Get a life idiot.

El Matador funny because I always thought that kind of insult was coming out of non smart guys!

Thanks MC. I really appreciate your feedback. All the best. Dave

The better way to store electricity is to turn it into some form of carbohydrate. I remember that one company used electricity to improve methane production in biodigester. I cant find it anymore

In some areas in rare days there is indeed extra energy produced by renewables that has no where to go but the bigger problem is we really need to plant more of them I mean we need to solve the bigger problem (fossil fuel to energy) after that it is really easy to use the extra energy in various potential solutions ex: sea water processing ; pump water up to a dam then use it as hydro power when needed and there is really a lot of things to do if you have above demand energy.

But it can be accepted easily, especially when lithium becomes scarcer & much more expensive. Ease of production & abundance counterbalance inefficiency.

@@thedamnedatheist Lithium is very abundant element and we wont run out of it. We can only run out of cheap lithium

@@thedamnedatheist lithium is used because it has great energy density per weight. For grid storage, weight isn't a factor. So we need to develop a different type of battery. Liquid metal batteries might be this solution.

All the best to you!!

hello Maria I approve of this message 🤗

There's still a lot of work in removing CO2 then, just adding O in a submerged environment means the CO2 saturated air must be vented with the H2. That's a possible position give away even if they compress it for a few days and then vent. I thought they used CO2 scrubbers. Not saying you're wrong (you've obviously spent time on a sub), only that I'm surprised.

Unless theres some technology I dont know about, (its possible, Im not particularly knowledgeable in the subject) theres no CO2 scrubbers that can be used for the lengths of time a submarine would need, so they use an amine type CO2 scrubber, which is regenerative (it absorbs CO2 normally, and discharges it when heated). And if youre only discharging the CO2 youre only discharging about 0.3-0.6m^3 of volume a day per person, 0.0004m^3 per minute on the high end (my cursory search on how much co2 a person emits per day turned up 0.35m^3). Which is trivial, all these values are also at standard temperature and pressure, not the incredible depths a submarine can be expected to operate at, lowering them even further, also sea water absorbs and adsorbs CO2, lowering it even further. Also I just realized I typed a wall of text, sorry about that! I like doing math!

@@rjwaters3 Yes, Destin from smarter every day did a video on this. They mostly use amine to absorb co2 which they then vent to the sea. They pressurize it to match outside pressure and vent it in tiny bubbles so it dissolves into the water very quickly

why is h2 made on one terminal? what happens to the o2 from that terminal? the o2 doesn't teleport to the other terminal.

not desperately. Water front property still the most coveted by the richest and best informed. Most home owners now have solar panels. I'd rather have this hydrogen bomb sorry hyrogen storage in the garage than it going into the grid.

Fuel cells are very expensive because of the materials used. This is one of the reasons BEVs are more prevalent now. For large scale grid storage cost is less of an issue. But I'm curious how much energy is lost by needing to compress the hydrogen.

Commercial PEM electrolisers (these are the ones with the best efficiency) do NOT run on sea water. The chlorine ions would destroy the membranes, catalysts and electrodes. Instead, they run on deionised water. The conductivity is provided by the separator. To produce the DI-water, large amounts of drinking water are used. more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis

Couldn't use of hydrogen power create too much water for the planet possibly flooding it or something? And couldn't the extra vapor heat the planet even faster?

70% energy loss from water to electricity. hydrogen makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. lithium batteries make the most sense. even lead acid batteries make a WHOLE LOT MORE SENSE than fuel cells. so why do we keep seeing vidoes like this? because NO ONE commercially produces hydrogen from water. they get if from the refinement of natural gas. short explanation? BIG OIL. they showed you all those big tanks and talked about hydrogen and you TOOK THE BAIT... and made the ASSUMPTION that they were getting the gas from water. THEY ARE NOT.

20% loss at electrolysis.. minimum. 10% loss to pressurize hydrogen. 40% loss at the fuel cell.. MINIMUM. starting to see why it's a dum idea?

Of course the "tank" was larger than his house.

@@rob1248996 Actually no. He did have a series of tanks in the back yard. It did take up a lot of space as one would expect

@@beebob1279 I would expect that maybe you could cook with h2 at low pressure but that's about all. Anything else you use it for will have to be compressed to high pressure (>1000psi) which destroys the effeciency that you might have by generating it with solar electricity. Commercial plants Reform h2 from natural gas because it's the cheapest way to get it. Anything else and it's just a hobby.

@@rob1248996 He's on youtube and has the whole thing explained. I can't remember his name though. And no, it's not high pressure

Or you could make methanol, which is slightly less energy dense, but easier to store.

Ahh, they're just big wusses.

huh, CO2 is the waste product of the spent hydrocarbons, why would you want to "combining" them back in you said fuels?

@@6969smurfy for the same reason we use bio-fuels like wood or corn based methanol It's carbon neutral and - as i wrote - can be transported and stored (and used) without any problems using the existing gas infrastructure.

@@6969smurfy CO2 and carbon is always here the problem is we dug up all the carbon that mother nature locked away.

It is stupidly expensive if we are using fossil fuel to make the electricity to turn water into hydrogen but if we are using renewable energy methods like wind, solar, geothermal etc. Then its not, and it is a necessary way to store excess energy generated for later on when there is not so much wind and/or sunlight.

@@ScamallDorcha I worked on hydrogen rc car project it was mid size rc racing car which was running on 20liters of hydrogen the fuel cell cost over 800euros and deliver max output of 27 watts and it was the best at that time (2017). The hydrogen generator cost something like 450euro and produced ~5liters per hour of clean hydrogen. It was paid be our sponsor who organized the race but still hydrogen is not the best way to go

Excelent... I d like a lot... keep giving more vídeos....

Wished he had mentioned what the companies employing this claimed their efficiencies and costs are.

@@skiinggator I agree 100%. Some hard data and a few minutes on a calculator would make this video much more informative. These are neat concepts, but the cost per kWh to install, the maintenance costs as well as the efficiency will dictate weather this is actually practical.

Today NEL electrolyzers are at 93% of efficiency without compression, then you need to add 12% for 700 bar compression or 30% for liquefaction, but the new Electrochemical Hydrogen Compression new units are way superior to mechanical compression with 8% for 700 bar (way more small,, less capital cost, they also purify and silent) and 15% is possible for liquefaction just scaling up production, even more if you apply EHC or magnetocaloric. New high temperature reversible fuel cells in lab already achieves 75% in round trip efficiency (electricity-->hydrogen-->electricity) with relative high endurance, they just need a water vapor input at 500c, which could be obtained from any thermal plant as waste heat and they can work with pure hydrogen or methane or anything in between without modification. In addiction, you dont need to convert hydrogen back to electricity to power the grid, you can work converting all the excess to hydrogen and then use hydrogen to power all those thing that can not work with batteries, like the utility transport sector or the natural gas grid (which does not need extra compression).

Vincent Robinette Nickel Hydrate stores H2 expensively (uses heat to release H2 for Fuel Cell (to drive EV)) Can also be compressed (with some losses to leakage) IDEAL: Use Solar to electrolysis to H2 & Solar to Compress H2 (transfer to EV or hydrogen to power Vehicles// Pollution_Free Zero Carbon Footprint !!🙀🙏🏼👽

HI Vincent. Fair point. I did do a bit about comparing battery and hydrogen efficiencies back in September at this link kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q61kn9CltN7eZnk.html By no means completely full and comprehensive but a reasonable layman's guide. All the best. Dave

Hydrogen is diatomic. It's easier to store hydrogen, than it is to store helium, even though helium is a heavier element. Helium is monatomic. But, your right. it is more difficult, than storing nitrogen or oxygen.

It definitely seems like the efficiency is really bad all that time and just a little flame

I have liked your presentations in the past and thought they were really good this one was not. You go on and on about needing to store energy but very little about the pitfalls of hydrogen. I would have expected much better

@@cliffordnelson8454I doubt graphite was the best choice of electrode(as well such a low surface area for said reaction) nor was the direct current applied to it. It was demonstration for simplicities sake. Noble metals and high frequency resonance generator matching closely the required frequency to crack the water molecule would likely be way more productive but not near as easy to implement in such a short period of time for simple demonstrations. If your at all interested look for more info on electrolysis, Hydrogen production, or Browns Gas production to get a better hold onto what others are actually doing to produce these gases. I agree with your next comments of the pitfalls of storing and getting such productions to consumers. It would be best to engineer a plant to use the resource on demand (much like current power plants)to generate energy.

Batteries lose about 15% during storage and release, and have low energy density. He did cover energy density and that is a big issue for transport and storage. Hydrogen has high energy density but in atmospheric conditions is a low density gas so has to be pressurised and/or cooled which takes a lot of energy so it has its own inefficiency. So far there is nothing that comes close to matching the low cost, high density, transportable energy nature created in carbon based fuels.

@@cliffordnelson8454 How would there be more severe "pitfalls" with hydrogen as a domestic gas utility than lpg or natural gas? If the hydrogen is stored in those under ground caverns and released into the domestic grid there is virtually zero difference to any other utility gas.

Compressed H2 creates complications in proportion to its pressure, due to the fact that hydrogen atoms can fit into the crystaline structure of the container and associated hardware. Synthetics are highly resistant to this, but not immune and not as strong as other materials. Liquifying hydrogen is incredibly power intensive, and unlikely to ever be an economical solution.

Matt TheChosen QLD state government just put 20 million into a hydrogen plan along with prior investment in infrastructure. It’s going to happen. Ministers are in Japan announcing it because they are asking for hydrogen to buy from Australia there.

It has always been "a few years" before something "new" would be ready for the market. For decades... Sure it might be the real thing this time, but don't hold your breath.

bridging the gap between full scale renewables and our current system is dependent on distribution and storage, if we can use the existing gas infrastructure that's huge!

@@biomecaman3514 You can't. Hydrogen needs it's own infrastructure, unless you can make 100% sure there are no metals in the existing one that get brittle through hydrogen.

@@zber9043 The QLD state government are also pushing for the Adani coal mine development. I'll never vote for those clowns again. H2 to NH3 does offer some hope for our future though, lets hope that pan's out.

BOOM!!!

Cheers Bob. Very much appreciated :-) All the best. Dave

@Allen Loser Boats only option is hydrogen. Those huge cruisers will never use batteries.

@Allen Loser Hydrogen will become cheaper in the future if power plants start to make it of excess power. California for example produces more electricity from solar than they need and could store part of the excess as hydrogen. The energy would have been wasted otherwise, so it's a great profit. Also I just discovered than instead of storing hydrogen directly, ammonia could be used instead, avoiding high pressure or very low temperature for storage.

@Allen Loser Well, we will see in the future how it goes. I think hydrogen definitely have a place when travelling at sea and in the air. Ammonia and urea seem to have great potential to make hydrogen more viable. It will never be the main fuel in the world, of course, but it will have its niche. Batteries and hopefully supercapacitors will definitely dominate the land vehicles.

@Allen Loser The future will tell who of us two will be right, if either. I actually don't think that hydrogen will be used for much at all, only for air and sea which is a small niche where batteries are not possible to be used. Pipes makes transporting it cheap and easy and since it's it's made from surplus energy it will be cheap enough.

@Allen Loser Why are you talking about cars? Hydrogen for cars would be a really stupid idea, batteries is the only choice for cars. I will be able to charge my Cybertruck for free over here when it arrives, so why would I use hydrogen? There are no charging station at sea or in air though, so for those vehicles hydrogen is the only choice.

Ye hydrogen is VERY inefficient as a means to store energy BUT 1. Less pollution (current battery technology produces a lot of toxic waste. 2. Good energy density (again current battery technology just isnt there yet)

Efficiency is not what it matter most between clean sources, only overall cost. BTW, there is a lot of misinformation on internet about the efficiency of hydrogen technologies. I even hear some sources saying that you need 5 times more energy to produce hydrogen which is stupid to said the least. Today NEL electrolyzers are at 93% of efficiency without compression, then you need to add 12% for 700 bar compression or 30% for liquefaction, but the new electrochemical hydrogen compression units way superior to mechanic compression are at 8% for 700 bar (less size, way more small, silent, etc) and 15% is possible for liquefaction just scaling up production, even more if you apply EHC or magnetocaloric. New high temperature reversible fuel cells in lab already achieve it 75% in round trip efficiency (electricity-->hydrogen-->electricity) with high endurance, they just need a water vapor input at 500c, which could be obtained from any thermal plant as waste heat. In addiction, you dont need to convert hydrogen back to electricity to power the grid, you can work converting all the excess to hydrogen and then use hydrogen to power all those thing that can not work with batteries, like the utility transport sector or the natural gas grid.

Hi Matt. All good pointers. Thank you. I'm looking at hydrogen for heating and hydrogen fuel cells in the next video, but I do think the fuel cell thing is far better suited to big fleet vehicles like buses and lorries, as well as trains and boats (and maybe one day even short haul planes?). As for inefficiencies in static storage - I'll do a bit of digging on this one, but I think essentially the technology is proven in principle even if it will indeed benefit from better technology to improve performance. All the best. Dave

@@JustHaveaThink check the numbers I provide and check those with your own research on the state of the art. I did it hundreds of times, they are very update. If you want to search info about hydrogen fuel cells for houses, check the hundred of thousands units that were sale in Japan, using methane as input to provide electricity and heat for the whole house.

@Frank Olsen you are the clown talking over a topic that you know nothing about. BTW, the amount of time that you can keep certain charge is not the important here, the important is the capacity, each time you double the capacity with batteries you need to double the cost, with hydrogen you just increase your tank size a 25% (this doubles the volume) or you inject more to the natural gas grid. Without capacity any extra efficiency that you get with batteries (your numbers are totally outdated) it would be totally wasted. If you have to store 2 or 3 days of strong winds, you will need a battery storage capacity for 72 hours, but batteries can not store more than 4 hours in a cost efficient way, this mean that you lost 68 hours of power, what is the efficiency of that? Take a look, page 15: www.all-energy.co.uk/RXUK/RXUK_All-Energy/2016/Presentations%202016%20Day%202/Energy%20Storage/Graham%20Cooley_Kris%20Hyde.pdf?v=635996073021366827

They already are, no? But why not just use the excess electricity to pump water into elevated storage then when needed run that water through a turbine?

water's not heavy enough - you need a lot of water, high up, to store not very much energy.

comment on point

Effiency matters, but also its Relation to cost. Of course, one can accept 10% less efficiency, if cost is reduced by 25%. In this case, to get the same overall energy, you need to put some saved money to conpensate the losses by e.g. increasing solar panel area by 10%.

@Manny Santiago Yes, you are right, also ecology is a factor that matters, of course also a few other things, like size, design, etc.

> Therefore, where do you see power plants working with hydrogen gas to be located due to the legal safety requirements? - These type of power plants don't seem to be scalable due to the safety requirements involved, especially not close to populated areas. Same place as the solar panels/wind farms and/or other power stations that already exist...they're not often close to populations, and there's no need for them to be.

After all, we use nuclear and chemical power plants which have been proven to be dangerous as well. At least, in the case of a H2 plant explosion, the only residue would be water.

Hydrogen does leak easily, but compared to pretty big losses when producing, compressing and converting back to power, it is minor thing. Still better than not using the power at all. Another more important thing with hydrogen's small molecule/atom size is that it diffuses into metals and makes them brittle. So you can't use your normal pipes and fittings like for other gases, but have to be careful what you choose. Unless you trap the leaking hydrogen in a room, where it can mix in the right proportion with oxygen, it is very safe. It immediately rises and won't "fill" the floor like many other (heavier than air) gases like propane or butane or vapor coming off of gasoline and other fuels for example. The most dangerous part of hydrogen is it's almost invisible flame. So should you have a leak big enough to support combustion and catching fire somehow, you'll have an invisible welding torch. The quote is very misleading, because it sounds almost as if it would ignite on itself. And it isn't anything special either. Acetylene and carbon monoxide, both gases in wide use in the industries, have similar mixture ranges (acetylene from 2.5 to 80% for example).

Leaks of hydrogen in open air are not as dangerous as heavy petroleum gases, because it lifts quickly and doesn't concentrate at the surface.

1) quite true. 2) yeeees.. in the same way that the leaking gasoline from your car can react with the grease on the bearings, making Napalm. I.e. it works on paper, in reality it is no issue. 3) For sure, to the same or very slightly greater extent that gasoline manufacturing, storage and delivery also needs all sorts of safeguards. The hydrogen leakage issue *is* a problem for the metal parts that are continuously exposed to the hydrogen. Iron compounds, for example, get brittle over time if saturated with hydrogen. Some plastics experience similar problems. But all of these issues are known and easily handled. The real problems with Hydrogen are that its energy *per volume* is pathetic. Per mass it is quite good, but that mass wants to occupy an enormous volume, even if you cryogenically liquidize the H2 (which presents a whole slew of other problems). Or you could mechanically compress the gas, which requires a lot of energy, *very* heavy containers, and turns H2 storage into miniature bombs by pressure alone.

Thanks Mark. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

The same way we currently do with propane, methane, natural gas, LPG, etc.

no more dangerous than the coal gas I grew up with - it's largely hydrogen. They kept it in big gasometers around the town.

In the world of hydrogen one shall never speak about efficiency.

@@Simon-dm8zv 😂

Faithful hydrogen worshippers must shake off the earthly shackles of logic and economy so their souls can soar into the eternal bliss of hydrogen heavens filled with negative entropy.

Efficiency is slightly irrelevant. As you can use surplus renewable energy to store as hydrogen which can either be used in a gas power plant or even to heat your home. The UKs gas grid was originally designed to run on hydrogen before the discovery of the gas reserves in the North Sea so the infrastructure is pretty much already there.

@@samhunt8240 Cents per kwh is key. If hydrogen production is say 30% efficient it can never compete with pumped hydro that is 60% efficient. So the plant you make for producing the hydrogen would only run after the hydro and every thing else is maxed out. You still pay the same for the plant though so the price pr kwh becomes prohibitively high. I think heatpumps and heat-storage will be the future for the northern countries.

its a myth...sorry to burst your bubble. hydrogen can be stored in high pressure tanks or hydride tanks for decades with no issues

@@HydrogenFuelTechnologies - The high pressure tanks would indeed qualify as "very hard to store"

the modern way we are researching is by having it attach to a metal hydride substrate with extremely high surface erea. but the key there is researching, so the're workin on it.

As usual facts twisted to suit point of view hydrogen not good for home gas supply dangerous stuff I read

high pressure stainless steel or aluminium tanks are not a hard way to store. it's standard hardware. and the hydrogen is meant for energy storage, not to work on machinery as you seem to assert

I'm only 4 minutes in, but the 'what could possibly go wrong' and the 'on that bombshell' made me go look for your comment :-) Thank you!

Except flow batteries have worse energy densities than lithium ion.

Doesn't matter much for stationary applications.

Are you guys talking about 'Redox Flow Batteries"? I've got them on the schedule for later in the year, but I must confess I haven't started doing any research on them yet, other than watching the brilliant programme that Robert Lewellyn did for the 'Fully Charged' You Tube channel about 2 years ago. Well worth a watch. All the best. Dave

@@JustHaveaThink kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ldejfriHttqlmHU.html

@@JustHaveaThink looking forward to a vid on the subject

Edison said to Ford that he hoped that the sun and wind would be used.

Friends of mine have gone off grid. Time to do the same?

70% energy loss from water TO electricity. NEXT. I'll stick with my lithium batteries & solar cells.

Thanks Stephen. Much appreciated. Welcome to the channel. All the best. Dave.

They already exist. The problem is, quite simply, for an average UK sized station, you need a 3MW grid connection power an electrolyser 24/7. This is VERY expensive and there isn't enough power. Not to mention the cost of electrolysers. Hence why battery cars are taking off. The infrastructure is so much cheaper and easier to install. Leaving aside the efficiency problems of H2 cars, they really arent a great solution. Better to use H2 to store energy or inject into the gas grid. Which is exactly what is happening.

Don't feel too bad. Back then, electricity was half the cost that it is now, and solar panels were ten times more expensive than they are now. Back then, they were right. Now, I think they would have a "rethink". It's also worth noting that wind is much less expensive per watt to install as well.

It still completely impractical.

@@PistonAvatarGuy I agree: that's just too much energy lost in the storage process.

You know what isn't? Nuclear. Switch all cars to electric and we all pay a stipend for it. That just will never happen, there is just too much money in burning dinosaur bones or coal.

solar cells are cheap. but fuel cells are a HORRIBLE way to do ANYTHING. only 60% efficiency AT BEST. electrolysis of water to hydrogen loses another 20% at best. pressurizing & storing the hydrogen loses another 10%. by the time you've sent electricity out the other side- you've lost 70% of the energy you collected. lithium batteries make the most sense. they have a long life.. lifepo4's can go a LOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG TIME. and there are developers working on patenting recycle methods for all the materials used in lithium batteries.

I have read about thorium. Sounds promising to me, is anyone working on that?

L.R. Norris really?

@@kevingrove4379 Yep. Hydrogen brittles steel. Best container is carbon fibre but it still leeches out over time. Hydrogen is a very pernicious molecule!

@@edwardbyard6540 We'll nail it. We're good at the technical stuff.

I wish you hadnt said that. I will now have to Google hydrogen storage and transmission.

I thought Northrop Grumman had solved this in 2004, I mean composite "Cryotanks" are regularly used in deep space missions?

Hi Phillip. I'm glad to hear the videos are useful in some way. I Appreciate your feedback. All the best. Dave

Do the bearings last longer than a normal turbine which we have found is the major cost in a wind turbine operation and do you still need a transmission and another costly expense or can you control the speed by variable pitch control?

@@rogerreimer6787 It's early days, we tend to use the best bearings anyway. Do you have any advise or products?

Hi, I have spent time with hydrogen, this statement is real! I am yet to have a container/tank which can not let hydrogen out, I have read that cabon fiber do a better job.

L Shayo that’s the problem with using the smallest element on the atomic table. To say we could just use it as a substitute for natural gas using existing infrastructure is a “pipe” dream.

Dual layer container with recuperating apparatus could be a good solution to the caveat. As long as you can recuperate the escaped gas and re-feed it into the compression system it then becomes an almost lost less storage solution.

Jim Viau There are already sophisticated solutions. They just require a heap of energy.

@@mondotv4216 ​ But what if we only want it to last between sunset and sunrise only since the tanks would be refilled on the next day anyway?

No but we can setup a home H2 system which stores solar energy during the day and uses the compressed H2 at night this way there will be more than enough energy but ofcoarse the battery companies and energy companies don't want people to know about!!

@@pehgt5099 This is not what he was talking about. And as far as your revised suggestion, the mechanical and electrolytical losses of generating and compressing H2 compared to other solar energy storage options make it just plain silly.

Hydrogen is a far more efficient medium than batteries if done properly (i.e. not at all like it is done in this video).

Lithium ion batteries are twice as efficient as electrolyser + compression storage + fuel cell in respect to electric energy. Long term vs short term does not affect both systems very much, as Li-ion batteries have low self discharge (1-2% per month) and compression storage has no boil-off (compared to cryo-storage).

@@s9juvolzrebuilt984 absolutely and totally incorrect. In fact, the precise opposite is true. In order to consider efficiency you need to consider the entire lifecycle and you also have to consider the myriad of ways in which hydrogen can be produced. The first thing is that the form of electrolysis shown here is incredibly crude. It is the battery equivalent of a zinc/copper lemon battery. Actual electrolysis is done using PEM electrolyzers which are 86% efficient. Next, the entire idea of using photovoltaics to generate electricity from photonic energy and then use it to electrolyze hydrogen is asinine in the first place. Direct photonic energy to hydrogen is the exact same efficiency as PV -> battery, but it is actually far better than just that. Storing hydrogen requires only a very low carbon debt container, not a high carbon debt battery and is far more scalable (salt caverns can hold hundreds of terrawatt hours of energy for zero carbon debt). Then there is using electrical energy to crack renewable methane which is GHG negative (since it converts CH4 which is a 24x stronger GHG than co2 into atmospheric co2).

@@homomorphic The round-trip efficiency is approximately 40% source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Underground_hydrogen_storage

@@homomorphic would love to read into it more. CN u provide sources? Thanks

Hydrogen is far too inefficient to be the fuel of the future . Batteries actually pollutes less than hydrogen storage throughput their lifetime due to the high inefficiency of the hydrogen cycle in storing and converting electricity . Real Engineering did an excellent video(kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nJ19ramX2rSzpI0.html) on the inherent weakness of hydrogen compared to batteries when it come to energy storage and use for transportation "fuel".

if you can produce near unlimited amounts of power for almost no input it doesn't matter how effective you produce the hydrogen at. the only problem we have isn't the amount of power we produce but rather it's the power we can store in a given area and at what upfront and maintaining cost. hydrogen fills this roll quite easily with the tech we already have let alone later down the road. even if you lose 50% of the power storing the hydrogen it's orders of magnitude better in terms of storage in a given volume of space.

@@rocksfire4390 Sure, if we live in a world where energy is free , then hydrogen might have that advantage. But energy is not free and because of this Hydrogen doesn't fill this role as well as Li-ion batteries either. The lifetime cost is more expensive when compared to batteries .

@@remliqa batteries wouldn't even last a decade of abuse from a grid system. solar and wind is relatively "free", besides the upfront cost. again power production isn't the problem, it's power storage that really is lagging behind. ion batteries take too much space right now, maybe in another 20-30 years when they triple in capacity then it would be fine. right now though it isn't a option and we don't have 20-30 years to dick around. we have the tech to transform our energy grid into something renewable. also tell me how the lifetime cost of hydrogen is more expensive then ion batteries? current prices are 176$ / kWh for ion batteries. current prices factoring in the electrolyser and compressing it to 700 bar is 5.3 cents / kWh. ion batteries degrade over their lifetime to about 20% - 30%. this has to be factored in and thus you need between 20-30% more storage as over time/use they will lose their capacity. normal life span of ion batteries is based on DoD which means that depending on how much you charge/discharge the battery will affect how many cycles the battery will last. if the grid where to take 100% of the energy from the batteries it would only last 300 - 600 cycles (a cycle is charging, discharging and charging again) e.g a single day. thus if these grid batteries where discharged fully and charged again for the next day they would only last at most 600 days, not even 2 years. if they went only to 60% total discharge they would last 1,000 - 3,000 days, however that means we need 40% more battery storage then. also temp and voltage is both counted in here for how many cycles a ion battery can last. ion batteries should be kept between 18-25 C which means in most areas it would need to be cooled and in some even warmed, that cooling/heating takes a boat load of power which isn't factored in anywhere. now that you understand that kind of, we can take the 176 / kWh for ion batteries and then we can get the actual price over it's lifetime (as they will need to be replaced when there lifetime is up. if the battery is cycled 100% then it's cost is 0.29$ / kWh, if it's only discharged by 40% (60% remaining) then the cost is 0.06$ / kWh, but hold on we need more storage because we are only discharging to 60% capacity now. we need 2.5 times more storage space to get the same amount of capacity as the 100% discharge/charge battery bank. thus the price isn't 0.06$ / kWh but instead 0.15$ / kWh. nearly 3 times more expensive then hydrogen, this however doesn't factor in the cost of disposing of the batteries nor does it factor in the cost of workers keeping track of the batteries nor the cost of cooling/heating which will also affect the cycle life of the batteries if not kept in control. also i should point out that creating the hydrogen would be done by left over solar/wind power and not by the energy grid itself. thus the actual cost of making hydrogen is 0$ / kWh because that power wouldn't of been used anyway. again we can scale solar to every building everywhere, production of energy isn't the problem it's the storage of that energy for use later.

Cheers Peter! Glad you enjoyed it :-)