetylene. It is also vital for the safe transportation of acetylene cylinders. Here are a few reasons why acetylene should be stored in liquid acetone: 1 It helps stabilize the acetylene keeping it from reacting with oxygen. 2 Since pure acetylene cannot be pressurized without causing an explosion, it is mixed in acetone to reduce the pressure. 3 Acetone has the capabilities to dissolve large amounts of acetylene. For example, one liter of acetone can dissolve 250 liters of acetylene. This is possible at 10 atmospheres of pressure. Hence, it proves to be a relatively economical method.

[@bertrandr]

I found this video absolutely excellent ! my favourite out of your channel so far :) looking forward to more !

[@terrafirma9328]

I have a 2001 Honda Insight that uses a Nickel Hydride batterry to get 60 mpg, so the tech has nowhere but up to go. If a hybrid can take advantage of the sweet spot between 2 technologies, imagine if a MULTI-hybrid tech combined the sweet spots of multiple technologies. 🤯

[@toby1248]

They used NiMH cells because they couldn't source enough lithium cells. That is the only reason. Lithium cells are superior in every way that matters. Even at that, both NiMH and lithium cells are highly efficient at converting electricity to chemical energy and back without losses, far more so than any fuel cell could be. There is no better option for a hybrid vehicle for mpg than what you've already got

[@rutherford2580]

Weird!!! I am truly concerned.

[@AbeDillon]

The least expensive way to store hydrogen with super high volumetric and gravimetric density is to bond it with carbon, just like how biology does it. The trick is, we have to source the carbon from the atmosphere instead of the ground so that we complete the cycle instead of disrupting it.

[@mike_318]

The energy cost of CO2 direct air capture (DAC) is astronomically high compared to the energy of any compression and storage technology. See for example the energy cost of CO2 compression / liquefaction vs. the energy penalties for either flue gas capture or direct air capture - it's a difference of 10 to 100 times.

[@HannesZietsman]

correct but as plants they also get there carbon from the air. ... so we should do that.

[@mike_318]

Well...bioenergy is also complicated; it ends up releasing carbon because of ecosystem impacts, transport, and processing. There aren't any great options for us to bond hydrogen to carbon without either a) using a *lot* of renewable electricity or b) causing net positive carbon to go to the atmosphere (instead of carbon neutral). The best you can do (at least, without carbon capture and storage tacked on, which is very difficult in fuel applications because your vehicle is moving and has to be lightweight and carry its own energy) is to be carbon neutral - so any inefficiency results in carbon escaping. (And there are a lot of inefficiencies.) Pure hydrogen also takes a lot of renewable electricity, but less than synthetic fuels, and without the inevitable release of carbon on its consumption.

[@HannesZietsman]

@@havz0r yes! But two big differences, it's not releasing trapped carbon and its alot more efficient to use PV and make NH and CH storage than plants.

[@rocinblues]

Excellent ! You have addressed many of my question re: this as a fuel source. Also, you have generated more questions that will be answered as the technology adapts. Again, excellent presentation and thank you for doing this video!

[@renereichert7410]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYKniaSFm6hpZ7c

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

This is one of the last major puzzles pieces in the sustainable transition. Long term storage is the last big hurdle and this is very promissing. For the rest the solutions are already available. Hydrogen for cars is just not going to happen. And short term storage is covered by batteries as well. Going full renewables in 20 years is perfectly doable. Good stuff.

[@michiganengineer8621]

Matt, thank you for the clarifications. Solid Hydrogen probably WILL play a role in carbon neutral energy, eventually. However since I'm currently in my 7th decade of life, I doubt if I'll ever see it come into it's own.

[@neogeo8267]

Another solution is to just generate electricity with high-temperature reactors like LFTR, generate your hydrogen from water, combine it with atmospheric or stored carbon from other combustion processes and the heat from the same reactor and store the resulting methane or even more complex hydrocarbon. It's still carbon neutral or negative depending on how you do it. No need to try to haul around a low-density and difficult to contain fuel.

[@MyKharli]

ooops , pass matt a paper bag to hide in

[@timm8900]

You need to further explain your comments about pulling elemental hydrogen from stack exhausts. In the case of hydrogen reforming, the hydrogen is the actual product. It is not a waste stream going to the stack unless something is very wrong. In incinerators organics are intended to be burned. The hydrogen shows up as water. Un-oxidized hydrogen in the exhaust would be evidence of an incinerator issue. To leave unburned hydrogen, would also make large amounts of CO gas, which is also a fuel. Both of these processes can be used to generate hydrogen from fossil fuels. This is basically how almost all industrial hydrogen is made now from oil. But this is not a waste stream or smoke stack exhaust. I would be interested to know the actual sources. You do list a couple of possible sources such as waste biomass, but these are sources of hydrocarbons. While these can be reformed into hydrogen, they also produce CO2 just like any other fossil fuel. Also, your work is great.

[@Kevin_Street]

Thank you for this detailed and fascinating video! I really appreciate that you went back to a previous subject and talked about it at length. KZbin's algorithm is always pushing for new, new, new - but videos like this one can really help your audience understand complicated ideas.

[@youtube.really.stole.my.handle]

What scent Snake Oil did you buy? I heard Matt sells a great lavender and hydrogen infused blend.

[@Kevin_Street]

I truly wonder what motivates someone to seek out a two week old comment that's probably buried under the rest, and leave a negative response.

[@fredtownsend4962]

Hi Matt: I just watched your video back to back with another nameless group's video that was 100% pro Hydrogen. What a difference! I am old enough to remember the Atlas missile in the 1960's that used liquid hydrogen and LOX. After 60 years and a huge infusion of government money the progress seems to be away from Hydrogen!

[@calvincheney7405]

I recall several news releases over the last few years from Perdue & other Universities on fuel cell tech. The first book I read on this subject was called Powering the Future. What became of the Canadian fuel cell efforts in metropolitan buses? Have there been suppression techniques employed such as your description of classification issues slowing the patent process in other realms of energy production & storage? Lastly, why didn't the 500 km range compressed air car the Germans developed go anywhere?

[@Bryan46162]

The fuel cell buses in Vancouver were quietly discontinued because they don't (and never did) make economic sense. Like most Hydrogen announcements, they were more about green-washing and scoring PR points than actually advancing real solutions. As for the compressed air cars, the technology works but the vehicles need to be ultra-lightweight and efficient since compressed air is not very energy dense. 500km is extremely optimistic as most models trying to get into development today are less than 150km.

[@naasking]

Compressed air also loses efficiency by thermal losses, and releasing that energy causes stresses in valves because they get rapidly cooled. Thermal recycling at the grid storage level can improve the efficiency of compressed air.

[@ghoulbuster1]

There's no conspiracy here, it just didn't work as intended.

[@GuyIncognito764]

Whenever reviewing a company, review the founders / CEO. This one has a degree in dental hygiene.

[@senor135]

that doesnt mean they dont know what they're talking about

[@aster5031]

This literally means nothing.

[@eirinym]

There are some things that always stuck with me when thinking about hydrogen storage. Like how ammonia can be rather dense (comparatively) medium for holding hydrogen when compared to LH2 or compressed hydrogen. Sure you have to break it down, but you wind up with hydrogen and nitrogen, rather than things like CO or CO2 with methane.

[@daleatkin8927]

I must be missing something…. It looks like you are saying burning hydrogen releases CO and CO2? (Burning hydrogen gives off water….)

[@absalomdraconis]

@@daleatkin8927 : You're missing the "with methane" part.

[@anydaynow01]

There is turquoise H2 production, with this metal storage medium the only things coming out of those facilities in quantity would be solid ultra pure carbon black for batteries and graphene, instead of mining and refining graphite, and "solid" H2 for heavy transport and industrial energy use.

[@mick21778]

Marvelously informative as ever.

[@kellykanellakis4513]

This is and will be an interesting technology. As you said there are many sides to this. I doubt that in the future there will be one solution for all problems, but we will need to look at different solutions depending on the variables we need to address - output of energy required, mobile, fixed, small, large, near to source or far from source. Starting the conversation around a hydrogen based energy economy all of these will be critical points. Thanks for helping to start that conversation. Everyone can have a viewpoint - but physics is physics and that should drive the conversation. However - remember that technologies improve over time and we can drive the physics to ever more efficient levels. Remember when integrated circuits were big and slow? Ask Intel what they are doing these days versus 30 years ago (or more).

[@CMZneu]

Hey Matt i love your videos, but i saw Thunderf00t's video, i know you probably don't want to cause drama but he is calling you out and you should at least defend yourself in a respectful and scientific manner, I think we could all learn a lot. Maybe something like a debate but if not something as simple as a response video would be great! keep up the good work man.

[@ajohny8954]

How future is future? 5 years or 25 years? I always have a hard time with these videos regarding stuff that's more in a research paper than in a factory

[@UndecidedMF]

Many of the examples in this video are here now or are in pilot phases, so within a few years if successful.

[@BrotherAlpha]

Same here. However, since it is currently being used by the military, it's chances are a lot better than most, because the military tends to get a LOT more resources.

[@gringo1723]

Easiest manner to avoid THINKING about a topic is to relegate it to an UNCERTAIN FUTURE. Alternatively, not limiting one's IMAGINATION to a RESTRICTIVE TIME SCALE tends to pay dividends in both either the LONG or SHORT run... Food for thought...

[@tatoruso]

Would a hydrogen-saturated metal hydride lining in a tank act as an effective barrier for hydrogen diffusion?

[@Mumbamumba]

Interesting thought! 🤔

[@kennethferland5579]

Almost certainly not, it would be like trying to use a saturated sponge to plug a hole in a boat, the pressure will induce a flow through the material.

[@naasking]

These hydrides are designed to let hydrogen move easily, because we want to infuse and extract the hydrogen, do they wouldn't make for a good plug.

[@gringo1723]

Excellent Question! THAT's THE SPIRIT! 😎

[@tatoruso]

@@naasking I don't think so. In the video it is stated that there is a lot of temperature and pressure necessary for the hydrogen to perfuse the metal lattice, the more saturated it is the more difficult it is to cram more hydrogen in... There also is energy expenditure in trying to have the hydride release the hydrogen...

[@dalton6173]

To be fair I thought that some of the questions that you are answering in this video we're pretty obvious answers although I must give you credit for taking time to answer what you mean and not just the people who can connect to C by you taking them from A to B.

[@sudddz2890]

Your intro really impressed me, I'm glad to see there are still creators like you

[@dragan4453]

You should be more happy to see creators like this kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYKniaSFm6hpZ7c