What do you make of the hydrogen hype?

A big misconception about Hydrogen is that its NOT an energy source, but an energy carrier. Alot of people have been talking about it as the solution to our future energy needs without mentioning that we need an enourmous amount of clean energy/renewable energy to produce, store and transport Hydrogen. But Hydrogen still has its uses to clean up some industries!

I saw that in South Australia they are looking into using the excess solar energy produced to create hydrogen. if done like this is can be a very good alternative, and a very good export for very sunny countries.

I think there was a good comment from an expert at the end there. It showed how these time-based goals are flawed. They create pressure and poor decision making. To me, it’s more about a balanced approach. Not panic. We have good sources of energy that we know. But we are also recognizing that we can evolve that and do better. We can do it cleaner. But can we be honest? Can we be balanced? Some companies seem to struggle with that. So, we need to proceed with wisdom, pure intention, and steady ease. It’s not really that difficult.

This is a good dissection of the hydrogen issue. One criticism is that you didn’t include nuclear as part of the Green Hydrogen solution

Hydrogen storage is a big issue. If it's pressurezed, chilled or even liquified it still takes up so much space, leaks, embrittles containing vessels and costs so much to convert. Reacting hydrogen together with nitrogen in a catalytic chamber produces Ammonia, that solves much of the issues of containment since it can be stored at much lower pressures and higher temperatures with conversion efficiencies higher than those of LH2 and much higher energy densities. It can even be used directly in fuel cells just like H2. Thanks for the video, I would love to see your take on this.

My dad worked for an hydrogen company and he got fired cause he wouldn’t lie about the gas footprint of the industry. He went into petroleum to work on plant emissions and they used him to basically delay and distract. He then quit started an herb farm and quit paying his taxes, sold kratom and legal mushrooms till he died.

Super simplified explanation of what hydrogen strategy is all about. Such videos which explain more and dont pass a judgement are well appreciated

Very interesting subject. Green Hydrogen is something that here in NZ we should be making by the bucket load since the electrical generation industry is either hydro/wind or geothermal. Still have a number of coal and gas fired industrial sites(mostly Fonterra) due to their remote locations but only two gas power stations for residential output. New Geothermal sites are coming on line all the time but our biggest problem is lack of investment, seems a missed opportunity to me.

This is surprisingly well balanced. UKposts videos in my experience tend to be almost tribal about alternative fuels, either trying to big them up or debunk anything good that's ever been said about them. This is factual, accessible and unbiased. Well done to all concerned.

This was like jumping into “renewables” without calculating the long term effects of the extraction of rare metals, recycling of batteries, and efficiency of said tech, etc..which can lead to among other things to the energy crises like we have today.

I think discovering an efficient and safe fusion reactor for energy would be the game changer in the coming years. And everything would run on electricity with minimal carbon footprint.

We should move forward on any alternative energy projects at the same time and see which one(s) are the most effective and least damaging at an affordable price.

Chemical engineer here, with many years of experience in the hydrogen and related industries: The best use of green di-hydrogen is to use it as... hydrogen! By this I mean to use the hydrogen atoms as such, in chemical reactions, and NOT as an energy vector or storage. For the latter application, di-hydrogen is thermodynamically, physico-chemically, as well as economically significantly inferior to other solutions, mainly but not exclusively batteries. I can foresee some rare exceptions to this rule, though... Green hydrogen? Yes! But to replace grey AND blue hydrogen( the latter being utter non-sense) in industry! Forget about fuel-cell cars, or even trucks! For oceanic transport and long-range air transport, the jury is still out.

One thing that you didn't mention is that the hydrogen atom is very small in size, so when welding pipes the welds need to be perfect or it will leak, also since the energy content is low you need very high pressure tanks (special welding codes) also quite expensive, finally hydrogen has an invisible flame when burning and is orderless so it's hard to know your system is leaking and or burning.

Excellent analysis!! Innovation is a continuous process, some day we will discover the truths and solutions around it

A group of belgian scientist, Ku Leuven, is developing a solar panel that use the energy created by the sun to power a electrolysis process, and recent tests have found out that one of them could produce up to 250 liters of hydrogen fuel for cars in a day. I hope that they will continue on this path, because it would mean that we almost wouldn't need to pay for fuel at all by producing it at home.

Overall, I think everyone needs to understand that the energy transition will not happen with ONLY one renewable energy, or green energy storage. Green hydrogen, green ammonia, fuel cells and what not will all be part of this transition, just like wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

The solutions we hear about will only work in conjunction with the one we almost never hear about: learning to get along using a LOT less energy.

As always, the DW Team does a fine job of dissecting the issues, showing alternative technologies, and grounding it all in the real world of costs of production. I see the hydrogen future for humanity and this excellent presentation gives us a solid viewpoint for why that may be so. Zehr gut!

Great video. I think it gives a balanced view of the issues to be considered. The energy transition is a great challenge - we consume a lot of energy in the world and cleaning it up needs us to get to understand and appropriately use all good options.

It is refreshing to hear this more complete discussion of hydrogen’s potential role in our energy strategy. Too many people are unaware that it takes energy to create hydrogen - that, on earth at least, hydrogen is an energy storage and transport medium, not an energy source. In effect, hydrogen is a battery alternative. The energy lost in creating, storing, transporting, and using hydrogen is significant. As with so many social media and regular media energy discussions, there was no discussion of nuclear energy. Generate hydrogen with nuclear power and the result will actually be emission free. No need to drink petroleum industry cool-aid.

I think the backbone being Nuclear and renewables with Hydrogen to replace Coal plants and as energy storage would be a pretty decent idea.

Great content! Well, we nedd updates about this video. :)

Would love to see discussion of engineering challenges regarding storing hydrogen safely for use in any of these applications

whenever i ask a certain chemist his opinion on hydrogen he always mentions ammonia being the more practical way to store energy, might be good to look into that

Wow, I seriously had my own hydrogen video ready to release on Tuesday, but now I might need to delay it. Regardless, you’re spot on with everything my research found as well: Places hydrogen can be used: when made from renewable energy, maritime shipping, aviation, steel production (CCS needs to be applied though), and long term storage of energy. Places hydrogen can’t be used: when created from methane (even if CCS is applied), cars, home appliances, industrial process that use medium heat (think any normal oven)

While H isn't going to be easy or inexpensive to create for some time, it's probably time we started moving towards production and usage. Fossil fuels aren't a renewable resource, and the products to create renewable energy haven't exactly been climate friendly (ex: old windmill parts in mass quantities that we can't do anything with, yet). Have to start somewhere, so now is as good a time as any. We currently have ways to separate H from other elements and that needs to continue to be researched and improved. Hopefully, we'll start looking at the climate situation from a standpoint other then the $$$$s. Eventually it will get less expensive, but batteries are creating a hazardous situation with lithium and being difficult to recycle and re-use. Will never happen in my lifetime, but there are going to be others who outlive me and are going to NEED a more climate friendly environment.

The biggest problem is not producing the H2, but actually transport and storage. These will raise the cost (and risks) a lot. H2 for mobility just fit for developed countries.

Green hydrogen is a solution and a necessary solution, but not the solution. Nothing is binary, especially not in our complex energy systems. Let’s not either discard or solely focus on hydrogen, it’s a piece of the puzzle and that’s how it’s being thought of in the real world

I have noticed that the new version of fission reactors can be placed near facilities where hydrogen is used in manufacturing. The reactors can make hydrogen very cheaply and sidestep the need for electricity first.

The general consensus in the industries we supply to and work within is that the ultimate final goal is hydrogen: green hydrogen. EVs-no matter how much their battery size is reduced-are still being perceived as the medium solution. This is a very good video though; it's rare to find a transparently balanced one like this.

There is the 3rd alternative to produce hydrigen that was not mentioned in this video. It is to produce hydrogen from heat waste from nuclear power plants' reactors. Water can be splitted into hydrogen and oxygen directly by heating it at high temperature, and this can be done by making uses of waste heat from existing neuclear reactors, with some modification.

The same as ethanol. All involved in this scam knew from the start that the trade off was no good and was just a scam. It all depends on which of your elected officials have what invested in where, who they owe favors to and why we should keep them in their current position.

Great video - obviously there are many challenges, but from an application perspective alone, especially when you think about research for one it's most common applications - i.e cars - it's low energy density is a problem.

What a great channel, I needed this for my class project

Hydrogen has its part to play as a mixed portfolio of energy distribution. The pie is big enough for all players to be sustainable.

Hydrogen ( green of course) has a place as an energy storage method to be used among others. There is no single silver bullet to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

The major difficulty, with sole reliance on renewables, is balancing supply with demand. In countries with large amounts of renewables there can be periods when supply outstrips demand (or overloads local network capability) and during these periods it would make sense to use that excess to create green Hydrogen. There is a project in Scotland at one of the biggest wind farms to build an electrolyser with the H2 being used to fuel buses (I think). As ever a wide range of energy options will be required and H2 will play its part in one form or another.

Thank you for this video, very informative!

Like a lot of green solutions, there seem to be so many problems to surmount. It may have some niche uses, but I don't think it will power most vehicles

Excellent video with clear point to digest and ponder upon. I think the t worth pursuing. It seems that the biproduct, water, can also help water shortages in some places. I'm all for it's further research.

Glad I watched to the end, because I was going to jump in with all the “cons” that came later on! It needs a paradigm shift: rather than viewing hydrogen from the “fuel” viewpoint, rather look upon it a a “storage” commodity. The same, but not the same. Use H2 where batteries just won’t do (aviation, probably bulk freight) yes, but it can also be used for supplying rapid grid balancing. Fully green H2 can be produced at times of renewable energy overproduction close to its storage and generation stations and the inefficiencies don’t include transportation and retail delivery infrastructure and in any case aren’t that important if the electricity is “surplus”.

Nice video, although I am curious when you compared hydrogen powered cars to lithium ion battery cars you did not consider energy costs for mining and producing lithium batteries as well as costs of recycling dead lithium batteries in your comparison.

Very interesting thanks. Just one comment... keep in mind that increased demand also increase research budgets, which would definitely increase production efficiencies. That is quite saturated in fossil fuels since most assume that their "golden age" is about to end. In addition, there is alsobio-hydrogen, or semi bio that is being extensively researched and would make hydrogen production more spread around the globe, so in general local markets could supply their own energy rather than relying on a centered industry. That will generate a better control on demand to production ratio and minimize storage costs and need.

2020 wasn't the first time a commercial sized plane flew on hydrogen. This actually happened in 1988 with the Tupolev Tu-155. Interestingly, due to practical issues with hydrogen on aircraft the project switched to using natural gas instead. This is telling. Whenever engineers are allowed to use a future aviation fuel free from political constraints they choose methane. This was the case with Tupolev but also the case in the US with Lockheed in the Carson study in 1980 and again with NASA/Boeing "sugar freeze" in 2012. Furthermore, studies have shown that water vapour released at typical cruise altitudes of commercial aircraft results in warming effects that are actually worse than emitting CO2. This is because it persists much longer at these altitudes. This ultimately should disqualify using hydrogen which would result in far more water vapour being emitted at these altitudes. I think the future of medium and long haul aviation lies with net zero power to gas production (methane) and/or with carbon negative biomethane. The other alternatives are either too expensive, too energy intensive to produce, bad for the environment or completely impractical.

When you talk about using Hydrogen as a carbon-free renewable fuel and energy carrier, I think you also need to mention Ammonia. H2 and NH3(ammonia) can both be utilized as very potent forms of fuel but hydrogen in the form of ammonia is much easier to store and transport because it can be more easily kept in a liquid and it is more energy dense by volume than pure hydrogen.

Thanks for this great presentation. I don't understand why producing electricity to produce Hydrogen. Why not using electricity that we already produced. Each time you go from one from of energy to another form you are loosing. It's simple thermodynamic. The only time Hydrogen makes sense to me if the electrical battery energy density is not reached for the airplane... Please correct me if I am missing something. Thank you!

British company JCB have already pioneered working lorries and diggers using green hydrogen. And Toyota successfully ran a green hydrogen powered Corolla around a 24 Race at Fuji Raceway last summer. So, if these companies can do it, others can too.

Places like Quebec apparently have excess hydo power. It could act like a battery where places that have periods of excess power could use it to make hydrogen to use during periods, ( windless or sunless days) of high demand or low output.

For many countries where the availability of renewable energy is limited, either by space or natural resource, it is reasonable to assume that green hydrogen is a pipe dream. Some countries, such as Australia have an abundance of natural resources including wind, in the North of the continent Easterly winds blow consistently for 6 months of the year. In that same area there is a 2000 Km coastline with tides of 7 to 10 metres complete with many chock points where tide races run at between 8 and 12 knots. Though there is little Government interest in investing, there are several private organisations working toward a Green Hydrogen environment. Australia is a unique environment that needs to work toward a hydrogen solution. Most transport relies on trucks, these massive 100 tonne vehicles travel between 1000 and 3000 kilometres and battery will never suffice. There are problems with batteries, repeated recharge cycles reduces their life expectancy, high ambient temperature reduces efficiency, lighting and air conditioning draw large amounts of power as do refrigerated transport, and the list goes on . The issue is not with creating hydrogen, but storage and transport.

What abt separated oxygen ? , separated O can easily combine with O2 to form O3 which is not good at low level atmosphere....

We love the video! It’s a huge step in the right direction. We hope the video reaches as many people as possible, we would go ahead to add your video to one of our playlists to inspire climate solutions. -Team Planet Cents

I think battery materials are limited and if they can't be recycled I think there will be a shortage. I think hydrogen has a great future as long as it's green 👍

I saw in another video that that one big problem with Hydrogen is also storage. Being very tiny, its molecules escape more easily out of containers and storage loss is a big problem. I am no expert and would like to know more about this.

Is the cost of recovering material to build wind mills and solar panels plus installation cost worth it as far as emissions? Also what about producing hydrogen with the overflow from dams producing electricity?

Something to keep brainstorming on !!

I did like the clip much. I see it the same way: There is a big potential and it could be used for basically anything but just because it could, doesn't mean it should (same as with all other types of solutions as batteries, fossil fuel etc.). What I was missing when talking about passenger cars or vehicles in general, that Toyota recently has successfully tested their hydrogen combustion engine in a Corolla during a 24h endurance race in Japan. It sounds pretty promising (besides the still required upgrade of refueling stations). Would be interesting to hear opinions about this concept outside the "Toyota bubble" ;)

Great video. There are some ways which are being studied to increase hydrogen energy density, such as: ammonia and metal hydrides. Other issues being faced by batteries are: rare materials supply, battery charge retention and waste management.

I'm about to start my Masters in Hydrogen Energy Systems. I hope my studies throws more light on this "mysterious" tech.

An interesting discussion but the one thing you haven’t talked about is the hype that the only emission from using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or engine is water. There is the potential to emit NOX especially from engines and central heating boilers.

I am an energy systems engineer. I have a couple decades experience including hydrogen tech. In all of the system design evaluations I have done for all energy end uses and supplies... the hydrogen option is ALWAYS the least feasible, viable, beneficial, highest cost, highest Risk, and thus the least preferred option. There isn’t anything coming in the research pipeline that will change this. Somebody is hyping a bad concept as a solution. There is a word for that in the legal field.

I'm surprised that the *CO2 equivalent cost of producing the renewable energy source to produce the hydrogen* isn't discussed more regularly and at greater length.

I got a question. The differential of energy between the energy (electricity) used to produce hydrogen is lost in heat that is transmitted to the solution of water where the hydrogen come from right? If yes, using a low differential heat pump to take the heat back to electricity then hydrogen production again would take us closer to a closed loop? Then producing hydrogen would be a damper for the electricity production. Yes? I know i got a lot of questions here. The most important is: the trash of the hydrogen production is the lost of energy in heat form to the water solution in the process? I'll manage the rest.

Perpetual aircraft motion is due to less drag n enormous momentum of aircraft.. We may stop fuel supply to turbine n run from previously discussed prototype of horizontal turbines installed all around fuselag to generate electricity n feed to shaft of turbines under wings.. As much gas is created due to explosion /burning of fuel/gas inside turbine.. As much air volume may be sucked by exhaust like fan mechanism at locations where byproducts gas is produced inside turbines.. Main concern is to create upward thrust due to high speed air flow from turbine to rear outside.. If extra energy is meeded, we may add extra generators at rear side inside aircraft

I did not know that H2 could be used (i am assuming) in place of coal->coke for steel production...this is exciting and impacts just about everything including "renewable" energy production. I am glad to see that you are looking at what the actual numbers and science are. People seem to be ignorant to the fact that oil/gas/coal are still needed to build electric cars, electrolyzers and fuel cells. We need to look at the entire carbon footprint of say an electric car from raw materials out of the ground to the scrap-heap. The only thing you ever hear about is the part in the middle...when the car is in operation. My opinion is that we should be developing more sustainable nuclear power such as modular reactors, thorium and breeder reactors (for instance to power a steel plant and produce hydrogen by electrolysis for the process or power chemical plants and oil/gas refineries). Hopefully fusion will become practical one day before we run out of uranium. To answer your question above I do not think we can every truly get to net-zero at least until we can find a way to make all the materials we need without any kind of fossil fuels which may be impossible or in the very distant future.

Small Modular Reactors could provide on-demand hydrogen, even in remote locations. This would get us off carbon fuels AND batteries (you neglected to point out the huge environmental cost of battery production, or the fact that China has most of the world's rare earth minerals), and allow time for the further development of green energy, which cannot sufficiently meet demand in its current state.

Reminds me of Mad Max beyond thunder dome "where ever you go there you are"

Finally nowadays everyone seems aware that hydrogen exists in “natural form” deposits. So electrolysis has not need be the main source.

Australia's CSIRO developed a liquid similar to ammonia that had a large amount of hydrogen. This liquid could then easily be turned into hydrogen in the vehicle and the other elements are filtered out of the liquid. Large scale transport of low temperature, high pressure extremely flammable gases is fraught with problems, let alone the cost of any type of hydrogen.

Imagine a hydrogen tank 2.2 times the size of your current gas tank that will hold 10,000 PSI but only with a tank that weighs more than the Hydrogen it contains. Imagine also half the trunk used up with the Fuel Cell. Imagine paying more than twice the price for Hydrogen vs gasoline only from stations as rare as hen’s teeth but then learning the Hydrogen comes from Fossil Fuel in its cheapest iteration. In future the promise is we can make it from excess renewable energy but overall, Hydrogen is a ploy by Fossil Fuel Companies to slow down our transition away from their deadly brew. Imagine them protecting $1Trillion in annual sales and how far they will go to do so. I thought it was “ridiculous” also until I ran the numbers. JP-8 jet fuel is 9.5 kwh/litre, gasoline 9, cryogenically cooled Hydrogen which required a refrigeration plant is 2.3, 700 bar compressed Hydrogen is 1.3 and 350 bar is 0.65. My figure of 9 times the volume was a rough number but 350 bar would be 13.5 times the volume and 700 bar would be 6.25 times the volume of gasoline for the same miles. Those enamoured with Hydrogen cannot change the physics which makes Hydrogen extremely inconvenient for transportation due to the huge volume required but it doesn’t stop there. Making Hydrogen is costly, shipping and storing it is problematic and converting it to road power is complex also. Toyota Marai stores Hydrogen at 700 Bar. Fuel Cell efficiency of say 80% then electric motor at 90% yields 72%. To get a tank ratio with gasoline, we need to apply an efficiency correction. Gas engine extracts about 25% of the energy in the fuel. For same mileage we need to look at tank volume ratio of 6.25 and divide that by 72/25 x 6.25 = 2.2 larger volume for the Hydrogen ;tank vs gasoline. This physics defines why Hydrogen is not used and probably won’t be used for much transportation and you can yell FUD all you like but you’ll not change physics by doing so. I had my bubble burst on Hydrogen by doing research; sorry to break the bad news but facts ain’t FUD. Not to mention hydrogen and brittlement of metals and his propensity to leak through microscopic gaps in fittings.

My guess is that the net amount of water conserved after electrolysis and hydrogen combustion, is less than the amount of water at the beginning. If so, such water exploitation, over hundreds or thousands of years, would leave us with less water on the planet overall. Such a practice could, in the long-term, lead to much more serious problems than global warming.

What is the consumption of water to hydrogen production.?

One thing I rarely hear mentioned is the issue of the size of the hydrogen atom. Since it's the smallest of all atoms, there will be problems in containment and storage. It will simply migrate through whatever is trying to contain it, more so as pressures go higher. Yes, it is sold in H2 cylinders and frankly, I don't know the rate of leakage though that will vary based on materials used and thickness of containers. It also takes a lot of electricity for electrolysis. All food for continuedthought.

In my opinion the real flaw in the hydrogen economy is (and always has been) the scarcity of the Platinum Group Metals used in the only currently viable hydrogen fuel cells. There simply aren't any alternative catalysts which provide the same efficiency and longevity. We're talking about trading one non-renewable resource, with another, that is much more rare and expensive to obtain. The papers I've found on the topic suggest that it would require 100% recycling of all PGMs used today on top of future production to satisfy any large scale hydrogen fuel cell usage.

Great analysis on this

As efficiency improves hydrogen will become a staple fuel or internal combustion .Ffinding more compact forms of storage would be ideal or a closed loop electrolysis to fuel and water to fuel

What ever happened to the steel tank hydrogen imbrittlement storage problem?

Brilliant presentation of the topic. Keep it up!

I've invested in a solar firm company in Ireland. And any of the electricity when it's not needed is converted into hydrogen. But we should always keep our options open for new Technologies. I enjoyed your video very much

Nothing could be more obvious, simple, and elegant as embracing hydrogen as our primary fuel source.

Depends. We will have to produce hydrogen from renewable energy in places where electricity transmission is a challenge. For example, you can do this in places like Saudi Arabia, where there is a lot of sunshine, and they don't know what to do with the excess solar energy due to the duck curve. Other examples could be desert places and offshore windmills

The energy density of hydrogen is much higher than lithium batteries by weight.

Hey, this is a great doco but maybe there needs to be more coverage on the methods of storing hydrogen safely - in cars and aeroplanes. We all still remember Hindenburg, more discussion on fuel cells might be important.

NASA can't even fuel their $50 Billion Rocket without MULTIPLE LEAKS ! Imagine Granny fueling up her Honda Civic ! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Green hydrogen technology makes the most sense for replacing hydrogen sources that currently rely on gray hydrogen. For energy sources, though, we should focus on electrical/battery technologies.

Personally, I think that we should focus on creating methane from renewable energy. The tech already exists for industrial storage and transportation of natural gas. We could use carbon in the atmosphere and water to build methane. Hydrogen is difficult to handle, and frankly it's greenwashing. The time it takes for the technology to develop will be time that fossil fuels continue to be extracted and pumped into the atmosphere. High temperature nuclear power reactors could also create hydrogen, or green methane without emissions.

I would like to know how much polution there actually is from petrol, propane, or diesel fuel,I think for cars and trucks it is and stays the least poluting fuel, to produce the engine,car and fuel, the whole theme to say,

great video. Thank you!

Technology for synthetic fuel production already exists. In fact, it was being scaled prior to the price of oil collapsing some 8 years ago when it became impractical. Synthetic fuels close the carbon cycle and are therefore green because the carbon they contain came from the atmosphere. They have much higher energy densities, equal to existing fossil fuels and can be a direct plugin to the existing fossil fuel distribution infrastructure. They can be tailor made to specific end uses like bunker D for shipping or jet A for air travel. The input energy is light as in from the sun so it's a form of storable solar energy and the best part is that they can be scaled to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere if we chose to not use them but store resulting fuel like in the strategic petroleum reserve for example. This is a far better solution and one currently attainable than hydrogen pie in the sky.

I think you should have also mentioned the problems with storing and transporting hydrogen. It is a very small molekule and diffuses easily through most materials, which is why it cant be transported via pipeline and storages will be at a constant loss. It does also briddle the materials it diffuses through, giving them an a lot more limited lifetime. Additionally pumping Hydrogen into a high pressure tank comes at a further energyloss, both to power to the pump aswell as the thermal losses of the compression. Even more if you liquify it with the additional loss of evaporated H to keep it cool. It is a low density energy storage with a bad efficiency, which is why Hydrogen should be transformed into more complex molekules like Methan or Amonia, but even that still makes it only viable with an abundancy of energy.

One thing about Hydrogen that is not mentioned is its energy density compared to lithium-ion batteries, yes with today's technology close to %50 of energy is lost from electrolysis to being in the car but for the same weight liquid Hydrogen has 10 times the energy mass to lithium-ion batteries having the same weight

I'm out of memories. I've heard it all about 50 times

Informative video. I'm confident that if we keep on digging in that direction, we'll get something out of it. Progress are made everyday and with the current greenhouse disaster, we should leave no stone unturned...

all new technologies take time. Whale oil was not replaced over night.

One thing that you don't mention in this video is the use of hydrogen gas to drive a normal internal combustion engine, rather than to power a fuel cell. An advantage of doing this would be that it can use existing technology and internal combustion engine production lines which would be much cheaper than converting to electric power via a fuel cell, and would be far less polluting The only disadvantage that I can see, (not a large one) is that the hydrogen would need a larger tank, which would need to be a pressure vessel, perhaps similar to existing methane gas converted vehicles. Thoughts?.

The question is how much energy does the electrolysis prosses require?

Hydrogen liquefaction is further more energy intensive I think and hence, liquifying it for future use is a really hard process especially when it comes to regular automotive and domestic use. But for the industrial purpose it could be. Hydrogen for the industry is more realistic and could provide more efficient than the renewables, I think, than focusing on hydrogen propelled cars and trucks. But does the renewables to generate green hydrogen are really green in nature? I doubt that.

A possible way to solve much of the issues addressed in this video might be the conversion of Hydrogen and CO2 into Methane. This can be done as a form of biogas upgrading. The CO2 fraction that is formed in biogas systems can so be removed resulting in a higher calorific gas and more gas. Methane has a higher energy content per volume then Hydrogen and can be used through existing pipelines. Interesting research articles about this subject are: Production of high-calorific biogas from food waste by integrating two approaches: Autogenerative high-pressure and hydrogen injection. (Kim et al 2021) Recent progress towards in-situ biogas upgrading technologies. (Zhao et al 2021)

the ultimate problem with *any* alternative energy source is that the development is being left, by governments at all levels, in the hands of the old energy companies; the very companies that have a vested interest in dragging out the process in order to "maximize profits".