The Shocking Truth About Hydrogen Energy: What They Don't Want You to Know

[@wildlyoptimistic1352]

One other problem with hydrogen is embrittlement. Hydrogen causes embrittlement of the metal leading to eventual failure. I don’t think this can be ignored if we plan to use existing natural gas infrastructure to pump hydrogen.

[@gogogeedus]

maybe the Hydrogen could be blended with hydrocarbons until that problem is solved, a natural gas hydrogen blend.or ceramic engine components,browns gas is quite destructive is pure hydrogen the same?

[@acmefixer1]

@Wildly Optimistic A huge amount of hydrogen is already used in industry as Rosie pointed out. All the details of how to store and transport hydrogen in low carbon steel, etc. are well known and it's done safely without issues.

[@wildlyoptimistic1352]

You’re right that hydrogen is used in industry already and that the issue of embrittlement is well known. Natural gas already has some hydrogen in it. As a case in point, the company I used to work for makes fuel metering valves for industrial gas turbine engines. For the most part they burn natural gas with some exceptions. We have to plan for a hydrogen content in the natural gas, I believe the specs called for around 20%. The issue we faced was the call for what they called “high hydrogen” where the percentage is much greater. This requires using different metals that resist embrittlement. All I am saying is that where you have existing infrastructure, is it suitable for high hydrogen gas. If not then those pipelines and pumping stations would need to be retrofitted to handle it. That could be extensive and very expensive. This issue cannot be ignored. As stated, our customers are well aware of the push for high hydrogen and taking steps to prepare for it.

[@iwanjones7334]

There are metallurgical solutions to hydrogen embrittlement so this is not a show stopper

[@acmefixer1]

@@wildlyoptimistic1352 The existing infrastructure does not have to be replaced to use hydrogen because the green hydrogen can be generated on site by electrolyzers and consumed on the spot @Wildly Optimistic The existing infrastructure does not have to be replaced to use hydrogen because the green hydrogen can be generated on site by electrolyzers and consumed on the spot. The gas utilities want to maintain their market share and are adamantly against generating hydrogen on site. They demand that their existing infrastructure be reused so they can keep their market share. The switch to hydrogen, like most other paradigm changes, is fraught with political maneuvering for financial gain. And it's extremely bad when fossil fuels must be ended and replaced by sustainable energy. Naysayers be damned; the changes must occur or it will be the end of civilization as we know it.. The gas utilities want to maintain their market share and are adamantly against generating hydrogen on site. They demand that their existing infrastructure be reused so they can keep their market share. The switch to hydrogen, like most other paradigm changes, is fraught with political maneuvering for financial gain. And it's extremely bad when fossil fuels must be ended and replaced by sustainable energy. Naysayers be damned; the changes must occur or it will be the end of civilization as we know it.

[@mikemaguire5168]

I have heard it said by others that Electrons are easy to transport and molecules (even of hydrogen) are MUCH hard to transport. I think the logistics of the H2 economy are what are getting the existing Petrochemical distribution companies excited and so pro Hydrogen. They have big plants for manufacturing, big trucks for distribution and big forecourts on the streets for sale of H2. Most of which will become dead assets in a couple of decades when 80% of our cars can be charged at home. We are on the cusp of a massive upheaval and H2 is not the solution to most of the problem. Excellent video thanks

[@joostvandergun5518]

For the transportation of molecules and electrons I think in most practical cases the opposite is true. I know that in the Netherlands the infrastructure for electricity costs about 5 time as much is the transportation of natural gas for the same capacity. And try to stick electrons in a ship, it's possible but loading and unloading will take a while.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

@@joostvandergun5518 LOL very good points, but also transportation is only a marginal part of the final cost of energy. Much of the cost of hydrocarbons goes to those who are gifted it by geography, with prices effectively set by global demand. Similarly there may in future be a good business case to ship green hydrogen produced by low population countries with abundant renewable resources. This could have very interesting effects on the balance of supply and demand, so perhaps the fossil fuel suppliers should not get so exited.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

Good points, here in the UK I think the forecourts already make more revenue from the convenience store than from selling fuel. The biggest UK forecourt chain just brought a major supermarket, so it looks like maybe they are already shifting their business model away from liquid fuels and you call this just right.

[@ng-lj7ow]

Electrons take a long time to charge.. not practical for practical people. 😊 Hydrogen is an economy, and should not be shackled with green hydrogen.. batteries are for golf carts, of grid with year round solar.. rest is just patch work.. Carbon tax is a scam..

[@paulbrouyere1735]

One of the best videos I saw on hydrogen. Also remark that it is not easy to store hydrogen because the atoms are so small that they escape through many other elements traditionally used as containers or piping. Spot on explanation about do’s and don’t s, thank you

[@derloos]

And that's even before the word embrittlement was uttered...

[@paulbrouyere1735]

@@derloos Thank you for pointing that out, English is not my native language.

[@derloos]

@@paulbrouyere1735 gosh, sorry, I wasn't nitpicking at all, I'm not a native speaker either 😂🤦‍♂️ I only meant to say that yes, storage is hard, and so is the transmission. I've recently read a couple of research piece summaries about the embrittlement, and they said 4..7 mm deep penetration (sorry!) of hydrogen isn't a problem for the modern pipes but it may be a problem for the intermediate compressor sub-stations.

[@acmefixer1]

@gautha pandith The losses in transmission are no more than 5%. You're making false statements. www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Energy%20Information%20Administration,States%20in%202016%20through%202020.

[@acmefixer1]

Hydrogen has been stored and transported for almost a hundred years without leakage or embrittlement problems. These armchair pundits are making invalid claims that have no meaning because all this stuff has been dealt with for decades.

[@timmydeee]

Maybe get to the root of *who* is funding all the hydrogen research and development... During the last hydrogen fad in 2012, my energy engineering lecturer was very keen to point out this cycle of pushing hydrogen every few years when the petroleum industry needed a distraction. Whether they needed to counter the promise of non-oil technology, or just raise their share prices, its self fulfilling either way. As James Kunsler said: "there isn't going to be a hydrogen economy. Forget it. Its not gonna happen". Simple - now can we move on from there petroleum industry obfuscations?

[@brandonhunt8431]

I am not a technical person but I think Rosie did a good job with this. I have seen videos stating that either hydrogen is the answer to all of our prayers or concerns or it is a total fool's errand. I think the truth lies between these two extremes.

[@cadekachelmeier7251]

I see it as an emergency energy reserve. It seems pretty reasonable for governments to pay some regular fee to keep a certain amount of hydrogen storage available. Then they can deploy it in cases where other storage methods run low and demand management tops out. They can still buy electricity at the lowest rates and the rates they sell at will be quite high as well if it's an emergency.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

Yes I think you get this exactly right, this is what already happens with natural gas. Gas is much more expensive than renewables but it's also extremely valuable, as a bulk on-demand reserve, which is not needed often. So the fuel cost is not actually very important, because the electricity produced commands a very high price, at those few times when renewables and battery storage are not available. It needs to be swapped to a low carbon alternative, like Hydrogen. Its expensive to produce, but it can be stored in huge quantities very cheaply, so it's better for this occasional, high-demand, profile, than things like batteries, which need to be utilized regularly, to pay for their much higher investment cost per storage density.

[@gianluigicassin868]

@@enemyofthestatewearein7945 Interesting point. Basically you're saying we could use h2 as peaker plants (so localized) or for longterm storage (maybe seasonal). I believe we'd need to check the economics against alternatives. Looking at what's happening in Australia for instance, with battery storage, they're using batteries to replace peaker plants successfully. Su much that the investment broke even in less than 2 years. Not sure h2 could do the same. Maybe someone can shed some light on it? As a chemist, I'm all in for green h2 to replace old fashion brown one for steel, cement and ammonia production. This has a double effect: decarbonize and bring prices lower. In a matter of a few years we could have cheap green h2 and afford to use it as seasonal storage or else. We need a lot of renewables in the first place thou

[@technokicksyourass]

It wont work, because hydrogen cannot be contained, it will boil off, even through metal tanks. You will pay to constantly re-fill your "emergency reserve". For emergencies, we can just do what Germany does, burn fossil fuels. All that will cost is the mothball maintenance of an already built power station.

[@ReevansElectro]

Storing energy in pumped water is a great use of hydrogen (if every 2 atoms are combined with an oxygen atom already.)

[@Maric18]

it also only outputs water and electricity!

[@Kiyarose3999]

@@Maric18 Yes, and no Heat, whereas a Combined Heat and Power( CHP) HFC will provide both!

[@christiandahlke997]

I see the red flags similar, but not quite the same: 1. Once installed, there is zero incentive for a solar panel to be turned off. It has to be regulated for grid stability. In Germany the same solar panel provides 10 times the power in july that it provides in january. So people are already looking for what to do with surplus solar. 2. As you pointed out there is a much larger need for natural Gas in Winter in northern countries. Peaple have to heat their homes. At the same time Solar provides only a small fraction to nothing. Some renewable fuel ( hydrogen or derivated Ammonia or methane) is needed through the winter. If we use fuel cell small scale cogeneration for heating and electricity, a large portion of the conversion losses can be saved. 3. Since there is no Battery for seasonal Storage availible, and a lot of extra electricity and heat need goes together in winter, hydrogen or derivated fuel is currently the only technical vialble option for a 100% renewable Grid in Regions off the Equator. Thank you for the good video, I agree 100% on road transportation, that case is already hopeless for hydrogen.

[@JohnnieHougaardNielsen]

While there exists short periods with negative electricity prices, they are by far not enough to warrant a large scale wasteful hydrogen extraction. It would only make sense if/when, in a hypothetical future, a good economic case can be made for setting up solar panels or windmills for the main purpose of hydrogen production, and/or the hydrogen can be used for applications where the much higher energy price is warranted due to logistical or other challenges. Obviously, energy production from other sources are already being turned down to match solar peaks, and the lower amount of winter and nighttime solar is significantly mitigated by higher availability of wind energy in these periods. While long-term (seasonal) hydrogen storage sounds nice, it is still a "challenge to be solved", unless significant additional losses and leaks are accepted.

[@andrewpintar1620]

The one hole in the 'Hydrogen for winter domestic heat' (as opposed to high grade industrial heat) use case is that excess summer VRE electricity can be stored via deep storage Pumped Hydro (where topography allows) - which may be 70-85% round trip efficient. Electrified heating with heat pump (COP >4) in that case will already achieve the decarbonisation goals of domestic heating at lower cost rather than creating new H2 infrastructure to achieve the same end.

[@Psi-Storm]

@@andrewpintar1620 Do you have numbers for the potential energy storage of theese systems. I can see the large elevation drops produce nice peak power, but the cavern sizes aren't close to big enough to cover the storage need for a whole winter.

[@wlhgmk]

I saw an article recently saying that the inefficiencies of electrolyzing water have to a large extent being overcome. However you still have the problem of compressing or liquefying the Hydrogen. If you compress it, you loose the heat energy of compression and if you liquefy it, you have to continually refrigerate to avoid it boiling away. Both big energy losses. The great uses you mentioned seem to be best carried out by sending the electricity to where the hydrogen will be used and producing the Hydrogen on site where it doesn't have to be compressed or liquefied. So far, I haven't heard anyone mention the economic case for saving the oxygen which is produced as a by product. Surly this would be positive for the economic case. And one other thought. If you turn the Hydrogen and Oxygen into a plasma with electricity before re-combining them you can achieve very high temperatures. Presumably, with a greater delta T, processes that use this heat could be shortened, thus using less H and O for their completion.

[@michaeldepodesta001]

12' 18" "It will be very easy to get perverse outcomes if we don't carefully target hydrogen to the right applications where it has the most potential to reduce emissions." Exactly. A clear exposition once again. Thanks

[@adodgygeeza]

Surplus renewable energy isn't free, current levelised cost of electricity for renewables assumes that the grid can always take the electricity. If it can't you are curtailing the renewables and reducing its capacity factor and this increasing its cost of generation. If you create a new user for surplus generation from renewables at best you get the price back down to the one you currently pay.

[@Dr_Wrong]

A major problem is getting the energy back out of hydrogen as a direct vehicle fuel. Hydrogen is different from *_fossil fuels_* in a few VERY significant ways. a. Unlike fossil fuels, Hydrogen doesn't "burn" as such, it detonates. The mechanics of any reasonable conversion of an internal combustion engine (ICE) will easily be overloaded by the abrupt impulses of detonation well before in can respond inertially. A bit like bouncing your head off concrete as opposed to a pillow. It's nearly impossible to bounce your head off concrete gently enough to be comfortable. Engines will fail rather quickly. Don't expect to get 300'000+ miles out of them. Maybe not even 10k. * b. Fossil fuels are basically _low_ yield explosives in a controlled burn, much slower than detonation, allowing ICE pistons, cranks, and other moving parts time to overcome inertia, to move and change direction. This also increases the time that torque can be asserted on the pistons' travel length and thus to the wheels, increasing mechanical life, smoothing power transfer (ride comfort), traction, and controllability of the vehicle. c. Hydrogen dissolves into and embrittles many metals including steels and can cause premature failure. d. Moving parts generally need lubricants. IECs use oil for lubrication. ICE pistons 'seal' the cylinder compression with rings, but the seal isn't perfect. In a modified ICE hydrogen will mix with and hydrogenize the lubricant oils causing immediate loss of lubrication and engine failure. These are fundamental to modern ICEs so revolutionary engine designs would be necessary. IMO these designs are extremely unlikely. * _not to mention micro.detonations which can adversely affect turbines as well._

[@juliogarcia2229]

Congrats Rosie!!...indeed a very clear, rational and comprehensive analysis about hydrogen economy.

[@bimblinghill]

Thanks for creating the perfect video to share with anyone with well-intentioned but excessive enthusiasm for hydrogen as the solution to our energy problems!

[@peter.g6]

Amen!

[@iwanjones7334]

Excellent summary of the issues and the Paul Martin article in the link is a deeper dive into the subject

[@thesparetimephysicist9462]

Nice video :-) Another problem with hydrogen for passenger cars is the fueling infrastructure. It will be much more expencive to build that charging stations, and I believe with the current tech, a fueling station takes about 15 min to repressurize. Thus, they can only serve about 3 cars pr. hour.

[@st-ex8506]

Absolutely correct! Of course, you can increase the number of pressure tanks, and the power of the compressor pressurizing them, but then, you also increase the cost of the hydrogen fueling station substantially... and this cost is already atrocious: around $1M for a capacity of refueling 3 car per hour. A (Tesla) fast DC charger (aka Supercharger) can also refuel about 3 cars per hour, but costs only around $45'000 to install!!! Furthermore, EVs are being recharged 80-90% of the time at home or at work, vs HFC vehicles 100% of the time at hydrogen fueling station! The total investment for a network of hydrogen-fueling stations offering the same service than a network of fast DC chargers is 50-100 times greater! There is just NO case for hydrogen in light road transport!

[@christopherfairs9095]

At last - a sensible video about hydrogen and all its shortfalls. Batteries are far more efficient at storing surplus electricity than the production, storage and use of hydrogen. Hydrogen cars are a case in point; expensive to but, expensive to run, inefficient and still require a battery for acceleration boosting and energy recuperation, when braking.

[@chingeling86]

After working in the sales and project development of PV systems for 10 years, I can say that you are spot on, when it comes to personal usage. But hydrogen might prove valuable in the future for logistics as you mentioned. I think off-grid PV systems can be used here (where you have energy costs of around 0.03-0.04 €/kWh), with on-site hydrogen stations to fill the trucks/ships/planes.

[@kenergixllc527]

It is a very difficult gas to deal with after produced. I looked at this over a decade ago with former engineers of a major petrochemical company. FTR, I do know about electrolytic separation and use in Fuel Cells as Dow Chemical with free hydrogen produced from its Chlor Alkali process went back to using as supplement boiler fuel instead of a 5MW fuel cell after a brief trial and massive press release while I had an offices in their plants.

[@VolkerWeidner]

On driving vehicles charging times typically is not an issue at all. Normal vehicles have battery ranges that last the whole day. So you simply refill at night. Or if on a long range journey you combine topping up the battery with some lunch break. The same is true for heavy duty vehicles. While loading or unloading them, they could easily be recharged as well. So the ubiquity of electric power will easily outperform any hydrogen use case, Vehicles with wheels will all get electric soon. The only reason we don’t already see trucks on the roads in numbers is, that the obviously needed gigantic amounts of batteries are not available, yet. Hydrogen will be used in steel production or other chemical processes to replace coal or natural gas. In transport application I do not see that much of a potential. Maybe on airplanes. But even there batteries are coming close to be a viable solution already.

[@tootalldan5702]

This reminds me of the cheap flashlights that are battery operated. They almost give you flash light so you have to buy the disposable batteries. 35% efficiency for hydrogen and the company supplying the source of energy makes profit off the least efficient process.

[@SuperNikolov]

Nice video! There is something more to mention: scale. It's true that at the current production volumes, batteries outperform hydrogen storage in price and other metrics. However, it's not clear how quickly and how much they can scale. The raw material for hydrogen storage is practically unlimited and available immediately. The same is not true for batteries. This factor alone, combined with low wind and solar power prices could be enough to make hydrogen not just viable, but necessary. Further, some aspects of the technology may be new, as you say, but a lot of the infrastructure, such as pressurized tanks and long range pipelines are known very well from natural gas. Battery production and *recycling* at a 100x current scale however is not (not to say it won't get there). Yet, your red flags are quite valid. As you say we shouldn't believe that hydrogen is a panacea to our energy problems, but it could also be much more useful than your tone suggests.

[@VolkerWeidner]

Hydrogen is a very aggressive and volatile gas. Transporting it in pipelines is not a good idea for a long term application, since they would get brittle and break. Tanks must be checked and replaced on a regular basis to avoid undetected material degradation. You can not swap out a complete pipeline. To be able to transport and store hydrogen your best option would be to further transform it into maybe methane. That basically is natural gas with all its applications. Anyhow doing that on top will further reduce efficiency of the complete process.

[@bobwallace9753]

Battery manufacturing is expanding very rapidly. China will soon have more than 100 battery 'gigafactories'.

[@reappermen]

The problem there is not only storage but also production/conversion. Most hydrogen storage options don't need rare materials to make, so they got an edge over batteries there true. But the more efficient ways of either making green hydrogen or transform it back to electricity later requires even rarer materials than batteries, while batteries mainly just need transformers which hydrogen also needs, and which require very basic materials only.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@reappermen It's looking very likely that the majority of EVs and battery storage will use an iron, phosphate, lithium (LFP) chemistry. No material shortage there. No 'rare' materials. Hydrogen is so energy inefficient that it's not likely to play a role in storage. There are some other storage systems that make make it out of the lab and into the real world that might serve for grid storage. This issue is not likely to be settled for some time. LFP batteries are likely to get the majority of use for the next several years but, theoretically, we could see even better option. Tesla's LFP 4680 cells should bring cell price to

[@reappermen]

@@bobwallace9753 oh, i agree that 'rare' materials is a term that should be used very loosely here, and 'expensive'is probably better to be honest. Even stuff like Lithium, Cobalt and similar that we currently have a shortage of, or the somehwat ineptly named 'rare earth' minerals aren't actualy rare. It's only the easy/cheap to mine deposits of them that are rare. Up the price of the raw materials by 50% and you suddenly have orders of magnitute more deposits that become interesting to mine/exploit.

[@0MoTheG]

Your Hydrogen needs a friend to share another electron with, it would make both of them happier.

[@acmefixer1]

The third most important thing (after air and water) is food, and agriculture uses huge amounts of hydrogen in making fertilizer. Now, the hydrogen is made using fossil fuels, mostly methane, and the fossil fuels must be eliminated ASAP. The hydrogen must be made by other than fossil fuels and the governments must force this to happen, by carbon taxes or by laws. Rosie spoke a lot about the economics, but the "green premium", the additional cost of going green, must be dealt with by governments. The economics will come as various methods are developed to solve the needs for hydrogen *without* generating CO2. There is no time for ruminating about this. It must be done at all costs and the details will be worked out as it's done. There is no argument among scientists about this; we have to get the ball rolling immediately.

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

In the UK the main use for Hydrogen that I hear getting pushed is to replace gas boilers for home heating. Hydrogen boilers are similarly sized and priced to gas boilers with similar performance that people are used to. Heat pumps are very expensive, bulky, noisy (air source) with much worse performance, particularly in time taken to get hot and lower operating temperature meaning that even when the pump is hot it takes longer to heat the house. So you have to have it running more of the time and if your insulation is not great then you therefore have higher heat losses to the outside than with a gas boiler that you can turn on just when you need it. I say all this as a big fan of heat pumps who seriously looked into getting one installed. So I can see why there is a huge appeal of the idea that hydrogen boilers magically avoid these problems while also being green. But it's a bait and switch. If you use blue hydrogen then it still pollutes a lot because of the methane leaks and imperfect CO2 capture. If you use green hydrogen then the efficiency from power source through to heat in your house is very bad compared to a heat pump, even running poorly in very cold weather, (45% Vs say 150% so it's at least 3 times worse and therefore 3 times more expensive). I think that the idea you could use hydrogen boilers as the primary domestic heating system is basically a scam which would be much more expensive in the long run. The only way hydrogen makes sense is for time shifting energy from low demand to high demand, but as you say that means underutilising the equipment. I think using the excess energy production that would otherwise be wasted to produce hydrogen for use in those favourable applications you highlighted should be a good use but I don't think there will be enough left over for large scale home heating use. The only exception to this would be if we could do truly long term storage at a vast scale such that we use summer surplus to make hydrogen to last through the winter. But that level of storage would surely have large safety concerns. Also as you mentioned in a free market system it's very hard for the economics of it to work out. In the UK we had a chance to vote for a government with a policy of nationalising the whole energy system and if they had won then such large scale strategic thinking would be possible. Unfortunately they did not win and the new leader of that party has moved away from the nationalisation policy.

[@kennethferland5579]

Metal smelting really seems the most practical application, metal ores must have the oxygen removed from them to become metal and hydrogen is the only chemical able to do this other then carbon monoxide. Even if you were to electrically melt ore you would not have smelted it unless a chemical capable of stripping oxygen is applied. As system that collects and stores solar thermal energy would be most promising here as it provides the process heating for smelting and allows heat energy to substitute for electricity in electrolysis which raises it's efficiency, and it means the electrolysis is able to run much more consistently. The only other application I see being practical is some long term seasonal energy storage. This might actually mean synthesizing hydrocarbons and simply storing them in large conventional tanks allowing conventional burning of it in a turbine. Hydrogen would thus just be an intermediate step in the process.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Great comments! There's a big green steel project (using hydrogen) starting up here in Australia, I hope to get a tour of it some day.

[@theairstig9164]

Making fertiliser that used to be sourced from natural gas

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Regarding the economic incentives to build more renewable solar generation. It can still be profitable to overbuild solar if the price per installed watt keeps falling so dramatically.

[@garethbaus5471]

Especially if you can export the energy.

[@technokicksyourass]

at 36% efficiency? There is no way you will be able to compete with fossil fuels at 36 percent efficiency. You'd be better off shipping charged batteries at 95% eff. At least they don't leak hydrogen during transport.

[@technokicksyourass]

@@garethbaus5471 You won't be exporting hydrogen around the world mate. You would need to cool it to liquid form to put it on a tanker. That's gonna take you to probably 10% efficiency.

[@garethbaus5471]

@@technokicksyourass I wasn't necessarily advocating for the use of hydrogen to export the energy. I am not a huge fan of using hydrogen for energy storage, for exactly the reason you listed.

[@firstlast-cs6eg]

10:35 But you still need to get the hydrogen to where it's needed. If a area is difficult to connect to an electric grid in a efficient way, wouldn't that problem will be exponential with trying to get hydrogen from that area? If you send the hydrogen via pipe, wouldn't loss from leaks be a big issue? And if vehicles driving on roads exclusive for this purpose are used, that's really wasteful, better to connect via long distance wire. 10:51 Similar problem here. How do you collect and get the hydrogen to where it's needed without too much waste? You avoid the cost of undersea cables only to trade it for the cost of... boats? used to collect the hydrogen then further land transport necessary to get it to it's final destination.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

All good points, thanks for commenting. I am working on a video about hydrogen transport through natural gas pipelines, stay tuned for that one I hope to release within a week.

[@firstlast-cs6eg]

@@EngineeringwithRosie But doesn't hydrogen being so much smaller than natural gas leak much more? Also are natural gas lines easier to lay than electrical wires? Why would that be?

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

@@firstlast-cs6eg yep, leakage is an issue due to small molecule size. And the idea is to use existing gas pipelines, not install new ones. Sounds like you will be interested in what my gues has to say on the topic :-)

[@dyemanoz]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Thanks for a great video! Many large cities have reticulated gas networks. If these were built before the middle of the 20th century, they were originally built for "coal gas" or "town gas", and the urban landscape was littered with gasometers used to store and distribute gas. When town gas was replaced with natural gas, existing distribution pipes were used. Town gas was typically 40-50% hydrogen, so the issues with pipes being embrittled by hydrogen-rich gas were well understood back then. It's really "back to the future" with the proposals to inject hydrogen into the natural gas reticulation network. The hype around the "hydrogen economy" is likely in part due to the petroleum industry looking for a way to save stranded gas assets - just add a bit of CCS to the existing steam methane reforming (SMR) plants and Bob's your uncle! Unfortunately (as with CCS added on to coal-fired power stations) it only succeeds in making the production process less efficient (and thus less competitive with electrolysis). One interesting alternative to SMR is a process under development to split methane into hydrogen gas plus solid carbon (as graphite) rather than hydrogen gas + CO2 as is the case with SMR. This has the potential to offset process cost with the value of the graphite "waste" product. They are currently building a pilot plant in WA to use methane from a waste water processing plant as feedstock. hazergroup.com.au/about/#hazerprocess

[@williamclark6466]

You have made many, well explained reasons why cautious optimizm is appropriate.

[@wjhann4836]

Hello Rosie, first thank you for that neutral an honest review. Most of my concerns are confirmed. But - to be open to new technologies - I'm interested in "green fuels". One side of the medal, as I assume, hydrogene is mostly the base of green fuels. On the other side - for transportation uses (trucking, airplanes) these use cases need much more dense and easy to handle fuels - perhaps green fuels. I'm German - you made me cry in anger: You mentioned, that in Germany only 2% of green electricity ist wasted . On the other hand there are huge fights about these - for example the wind energy shall rise "a little bit" - but no one in the government cares about the fact that many old wind turbines need to be "re powered" - but this needs a new license. Most of that old sites would not get a new license due to hard limitations. So - calculating the new systems and substract the old going off systems many are afraid that the wind energy in Germany will be less in near future.

[@JoeInBendigo]

Well put Rosie! I keep thinking that storage, transport and piping hydrogen is another red flag. H2 molecules are smaller than the gaps between molecules of most other materials. So leakage is a massive problem! Like containing sand in vessels made from apples....

[@mconnah1]

Wow, my thoughts exactly… for storage air liquefaction seems more efficient. Hydrogen is also dangerous. The flame speed is really high, as witnessed by the destructive explosions of storage facilities…

[@tjampman]

0:38 Now is the time for Hydrogen to shine??? It has been doing that nicely for billions of years already

[@peterjones6640]

Couldn’t agree more with your view of hydrogen, although one element which you seemed to miss was that burning hydrogen in air creates oxides of nitrogen which are potent greenhouse gases. In the U.K. the government is pushing the idea of hydrogen replacing natural gas for domestic heating as 80% of U.K. households rely on gas for heating, I suspect this is on the basis of gas companies having stranded assets if we move to electric heating and therefore lobbying hard. As you point out the inefficiencies this would introduce is huge. Hydrogen for specific processes yes, ( steel, cement etc) and possibly as a long backstop for electricity production, but distributed storage at the domestic level by batteries ( including idle electric cars) plus demand management and the other grid scale storage is a much better economic solution than large scale hydrogen storage.

[@philohan95]

Regarding the first red flag. It follows the premise that it would use the "free" electricity because no one is going to use it, but the premise changes because now the hydrogen facilities would be using it so the demand changes and thus it wouldnt be free anymore.

[@jansenart0]

Hydrogen is the tiniest probability cloud, and that's part of why it's so hard to confine and store. Because of this, hydrogen never made sense to me. Then I found out where most of the hydrogen comes from, and it (the hydrogen hype) all made perfect sense.

[@joshuarosen6242]

That was jolly interesting. You explained your views clearly and succinctly and explained your reasoning intelligently. Thank you.

[@HaldaneSmith]

I have two problems with the arguments in this video. The first is that you don't need to use free, overproduced solar to create hydrogen for energy storage. Using hydrogen storage will create demand for afternoon solar where there currently isn't enough demand. The supply and demand for solar will balance out throughout the day and you won't have to shut down solar in the afternoon because of oversupply. Hydrogen storage just has to be cheaper than battery storage for hydrogen to be a viable solution. The second problem is the claim that we shouldn't deploy hydrogen storage until the grid is not yet 100% clean. Deploying hydrogen storage will drive its price down as it becomes more and more efficient. While this will actually release more CO2 because it is only 35% efficient, this will be offset because it will allow more and more wind and solar to be deployed. This will continue to decrease the CO2 problem until you have 100% solar, wind, and hydrogen battery running the grid. An alternative would be to use lithium batteries for a generation then have hydrogen storage replace lithium to clean up lithium's environmental problems and limited supply problems. You don't want to wait for a clean grid to deploy hydrogen storage because without a solution to the intermittency problem, you won't be able to get started building a clean grid.

[@nolan4339]

Yes, I find it unlikely that grids will overbuild intermittent renewables to the point where there are persistent oversupply issues, and I don't think this cheap energy will be reliable enough for synthesis companies builds to be at large enough scales to ensure the capture of all excess power while needing to compete for this power from other storage technologies. Short-term fast-reacting storage technologies like battery setups are likely a better fit for shaving the peaks and troughs of intermittent power. Instead I think it could be more feasible if hydrogen synthesis becomes directly paired to dedicated renewable power installations on micro-grids. That way these companies can directly estimate their needed capacities and will be able to tune their system to be as efficient as possible, rather than needing to be super flexible in order to react to a volatile grid supply. If this method were to be used then a portion of the produced hydrogen can be stored and utilized by the grid to keep power production stable, while reducing the amount of over-build required by renewables to ensure the grid supply remains reliable.

[@johnemery9447]

I'm concerned about limited supply materials, rare earth minerals, duplicating the OPEC challenges and eventually becoming exhausted. Clean hydrogen seems to be a great plentiful egalitarian replacement for batteries as back up to to wind, solar, etc. which may have temporary down time. Thoughts?

[@st-ex8506]

Rare earth elements? There are no rare earth element in batteries! None! There are not even any rare metal that cannot be replaced by a very abundant one in batteries, especially for grid storage applications. Clean hydrogen, on the contrary, DOES need the rarest of metals as catalyst for fuel cells: platinum or platinum-group metals. As a matter of fact, the entire world's production of those metals would allow no more than the production of around 1 million car... 1.25% of the total market. For grid storage? The hydrogen cycle is ridiculously inefficient. Those are the thoughts of a chemical engineer working in improving hydrolysis processes to produce hydrogen... but, as Rosie said, for being used as a raw material by industry (fertilizers, chemicals, steel-making, oil refining while there is still some, ...), NOT as energy storage... save niche exceptions.

[@joshuacheung6518]

I don't see h2 as a good option in the aviation sector due to the extremely low volumetric density... but I'm also not an engineer, so we'll see how off i am

[@Atef-ph6cs]

We are able to make artificial kerosin out of it.

[@joshuacheung6518]

@@Atef-ph6cs kerosin?

[@joshuacheung6518]

Assuming you mean kerosene, kerosene isn't hydrogen. So it wouldn't really fit in with this discussion. Additionally, the losses from converting hydrogen to kerosene aren't small either, meaning you have to pump a significant amount more energy into its production than you can hope to recover. Basically, a shitty battery.

[@seanmorrison3744]

The key point this video misses is that the robustness of a system isn't determined by the average, but at the extremes. We don't build wings to withstand the weight of the aircraft, we build them to withstand many times that weight, plus some additional safety reserve. For a grid to operate using stochastic sources of generation, we won't be generating the amount we need on average, because we still need the grid to function at the extreme ends of the weather distribution; rather, we'll almost always be generating excess, where the amount of excess is driven by whatever reserve is deemed statistically sufficient. This is also implied by the idea of connecting otherwise separate grids to improve reliability -- site A can send power to site B to cover for a shortfall, but of course, for this to be a strategy at all, site A must have an oversupply. The reason hydrogen is getting a lot of traction now is because it scales better than any other form of energy storage for this type of scenario. The US has operated roughly 350GWh of underground hydrogen storage for several decades now, with the oldest site running continuously since 1983, so the technical knowhow already exists. You can add hundreds of GWhs of salt cavern hydrogen storage at a time, and you can burn it in a gas turbine the same way we run peaker plants today. Electrolyzers themselves are also a more efficient use of materials than say, batteries, since they decouple the components of the redox reaction from the storage of energy. An electrolyzer inherently uses less material, and stores more energy over the course of its life than a battery does, even after accounting for thermodynamic losses. Whether or not you believe hydrogen will be used in cars (because that's what is driving a lot of the pushback against hydrogen -- the BEV movement), it's definitely here to stay. Personally, I think methanol -- which is made from hydrogen -- is what we'll eventually use in cars. It's a good fuel, and can be even be carbon negative. It's what the shipping industry will most likely use, and you have to ask yourself why you wouldn't also use it in cars if it's cheap enough, especially if hoped for improvements in battery technology don't pan out.

[@cogentdynamics]

Thank you for the fantastic and realistic overview of a very complex yet often “simplified” potential “green” energy technology. I wonder about corrosion type effects due to hydrogens properties? You are a great presenter and I look forward to seeing more interesting content.

[@andrewpintar1620]

All great points Rosie - 100% concur. Medium - long term, best terrestrial transport application for Hydrogen will be sea freight - maybe airliners to be de-carbonised. Electrical energy gen / storage is a non starter (dead duck) - as you rightly point out re -ve prices a VRE plant will not get up, ie needs a PPA. 100% VRE grid will be nearly entirely Solar, wind & batteries (+ PHES). Also, Industrial direct heat or feedstock replacement in certain processes (cement, steel, fertilisers etc) also potential niche's for H2 where electrification via VRE is hard.

[@Psi-Storm]

There are some direct Hydrogen use cases like steel production, but most of the industry just needs a ton of heat. Here molten salt / metal storage would be ideal. Direct energy heating the stuff when there is a surplus of energy then using it over the day to keep the production running.

[@markhaus]

On the #2 point, one of the big pushes I've seen in Europe is to instrumentalize the North Sea for energy and aquaculture. Offshore wind has far less intermittent power production and being surrounded by water the hope is that something will make hydrogen production cheap with sea water in the North Sea wind farming hubs that are being built. Some are pushing for cheaper desalination to precede hydrolysis, some are pushing for photo-catalysts, and others are pushing for new cathode/anode materials that prevent the corrosion of saltwater electrolysis.

[@TheReykjavik]

Smoothing the production/demand differential doesn't require free electricity, just cheap enough relative to peak prices that it is worth storing. If I can by electricity for $5, and sell it the next day for $10, I can potentially make a profit, and if a bank knows that even when overproducing the current demand, electricity sells for $5 to a storage company, they'll be more likely to finance a project. The problems with hydrogen are numerous and significant though, low utilization is a problem, it drives up cost, the efficiency is terrible that drives up cost, hydrogen is explodey af, that drives up cost (it can be made reasonably safe with a lot of effort, which costs money), electrolyzers and fuel cells are expensive. It is extremely unlikely that hydrogen will ever be competitive with any other form of storage where energy density isn't critical. And hydrogen might not even be best in those cases, I'm very curious to see things like methane and ammonia as chemical fuels that might be easier to work with. Between the terrible volumetric energy density, and the leakage, I'm far from convinced that hydrogen is the way to go for aircraft, rockets, long haul trucks, or ships.

[@martinschroederglst]

Great video! My guess is that government and industry back hydrogen because this way the seem to do something green without actually doing anything at all.

[@RegGuheert1]

Thanks for making a video about hydrogen which is not pure hype. Great job!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I'm just a (Bio-)Chemist and I've many of these same question and opinion about Hydrogen energy. Thanks a lot for confirming some of my concerns and leading me to correct direction for other. Btw, I don't think long haul trucking, aviation or heavy industries like steel/cement are niche application. They are some of the most energy intensive process AFAIK.

[@zanderhenriksen6776]

On that topic, she mentioned how rare it is to have cheap zero emission electricity, and AFAIK, nearly all of Fenno-Scandia has it (Finland, Denmark, Sweden & Norway). I'm from Norway, and we don't have any* active coal power plants or nuclear power plants. It's all* powered by hydro, solar/PV and wind. (* except for Svalbard, a overseas territory in the Arctic Circle, where conditions make it very difficult to use renewable power. They have one coal power plant there, which is in the Longyearbyen/Longyeartown. Additionally, we have some disconnected nuclear power plants for research purposes, one active iirc). But back to the point - we have hydrogen-powered buses and battery-powered buses in some regions. We also have the same tech incorporated in some ferries. Ferries are an essential part of transportation in the coastal regions of Norway, as we have countless fjords, mountains and islands, which makes it extremely expensive to build bridges, tunnels or drive around it. E39 for instance, is a long-planned route where the government has for two/three generations planned to build a complex network of bridges and tunnels to get across these massive bodies of water while cutting down on the long-term costs of ferries. Additionally, due to Norway's economy and geography, long-haul trucks are an essential component of our economy. This is due to the demands of the industry, as well as the geography of the industry. The maritime sector is huge along the coast, which is far away from the central roads connecting to Europe (e.g. Møre og Romsdal, where a key industry is fishing, large vessel maintenance, and logistics. There it's a 6-8hr drive to Oslo, the capital, from which you'd go to Sweden or Central Europe). I'm not sure where the ship-maintenance industry gets their components/materials from, but some probably go by truck, depending on the weight of the goods, quantity, location, and demand. That previous part was just to add to what you were saying with how long haul trucks and steelworks aren't niche industries at all. But on the topic of the difficulties of hydrogen, I think the largest roadblock in deployment is the lack of a hydrogen-refining/electrolysis and distribution industry. Iirc, PEM-cells have a lot more endurance than common modern Li-Ion-batteries, though. That part is what makes me so attracted to it, since it can endure more charge/discharge cycles, and doesn't suffer from the inherent issues with Li-Ion (like dendrite formation). I'm not a material engineer, have never studied chemistry, or anything like that. Only biology, psychology, physics, and English Politics in tertiary level education. Aside from that, my highest (or soon-to-be) degree is PR, Media & Communication -- which is completely unrelated to energy storage technologies. So because of that, please correct me if I'm wrong, and please do add more to it. :D Have a great day!

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@zanderhenriksen6776 Wow! Thanks for such an informative comment. Also thanks to your region for adopting such awesome tech. Not all the world is blessed with such renewable energy source as yours. But still, you guys surely will lead the rest of the world for hydrogen powered automotive.

[@donnairn3419]

For long distance heavy transport would electrified freight trains be worth consideration?

[@fangitjoe]

Your concerns about fossil fuel companies and resources dependent economies embracing hydrogen production that still emits significant carbon are spot on and already materialising. The West Australian government just announced a new Woodside hydrogen project in Kwinana on land provided at no cost by the government. It will produce grey hydrogen, dressed up as blue hydrogen, since they claim emissions will be offset. If true, the offsets will no doubt be paid for by the Federal Government's Climate Solutions Fund that pays polluters. As a further greenwashing measure there will be a token green hydrogen electrolyser which it is claimed can produce up to 1/3 of the hydrogen output. This will be a perverse outcome, heavily subsidised by taxpayers, that does not reduce emissions. Further it will make it less likely that true green hydrogen projects (such as those promised by Andrew Forrest) will be able to compete as their costs will be significantly higher.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Yeah I read that they're trying to change the definition of blue hydrogen to not just mean with carbon capture, but with any kind offset. It really just reinforces a point that I've been making about blue hydrogen: it is just grey hydrogen with CCS, why not put the CCS on an already-existing power plant and then let the new grey hydrogen's business case be assessed on its own (polluting) merits? It's such rubbish, but I can't see it working because our hydrogen will mostly be for export, and countries have no reason to change to hydrogen except if it has lower emissions than what they're currently using. I'll do an update video on blue hydrogen soon (I'm just finishing up a few on carbon usage/ storage first). It's all pretty depressing really 😥

[@geoninja8971]

And I was getting excited about being able to refuel my future EV in a few minutes..... :( - I'm a new watcher of your channel, and very impressed - keep it up!

[@yaskoma5637]

Great video covering the potential apps of H2

[@electricAB]

Great video! Had me pushing that subscribe button. 😎

[@theclassoftorchia3856]

Great video. Let me just challenge your points one by one: 1) The private banks are not the ones to look for to borrow any money for something relatively new. The money will (is) be from public funds. Most governments are already funding low carbon electricity generation whether it is to produce H2 or not. So, problem solved! (Hopefully) 2) It is not very clear what industry you are talking about when you say "manufacture". Is it fuel cells'? Is it electrolyzers'? Anyway, both of them, as you correctly say, are up in the cost per kW produced. That is why you forcefully need to scale up these technologies, markets and applications. To bring the costs down. 3) I have never ever seen somebody complaining because of the 20%-25% typical gasoline engine-to-wheel efficiency. Basically electrolyzers are 60-70% efficient and fuel cells vary from 40 to 65% depending on the electrolyte and temperature. In that sense, the cycle of electricity to H2 and then H2 back to electricity is what you mentioned, but H2 can be transported in ways that electricity cannot. Steel and Cement (15% of global CO2) would have a hard time being produced with electricity. You can't power ships or aircrafts with electricity. So, electrification doesn't solve the problem. 4) Like which ones? For example, which types of energy storage are improving so fast? Supercapacitors? Pumped hydro? Compressed air storage? Li-ion batteries? Flywheels? Which of them are as versatile as H2 or byproducts of H2? Cheers. Thanks for the discussion.

[@ikocheratcr]

On your third point you forgot to add the energy cost for compressing of H2, ~15% loss. It is true that nobodies complains about that ICE are that low efficient, but in general fossil fuel is cheap, and abundant, so it ends up in the who cares department. But electricity, we do not have enough. Converting electricity, any generation type into H2 is not attractive: people with battery EVs have discovered the charging at home feature (genie out of the bottle), battery systems for storage or vehicles is more efficient, 4~5 times more than H2, and H2 economy, opens the gates for non green H2, which will for sure be abused. On point 4, batteries are getting better, in terms of power/weight, capacity/weight, etc. For Li batteries the changes are not that much, but there are other chemistries that are showing up. I understand that a H2 fuel cells could get better, but we are already on the border there. On H2 generation there are people trying the path of direct sunlight to H2, no electricity required. I think there is potential there, mostly if it is used where there is lots of sunlight, but for that there is still the transportation, and other efficiencies that will affect it.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

The problem I have with hydrogen is that it takes attention away from compressed natural gas in combustion engines, the cleanest (and potentially cheaper) of fossil fuels with infrastructure already in place and the perfect option for plug-in hybrids. Being conservative, you could power twice as many plug-in hybrids with the same amount of batteries required for bEVs, cutting twice as much emissions, possibly more. And at the end of its battery life, you can replace it with the latest battery technology, potentially turning that hybrid in a full time EV for practical purposes, because in the end of the day, electricity should be even cheaper. The only BIG problem with it is the long term business strategy for natgas suppliers. However they could turn some of those fracking wells into geothermal to power the EVs they once fuelled so there is still hope. Now we just have to actually think long term without the interference of lobbyists. The great thing about this is that it does not only makes environmental sense, but economic sense as well, for everyone involved.

[@tigertoo01]

Finally someone who can explain the issues with hydrogen of energy storage

[@ats89117]

The claim at 6:24 that battery storage can achieve 95% efficiency needs to be supported. According to the EIA (see quote below), measured round-trip efficiency in 2019 was 82%. The article is available online here: www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756 "According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2019, the U.S. utility-scale battery fleet operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 82%, and pumped-storage facilities operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 79%. "

[@ikocheratcr]

Does the 82% figure includes charger and inverter losses? I guess it does. Li batteries are 90% or more in general, so it not 100% incorrect what she said, but the 82% is more realistic.

[@hughm8969]

It's perfect for nuclear. We can reduce nuclear risk by placing it in low risk areas, have the kind of larger generator capacity that doesn't make sense if we're plugging it into the grid, and export the hydrogen. It decouples the location of consumption and the location of production; which is absolutely necessary in many regions of the world. The current price of green hydrogen isn't something that makes sense to even bring up. Most things we own would cost insane amounts if not mass produced.

[@ymi_yugy3133]

I have a couple of questions. 1st, how green does the grid have to be, for electrolysis to be more efficient than grey hydrogen? 2nd, in colder climate, seasonal storage is extremely important. What are the alternatives to hydrogen, particularly in areas where pumped storage is not an option? 3rd, I don't know of any country that plans to reach it's Paris Climate Agreement obligations solely with existing technology. How big of is chance is there that technologies like hydrogen, batteries or carbon capture are going to plateau and what does the cost risk analysis looks like for diversifying funds into so many technologies? 4th, why are governments investing in hydrogen powered cars?

[@theairstig9164]

Ahh politics. Why do governments invest in anything?

[@cadfael4598]

Rosie I think you miss a very significant point. There is generally a fresh water deficit in many highly populated areas and water is needed for other things than generating H2. Using brines creates another issue. First, electrolysing brines generates Chlorine and NaOH as well as hydrogen. Second, if RO is front ended to remove salt, the costs go up dramatically. I agree that hydrogen will be a niche commodity unless large natural accumulations are discovered and developed . They do exist, but have not been widely discovered like fossil fuels have.

[@philippegirard6722]

Thanks for a great summary. What about breaking apart CO2 to make C and O2? That would seem like a great way to clean the air of excess CO2 and store energy in the form of carbon. Or is the chemical reaction too complicated or energy-hungry to make it practical? (I'm not an engineer)

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Amazing timing with this comment. Just yesterday I interviewed a chemical engineer who is working on ways we can use CO2 to make things like biochar, methanol, fuels by splitting the CO2 molecules. Check back in a few weeks for that video.

[@philippegirard6722]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Great timing indeed! I look forward to watching your video on the topic.

[@DynamicFortitude]

You're missing two most important points for hydrogen: * overseas transport of energy * batteries are extremely dirty Oil is so important right now because it can be traded and transported internationally. It's just liquid energy. Electricity cannot be transported overseas. Electrical cars and storage in form of batteries rely on really dirty battery production, including mining rare elements.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Great points, thank you. I am going to add these to my list of topics to cover in the hydrogen series I am working on. I saw in the news that Australia is already getting started with some projects to transport hydrogen by ship to Japan. So you are right that this is an important potential for hydrogen. I think a video on battery production and lifecycle analysis would be very interesting too, it is not something I know a lot about yet, but a lot of people are worried about these issues so I want to find out more. Annnnnd, did you know there is a project in Australia to transport electricity via a subsea cable 3000km from solar farms in Northern Australia to Singapore. It's called the Sun Cable. If they get that working, then it will open up a new way to transport energy, other than liquid fuels. I hope to get an interview with someone working on that project to find out about the technical challenges they are working through. Thanks so much for your comment, these are really great points.

[@DynamicFortitude]

@@EngineeringwithRosie about the underground cable: usually power transmission losses are few percent in an averaged size country (don't know how much kW per GW transmitted over 1 km), but I think the significant energy loss would be also in synchronizing different power grids, so AC to DC to AC conversion. See high-voltage-direct-currect (HVDC) links to Great Britain. Would be great to know how electric genrator/hydrolis/compression/shipping/fuel cell losses compare to that.

[@DynamicFortitude]

@@EngineeringwithRosie about batteries, one example is cobalt-manganese based cathodes in lithium-ion batteries. About 70% of cobalt in the world comes from Congo-Kinshasa, and I don't believe the production (mining and refining) is even remotely environmental friendly, and sustainable source in both environmental and geopolitical sense. World production of cobalt is 110 kT/year. Obviously different battery chemistry can be used, this is just example.

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

@@DynamicFortitude Most cobalt is used for desulphurisation in diesel fuels.. Cathodes use a tiny amount, but it is expensive, so many new batteries planned for production have eliminated it. DRC cobalt is a nightmare, but there are giant deposits in Western Australia if the world needs it desperately! :) Stationary batteries can use very simple chemistry, because they don't need to be light, like iron instead of nickel etc Or something like a redox flow battery Using car style battery chemistry for stationary storage, would mostly be from recycling battery packs from junked electric cars. Once battery memory gets too poor for the vehicle to be worth using, the battery can be reused in a peaker plant.

[@kennethferland5579]

The only practical means of transporting hydrogen by ship will be as a hydrocarbons. Liquid hydrogen is simply too low in density, and requires huge amounts of input energy to actually get to cryogenic temperatures to be practical as an intercontinental delivery mechanism. The transport of electricity over such distances though dose happen quite a lot, high voltage DC is the ideal means for this. It's the cost of laying cable on the ocean floor that prevents us from doing it, not any physics of electricity loss over that distance . On land electric lines of thousands of miles are common in nations that are large enough to need it.

[@d.p.2680]

This is a must watch for all politicians

[@hydrogenbond7303]

The only scenario where hydrogen makes sence to me is this: The country has many plants recycling food and bio-waste to produce clean methane (or biomethane) and there are plenty of renewable sources, e. g. photovolatic panels on the roofs of buildings and houses. In summer with excess production of electricty instead pf batteries (which use heavy metals, degrade over time etc.) the excess energy is used for hydrogen production from the biomethane - since It's more efficient than from water and It comes from waste (so It's somewhere between blue and green??) ofc with carbon capture. So during the summer you create hydrogen and during the winter or bad weather you use that hydrogen back to generate electricity (and water). So in this scenario you're basicaly producing hydrogen from waste without mining oil or gas or heavy metals from Earth (ofc. with the exception of the metals needed for the photovoltaic panels)

[@marcowen1506]

Thanks for the video, I had one of those "of course!" lightbulb moments when you talked about banks not lending to renewable generation facilities if they will be losing money.

[@acmefixer1]

Rosie said, "I can't imagine any investment in ... consistently low or negative energy prices." Right now (in the US) there are utilities that have built gas turbine plants where they knew before the plants were built that these "peaker plants" would only be used 15% of the time, or even less. The rest of the time, the plants have to shut down because solar is generating so much energy that electricity is being curtailed. So the owners of these plants knew the plants were unsound investments, but there was no other choice because new generation was needed to meet peak demand. Now, these peaker plants are being replaced by battery storage. After 10:25 she says "...situations where the red flags I have outlined are not relevant." Rosie, you are nitpicking about trivial items while fossil fuels are killing the Earth. Some form of very large scale, fossil fuel-free energy storage must immediately replace fossil fuels! It can be a choice of a number of various methods: hydrogen, pumped hydro, CAES, etc., etc. But it (or they) must replace fossil fuels immediately! There are only 4 degrees C between us and catastrophe! And we are already more than 1/4 of the way there. If global warming reaches 4 deg. C by 2100, most inhabited areas will become unliveable! This is not the time for irrelevance! medium.com/climate-conscious/the-climate-will-be-lost-without-a-total-commitment-14d6a9116e48 Thanks, Rosie.

[@hfw10027]

I appreciated your reasonably balanced critique of green hydrogen. I think we need research into all means of energy storage, as many possibilities are out there, and the technologies are still relatively undeveloped. Solar, as you know, only accounted for about 3% of global electricity production and has been heavily subsidized all along. The 47-unit residential building I live in would not be installing solar at this moment if not for the heavy subsidies being received. To declare that we have all the technologies we need and that future technologies no longer need the heavy subsidies historically given for R&D would severely retard the attempt to drastically lower CO2 production by 2050. Variable-term storage is a major Achilles heal of moving to a greener future. Batteries are fine for balancing the grid, but the main means of supplying gaps in green electricity in the US is still the use of natural gas generation plants, and batteries are still a long way from providing even moderate term electrical storage. Moreover, home heating in much of North America is by natural gas, or, in the case of NYC where I live, even by fuel oil. Converting all the buildings involved to electrical heat will be a major challenge at a time of the year when solar energy production is lowest, both in terms of energy supply and the cost and technology involved in converting buildings from fossil fuel heat to electrical or some other green form. My impression is that most hydrogen vehicles will use fuel cells instead of ICEs, perhaps because fuel cells and electric motors are more efficient than hydrogen ICEs (my speculation). I certainly agree that there is a lot of hype about green hydrogen and many barriers to its economic use. Still, I think green hydrogen needs more exploration for such uses as you noted in your video and as a flexible means of storage.

[@Psi-Storm]

Solar still needing subsidies is not correct. Saudi Arabia is building insanely big solar farms, because it's cheaper in producing electricity than using their own oil. If solar isn't yet price competitive to fossil fuels, then the legislation is subsidizing fossil fuels too.

[@rjhayward1]

Thank you Rosie, the economics are key, niche applications are target market.

[@ckrz1234]

In other words I think we can forget about Hydrogen economy for the time being until there is a lot and lots more wind power generation capacity so that surplus and lower price electricity can be channelled off towards Hydrogen production at a commercially viable price. Until then I can't see green Hydrogen progressing at all. Come on chemical scientists, think harder and improve/invent a better battery. Thanks for your Hydrogen scepticism Rosie - you are 100% right.

[@jamesschmames6416]

I live in a rural environment surrounded by farms and ranches. To me hydrogen seems like a great fit in these environments where farmers can generate power from wind and solar and store as hydrogen. It would give their cars the needed range for trips to large centers. It could eliminate significant fuel costs and even provide a clean source of potable water. Hell they could possibly make their own fertilizer. Efficiency isn't an issue as you just a larger installation which you can amortize as just another capital cost with the savings. What makes me less optimistic is that even though a fuel-cell tractor was announced back in 2009, I can't see any on the market today. Clearly smarter people than me have looked at this and decided it was a bad idea.

[@jamesschmames6416]

@@JorgTheElder I'm not sure if I agree with that assessment. Hydrogen storage is cheap and long lasting in comparison to batteries. Farming is seasonal so they would want to store up for the high seasons in fall and spring. Also farmers want to have their tractors running 24/7 during those times. Hydrogen refilling is significantly quicker reducing turn around times.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

Excellent spot on analysis, I fully agree with all of your concerns and hopes. I think though like all things, after maybe a few detours the Hydrogen economy will likely just follow the money. Green Hydrogen is not cheap, and despite costs falling rapidly, there will always in reality be a price floor, set by the cost of manufacturing, installing and maintaining the needed renewable generation and conversion facilities. The price of all renewable energies cannot therefore forever trend to zero, because otherwise at some point, no one will bother to build it. Arguably there needs to be a good price floor, to encourage developers to get on with it. So I suspect eventually hydrogen will find it's way easily into the most valuable applications that don't have cheaper alternatives, like long term storage back up to renewable electricity grids, long distance buses, trains and road freight, just as you pointed out. Hydrogen cars and home heating will not be economically sustainable without expensive ongoing government support; even blue hydrogen cannot hope to compete here, because carbon capture perhaps doubles costs over unabated fossil gas, battery electric cars are already cheaper to run, and electric heat pumps are already at least equal cost, despite distorting subsidies in some countries that favor fossil gas. On the flip side, blue hydrogen can still provide a helpful pathway to eventual green hydrogen, where there is not yet enough renewable infrastructure in place to close the loop, but it must not do so by undercutting the nascent green hydrogen industry, or that will fail to grow fast enough. It doesn't hurt, that small local projects like hydrogen buses, help to commercialize the technology needed for e.g. long distance transport, even if these interim solutions don't really make economic sense. So IMO the immediate problem is the apparent - but in reality nonviable - simplicity of fuel substitution and the consequent attraction to politicians and fossil fuel industries, like oil & gas and car manufacture. But as the global climate consensus grows, the influence of fossil lobby groups is already diminishing surprisingly rapidly, and financiers & industry are increasingly aware of the risks of investing in technologies with a diminishing future. Some good examples here is that most all European domestic gas boiler suppliers are already transitioning to manufacturing electric heat pumps, and many proposed coal power stations are getting canceled all around the world, due to lack of finance. In the political sphere, representatives increasingly see vote winning potential, both in being seen to be 'green' and in opportunities for jobs and economic growth from the green revolution, further diminishing the influence of the fossil fuel lobby. So perhaps one of the biggest risks in the transition is that the existing, fossil fuel based energy systems will start to become much less dependable, as support for these industries shrinks, before hydrogen & renewable infrastructure are fully ready to take up the slack. This creates a very important dilemma, because the biggest and most intractable problem, for the whole world, is industrial emissions, most especially in China. This piece is absolutely vital, because the renewable system itself, is now completely dependent, on China's huge contribution, to reducing the cost of production. Unlike many other areas, there is no option to simply reduce this activity. And because many of these industrial process need high grade, high temperature heat, this conundrum cannot be solved, without a viable Hydrogen economy. But on the plus side, China has already shown willing, and are making very rapid progress in doing the easy bits - solar, wind & EV - just like everyone else. So there is no question that China will quickly do what's necessary, if a viable solution can be found to the much more difficult hydrogen and industrial piece. So the challenge for the richer countries, is to find a pathway to make the Hydrogen piece economically viable. And the easiest and quickest way to get to get to that, is to build a hydrogen system funded and supported by the various existing demands we have for natural gas, even if hydrogen for these applications doesn't make sense in the longer term. There are some very difficult decisions that will need to be made very soon about where the best balance between Hydrogen and Electrification will need to be, both for the immediate future and longer term, and the policies that governments will need to set to get there. All governments will need to rapidly get much better, at explaining to their populations what needs to be done and why, which need not be so difficult, with increasing concern about climate change. TLDR; Hydrogen is not at all easy, but it's also vital to net-zero. So we need to find a way to get there, and the shortest path is not always the easiest.

[@chrisbraid2907]

One of the biggest things going against Hydrogen is the usual suspects, Oligarchs, University trained financial wizards scamming for profit or property, Old Tech corporations who won’t benefit from the new clean offers … we really should be teaching people to be more efficient, using the Gas from processed waste is a cheap way to power generation systems … where I live Summer is a demanding time thanks to Air Conditioning systems … we still have steam and Air pressure to exploit. So we really need to find a way to get our students to learn the things that will help their world rather than protest about the past. There is a great need to create the new world …

[@thomassutrina7469]

Hydrogen power density in storage is way poorer then any liquid fuel. And even when liquified it is poorer. So in vehicles it is a disaster. Do not expect to see hydrogen powered aircraft. Leakage is a big problem also and any leak is a potential flame point. Why, the molecule is so so so small. Rubber seals all leak. The only metal seals are effective, but a metal seal is expensive to achieve the surface finishes, clamping load, and tolerances. Finally why? May I point out that the fuel for plants is carbon dioxide, and we see that forestation in the world is increasing. Thus the ~ 2% increase in carbon dioxide is balanced by harvesting sun light by plants, renewable energy. Simply put plants are now surviving in areas that once were deserts. And with hybrid crops the world can end starvation world wide. The only starvation occurring is politically caused.

[@m_a_s6069]

Remember, the two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. :) Hydrogen is a horrible fuel for air-aspirated internal combustion engines (4-stroke, turbines, etc.). The high flame temperature creates thermal NOx, and they have low efficiency, so it would be much better to use fuel cells. Also hydrogen is not ideally suited for mobile power---it has a very low energy density as a gas (volume basis), as well as an extremely low boiling point, so it is difficult and costly to liquefy. This necessitates heavy vessels that would be strong enough to contain a reasonable amount of fuel. This weight will decrease efficiency, increase the mass of the vehicle, and decrease safety (heavier vehicles on the road). And the idea of using hydrogen it in aviation is borderline ridiculous. Hydrogen has a place in the future energy economy, just not as a drop-in fuel replacement for small vehicles (cars, pickups, etc.) Also, we cannot be too cavalier and complacent with hydrogen leaks to the atmosphere. While hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas increased hydrogen in the atmosphere could increase the half life of gases like methane in the atmosphere. We just need to be careful and not make hydrogen the hammer and make everything else look like a nail.

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

High temperature electrolysis is more efficient, if we preheat the water using waste heat from fission and gas power plant condensers, it would reduce the power cost... Solar and geothermal preheating may also be possible..?!?.. Electrolysis should be cheaper in the Sahara, than the Antarctic I can see some use cases for hydrogen in long range vehicles, trucks, aircraft, spacecraft and buses etc.. We may also see smaller, cheaper, gimballed H2 thrusters on more flying vehicles and drones in the future, which could be fun :)

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Has anyone spoken about NOx in hydrogen car exhaust ?

[@acmefixer1]

As for red flag #1 - Rosie failed to consider that most renewables projects are built with a PPA - power purchase agreement - where the generator has a contract with buyers at an agreed upon price. The US has carbon credits that the renewables generator sells to other polluters and this subsidizes the sale of power.

[@TheBlibo]

Hi from the uk I to believe hydrogen will have a big part to play in the future but it is all dependent on manufacture, storage and supply. I cant see it in the near future for shipping or aviation, its not a great fuel in any ic engine yes it can work but not great and then as far as aviation goes storage is a problem, we have had a pilot study going on over here to look into domestic heating, I can't see that coming to fruition as the whole of the gas network would have to be replaced as it leaks so badly only tolerated by the the fact gas is so cheap but less of my negativity I still see it has a future but as you say not the silver bullet Keep up the good work

[@rogerkant3696]

As long as electrolysis is the production mechanism then the maximum efficiency that can be achieved is equal to 60% as this is reflects the energy requirement to break the hydrogen/oxygen bond with is about 40% greater than the energy the liberated hydrogen holds. This ignores losses, storage, transmission and conversion back to energy again. This means there is another generation method needed for green hydrogen, not electrolysis.

[@mikejfranklin7000]

In Europe, many countries' power grids are connected together, particularly around the North and Baltic Seas. In these seas are many many privately owned wind farms which are connected to the power grids of their home nations - all or most of which belong to the system of connections mentioned above. So, significantly, is Spain. These countries span an official time difference of 2 hours - although Spain's offiicial time allows the sun to stay in bed for an extra hour or so. The citizens tend to stay up late and get up late when given the opportunity. The physical time span is nearer 3 hours than 2. This helps spread the peak load.

[@kenjohnson6101]

Red flag #1: "The business case for green hydrogen seems to depend on very low or negative electricity prices ..." Not exactly. It's just the INTERMITTENT power that is low or negative cost. The most economical utility power system would use much more PV/wind than is required, e.g. like 4X the peak power requirement, to keep battery costs low. There's really no way to have cost-effective, reliable PV/wind power without generating vast amounts of excess intermittent power. Any income the utilities can get from that excess power is just "icing on the cake". Wind and PV are dirt cheap because the fuel is free, not because the profit margins are low. Red flag #2: "You can't make cheap hydrogen if you're only using your expensive equipment 2% of the time." With 4X wind/PV overcapacity the equipment would be used much more than 2% of the time. Germany only had 2% curtailment because it is part of a large, multinational grid that can soak up the intermittent power. Red flag #3: Low efficiency. "The round trip efficiency is around maybe 35%." That's comparable to an internal combustion engine. If the fuel is cheap, it's not a limitation. "Putting it directly into the grid" isn't an option when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Red flag #4: Other technologies have a head start and are improving rapidly. For long-term (e.g. seasonal) storage, for cement and steel manufacture, for ships, trains, and aviation, what are the alternatives? For more info on this topic see the following links, kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKvKqJyHa6eigqM doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120467

[@froggy0162]

For aviation, the best use of green hydrogen is make synthetic kerosene that is carbon neutral. Won’t make flying particularly cheap, but international aviation has about the same emissions as Australia’s entire economy so it’s worth the spend.

[@Paul.Gallant]

Fantastic summary! You're doing awesome job on KZbin!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Thank you kindly!

[@wesleyramirez2390]

Rosie, please review recent DOE (Feb 2021) announcement of catalyst boosted ambient temperature-pressure hydrogenation-dehydrogenation for LOHC technology, has implication for energy storage and carrier (e.g. repurpose fossil fuel pipeline infrastructure); there's now several emerging LOHC companies both European and Asian; can LOHC energy tech make the leap to be scaled up or down efficiently as energy cache/carrier for a true distributed hydrogen economy? Why not emulate Nature's millions-year Darwin development of energy cache/carrier metabolic systems of the role of biological ATP molecule and catalytic enzymes?

[@brucegoodwin634]

Thank God for rationality, Rosie! Keep 'Tubing! Great channel.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

"Can I haz subsidies?" "So you can produce hydrogen with renewable energy?" "yeeeeess" "Natural gasso taim!"

[@foley.elec.services]

Well analysed, bravo

[@ericseidel4940]

Hi, quite disapointing concerning the MAJOR issue of H2 : LEAKS. as the smallest molecule out there, H2 can't be stored and used without leaks. No gasket coupound you can't think of is suitable for H2. Even polished metal/metal conical joins used curently are leaking, as do tanks, event through metal grain joints. SO as examples : despite promising energy to mass ratio, H2 has been abandoned for Aviation, as leaks are dramaticaly reducing range. Another example : H2 BMW car users are forbiden to park in any closed place. This car leaks like about 30% of the tank every weeks (reported by a German user). H2 is NOT produced, carried and stocked for usage, it is produced directly for usage, so H2 gaz stations for cars are small H2 factories. Despite being in open air, they are leaking too, and there was explosions in Netherlands, and the company owning the station has decided to definitely stop this activity. Last point, for these H2 cars owners, H2 cost per km including losses was about x2 the one of a comparable ICE car, to be compared to 1/10 of the electric car... Finaly do politicians realy amagine cities full of 300bar H2 bombs everywhere ?

[@דגןבודנארו]

H2 doesn’t produced on site everywhere. It is stored and delivered, even this days intercontinentally. Aviation didn’t abandoned h2 as the next fuel. In fact just yesterday jetblue invested 20m dollars in universal hydrogen project of plan running on fuel cells. Airbus is currently working on h2 plane that said to be ready at 2035. Amazon and British airways invested in another h2 plane startup. Check your sources.

[@NaumRusomarov]

you don't need the price of electricity to be zero to make hydrogen, it just needs to be around 10-20 euros/MWh so that the hydrogen you produce is competitive with grey hydrogen. fossil fuel extraction is an expensive business, and there's no evidence that the price of hydrocarbons will stay low long-term. still, you need to add a lot of renewables for this to happen; realistically, countries are better off just adding renewables and transmission so that they can decrease the percentage of energy from fossil fuels for the time being. however, as european countries are seeing this winter, gas is of strategic importance and is only sold by a few countries. it won't be that hard for politicians to create extra subsidies for companies that produce hydrogen from renewables. the potential for a hydrogen economy is here, but because hydrogen so far has been tightly linked with the fossil fuel industry there are also some significant risks with it.

[@johnanderson3842]

What about WATER consumption???? In A paper written in Alberta Canada by Rain Saulnier, BSc, MASc. it is estimated at at 1980 gal. Of water are needed to produce 1 metric ton of hydrogen. Minimum! what does that mean for green hydrogen production in deserts where abundant sun and wind are available for electricity generation. Plug power’s plant in Arizona and other hydrogen hubs proposed in Texas are an example. How about you drill down on this issue. Thanks. Loyal follower.

[@jameshoffman552]

H2 is even worse than hydrocarbons because of its uncooperative nature. It doesn't like to be contained, requiring vast pressures to liquify, and finds its way out of vessels, making long-term (eg seasonal) storage unfeasible. Also, hydrogen embrittlement is a problem for the machinery. Elon Musk is my favorite source for explaining the inappropriateness of H2 for applications being pushed by the liquid fuels industry (but Rosie does a great job too).

[@martinstent5339]

About the economic argument: The reason why Germany has one of the highest proportions of wind energy is because it was subsidised for years and years! The regenerative energy producers, even those who produced electricity on their own roof, were guaranteed a minimum price for feeding it into the grid. That subsidy is, unfortunately greatly reduced now, but it is still the best way to go. Subsidise renewable energy and hydrogen production and tax CO2 producing energy supplies. It’s that simple! If you subsidise hydrogen production, then the production companies can sell it cheap and companies like steel producers will be motivated to use it. And I really think that we’re not going to be flying over the Atlantic on battery planes. A battery makes sense for bikes, it’s kind of OK for cars, but for big trucks, planes and trans-oceanic ships, you’re going to need hydrogen. Let’s start now.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I think the best way to produce green hydrogen that no one talks about is using the thermochemical Sulpher-Iodine cycle with a heliostat solar power tower to skip the conversion to electricity and expensive membranes for electrolysis. doesn't solve any of the practicality problems, but it should certainly cheaper for applications where hydrogen actually makes sense.

[@enigmaak8049]

How store hydrogen? Metal hydrid battery?

[@karldavis7392]

Whenever something is terribly expensive to produce (and hydrogen is), I take that as a warning that it's consuming a lot of resources, and bad for the environment. It's not always true. Some things are expensive because of tax, or a fancy brand name, or a patent, but when something basic like hydrogen is expensive, it's a bad sign. I cringe when somebody asks "Would you be willing to pay extra for something that's better for the environment?" I ask - is it really better for the environment, or is it worse and just hiding it? I read that politically, post-consumer environmental harm is weighted as 7 times worse then pre-consumer, so I generally ask if there's hidden harm in the production stream.

[@eddylagrand7762]

Hello Rosie. - your videos are always most interesting With regards to Hydrogen have you come across a KZbin channel called New Energy for Europe - they also have a website - their videos cover Hydrogen a lot and details ongoing and new hydrogen projects in Europe. There is a lot of development going on. The port of Rotterdam is aiming to become a hydrogen hub for storage a d distribution using existing pipelines to the heavy & chemical industries in NL & the Ruhr/Rhein area in Germany. That will probably depend on Shell going ahead using part of their oil refinery nearby which proposes to use Off-shore wind & solar power to produce Green Hydrogen. Almost certainly the big oil & energy companies will move towards hydrogen once the EU puts money on the table. In my humble opinion it is no longer “ if” but when!

[@realvanman1]

All this talk of "negative electricity prices" I've been hearing lately. Who dreams this stuff up? That will NEVER, EVER happen. NO generation owner will PAY to have his power consumed. EVER. He will simply stop generating once the price drops below his cost to generate. Curtailment. And that price will ALWAYS be a Positive number. I agree with all of your points though. Just as rushing to electrify everything while our grid is primarily powered by fossil fuels is inefficient, and wastes those fossil fuels, so too is the rush to make things hydrogen powered is putting the cart before the horse.

[@jameshoffman552]

12:38 What? You weren't impressed by the Toyota Mirai?

[@mikejfranklin7000]

I wonder how practical this 'blue' hydrogen is - I mean, how easy is it to capture and harmlessly store the carbon dioxide?

[@andrewpintar1620]

it is not practical ...as many CCS failures attest

[@petersonners4626]

The Hazer process developed in Australia captures methane's carbon by converting it into high-quality graphite. This provides an additional revenue source which offsets the cost of the conversion, which is already low due to an innovative process using iron ore as a catalyst.... Rosie, perhaps you could do a video on this - the company will finish building their Commercial Demonstration Project in Perth this year. hazergroup.com.au/about/