Great video, I thought hydrogen degradation of all the equipment that touch the stuff and that it slowly leaks out of any material we can currently make was more of the downsides of our current storage methods? An Australian company called LAVO allegedly has a way to bond it in solid that hopefully would render it fairly inert which I think would be a gamechanger. I do think hydrogen storage in gas/liquid state should not be allowed anywhere near the public, watch a video of a gas tanker or gas station explosion and scale up, you'd get into the level of small-yield nuclear devices with the equivalent amount of hydrogen. Great video again, I can see a realistic path forward as a fuel for heavy industry and look forward to more updates. Happy New Year!
Problem with BEVs are supply constraints of battery grade Li, Ni & Co. Limited high-grade deposits and NIMBY mentality could make mass adoption of batteries prohibitively expensive. An even bigger issue is the power grid can't easily accommodate huge quantities of vehicles trying to access high-speed charging at particular times of day, an issue people probably won't tolerate. The best option, IMO, would be 10-20 Kwh Li+ ion supplemented by a few kg of H2 as a range extender. This would also be conducive to enabling V2G systems through which cost can be offset via energy arbitrage, namely at times of peak demand, outages, etc.
Hi VamosAzul, Thank you for watching and commenting! 🙏 Very interesting and important points. In my experience, building and maintaining one system is already resource-intensive. Let alone multiple engines in one vehicle. I'm a fan of simplicity. 😀 We charge our Hyundai Ioniq EV at a regular outlet 99% of the time, i.e. for all drives within the range of 220 km, ~137 miles. It takes two overnight charges a week. We bought it pre-owned. It's our only car. It saves us time and money. I'm not sure why it's not more common. I think it's a scalable solution that wouldn't even require grid expansion.
Batteries are heavy and you've to carry around that weight everywhere you go. That isn't very efficient. I hope harnessing of solar power improves and hydrogen is made directly from sunlight without electrolysis coming in between.
if all world goes green hydrogen would be great but we still need to go for more public transport like trains buc it just more efficient and effective than cars too many hydrogen cars will come with their own problems so better focus on far future than fast fix
The video is very interesting, BUT I am shocked by your arguments for miscinception #3 - hydrogen is one of the MOST dangerous and handling complicated flammable GASes. Comparing it with solid batteries of liquid fuel - is a BIG fake trick.
@oleg6517 I completely agree. Hydrogen is one of the most dangerous gases, which leads to higher handling requirements. What is the metric here? I think we are looking at two: 1. Probability of Deaths and Injuries and its effect on Social Responsibility 2. Reputational Risk and it's effect on the Financial Bottomline Regarding 1: Yes, hydrogen technologies did and will lead to deaths and injuries. So, does every technology. According to the WHO, combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution are associated with 6.7 million premature deaths annually. Unfortunately, I couldn't find death rates for green hydrogen production. I think the industry should be large enough by now for representative numbers. However, are the failures systemic or statistical as the death rate depends on the companies' technologies and safety policies and execution. I'll post the death rates for different kinds of electricity production in the community thread. Now, one thing is the quantity. The other thing is the quality of deaths. Comparing the types of deaths from fossil fuels to the ones from green hydrogen production. Should we choose a higher number of more equally distributed deaths over a lower number of people who choose to expose themselves to a higher risk to increase overall wealth and wellbeing? Regarding 2: While statistically, green hydrogen companies decrease the death rate, they are exposed to a higher reputational risk from deaths they are directly responsible for. Where I stand: Please excuse my analytical approach to something very emotional. On a personal note, I actually thought about ending my own life at one point and I don't know if I would still exist, if it weren't for a feeling of responsibility for my loved ones. Two of my friends died last year, who were extremely valuable for our society and humanity. So I spent a thought or two on different kinds of deaths. While it can increase traffic, my goal is not to polarize. On the contrary, my goal is to unite for positive change. And I think the best way I can do that is to provide cleantech edutainment. I have a triple bottomline with a financial, environmental, and social component. Some people use the environmental and social component to maximize financial returns. I think this bears the risk of collateral damage and doesn't work in the long run. So, the financial aspect is a requirement, not a goal in order for me to contribute to a tomorrow that my kids, future generations, and other species get the opportunity to exist in and enjoy.
Tuank you for objective approach. So, #3 really do not actually exist - as a result the Hydrogen gad is reallt dangerous. But could the danger level become neglible with developing new technologies, in future. But I think you touched in your response very interesing types of arguments. This is mind widening. Need to think about. Thank you for your approach and searching for connection points between different viewpoints.
