Buddy as an aerospace engineer who has spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation INCLUDING BEING FORMALLY TRAINED in Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas (EEHA) you are completely misunderstanding the nature and risk of hydrogen. Sorry this is long but everyone thinking hydrogen is the magic solution needs to understand that it has some fantastic properties and I really do think it will be a major part of future energy, but it has some very serious risks. *I am proposing 2 new massive power station projects here in Australia that are partly fueled by hydrogen BUT and I can't stress enough how hard hydrogen is to engineer around.* Your comment comparing kerosene to hydrogen is so far off the mark its scary. In terms of safety Hydrogen is nothing like kerosene. If I compared your skills and training as an airline pilot to a bus driver in the same way you have compared Hydrogen to Kerosene you'd be insulted. I have a pilots license so I know what that means. Here are some basic facts that they teach engineers. 1) You need 3 things to have combustion or an explosion which is basically hyper-rapid combustion. FUEL + OXIDISER + IGNITION SOURCE. Fuel alone does nothing. Fuel with just an ignition source does nothing. Fuel with just an oxidiser does nothing. You must have all 3. The reason solid rocket propellants like gunpowder & C4 explosive can be so dangerous is because they combine the fuel and oxidiser. Its why they are impossible to extinguish once ignited. Once the Space Shuttle and Artemis boosters are lit they will go until the fuel is consumed. All that can be done is detach them. 2) Flammable liquids DO NOT actually burn or ignite. *The vapor above the surface burns.* There's videos shown to engineering students where they drop a lit match into a jar of gasoline and it just goes out because below the surface there's no oxygen. This is also why cars don't explode when the fuel tank has a submerged pump. Because its submerged and totally surrounded by fuel there's no oxygen. Its also why cars can explode if the fuel level sensor gets a shot circuit because you can get a spark in the vapor space above the fuel level. Its why empty fuel tanks with vapor are far more dangerous than full fuel tanks where there's almost no vapor. 3) A droplet of liquid fuel does NOT BURN its surface burns because the heat boils off the liquid and that allows it to mix with air and meet oxygen molecules and react. This is why fuel injection in cars and trucks works so much better than a carburetor. There's not only finer droplets with more surface area but the droplet size is more consistent making combustion more stable and more reliable. 4) Gases and vapors at the right mixture can EXPLODE. For almost any gas you can find 2 numbers given in percentage called the LEL (lower explosive limit) and UEL (upper explosive limit). Between the LEL and UEL the mixture explodes. In room temperature air: - Methane has an LEL of 5% and UEL of 15% - Hydrogen has an LEL of 4% and UEL of 74% So hydrogen wants to EXPLODE over a much wider range of fuel-air ratios. This is also why its been so hard to get it to burn reliably in engines. It reacts so fast its hard to get a stable flame. 5) Everything that can burn or explode has an ignition energy usually expressed as MIE (minimum ignition energy) with the units mJ (milli-joules). Hydrogen has the lowest of all MIEs at 0.017 mJ (in air) and 0.011 mJ (in oxygen). By comparison methane 0.26mJ gasoline is 0.80 mJ and Kerosene is 20 mJ. *Kerosene takes just over 1176 times the energy to ignite than hydrogen.* A kerosene leak compared to a hydrogen leak is nothing in terms of risk. 6) Many gases and flammable substances can ignite from temperature. Again Hydrogen is very low on that scale compared to most other substances. When you select equipment that is in a area with hydrogen you have to check the temperature rating as well as all the other factors. 7) The Hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule in the universe. That makes sealing everything incredibly hard. You can't just by valves, pistons, pumps, pipe fittings like you do for other gases. It will leak from the tiniest of holes and narrowest of gaps. If you have any leak in a place that's not well ventilated it gets very dangerous. Hydrogen is amazing. Its actually very easy to make through electrolysis of water, but its also a hassle to use which is why its never really been used as much as people think it should have been. Sorry if this feels like I am yelling but its a very serious topic. I 100% believe the hydrogen economy is going to boom and be a major part of our energy future, but I also expect some tragic outcomes because people will simply ignore what people with expertise warn them about.

Mentour please take the time to ask those working in the energy industry with a solid understanding of the economics and viability of these technologies, capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is *insane*, way more expensive than other ways of getting CO2 (if we even want to go down that road), also it would be at pressure in the tanks shown surely

@@user-ms7gt2km5f Please look at my other comment because you've set your reply function right to left and its almost impossible to reply

On the capturing CO2 from the atmosphere its all dependent on how its done. I'm an engineer and the major problem we collectively isn't so much we are having to transfer from dirty to clean energy, its that we are at the next great energy transition. Just as we moved on from horse & sail to coal & steam then onto oil & gas and then 1/2 way to nuclear, we are now at the next great energy transition. Its being heavily influenced by the need for clean energy *but we'd be making a transition anyway.* The single biggest factor is efficiency. We have more people and that means more energy is needed but that actual supply of raw materials isn't keeping up. I'm in Australia and we had a power station called Hazelwood. It was old an dirty, but worst of all was its was hopelessly inefficient. Most coal fired power stations could get about 30-35% efficiency with the very best ones with advanced boiler technology could get over 42% thermal efficiency. When it closed Hazelwood was getting about 20% thermal efficiency. So it was burning twice as much coal per watt of electricity. Hazelwood was closed NOT because it worked but because it was so inefficient. Right now we have another power station at Newport which is an old gas thermal. If we simply replace it with a gas turbine we can save about 30% on raw gas input. If we add a steam turbine to the exhaust we can increase the power output by 60%. If we then added a hydrogen supply we'd reduce the emissions by another 50% down to 30% of where it now is. This is actually a hard thing to discuss with non-engineers. If you are not being efficient with energy then ANYTHING can be insanely expensive. Also some things that look or sound inefficient aren't when you take into consideration of the overall system efficiency. With direct CO2 extraction a lot will depend on where they get the energy from and then how they use it. I think the real problem with it will be that it just can't do enough. When you look at how much needs doing the real problem is being able to do in engineering what green vegetation does already. I think it will end up with systems that blend what we can do in engineering with what we can do with plants.

Petter, can you please make a video about electric aircraft. Hydrogen has its merits, but fuel cells are not much more efficient than burning the H₂, whereas direct use of electricity to power motors is much better. Battery technology is advancing rapidly, to the point that recent new designs have almost three times the gravimetric energy density of cells which are on the market today. It's not going to be very many more years until fully electric short and medium haul aircraft will be feasible. We're already seeing light aircraft with up to a couple of hours of flight endurance, with a 30 minute reserve. There are also great running and maintenance cost advantages to be had from battery technology. Sure, batteries have lower energy density than conventional fuels, but they're a lot safer to use, and certainly much easier to handle than Hydrogen. You mentioned H₂ leaking from containers, but you didn't mention the facts that a 5% Hydrogen/air mixture is potentially explosive, and that H₂ embrittles various metals quite quickly, or that synthetic storage vessels need replacing every five years or so because the Carbon fibre and resin degrade steadily because of the fuel, the cold temperatures and the pressures involved. Nor did you mention how big the airport storage tanks will need to be. To give a sense of the scale differences, a standard gasoline or Diesel fuel storage tank at your car's filling station could refuel perhaps 300 cars, but a Hydrogen storage tank of the same internal volume can only refuel around 10 cars. Hydrogen tanks will also need refrigerators and thermal insulation. The cooling system causes an inherent energy drain which cannot be avoided, and the thermal insulation adds to the overall size of the tanks. Perhaps a much easier fuel to use would be Methane; CH₄, because each molecule contains twice as much H₂ as a Hydrogen molecule. It doesn't leak so readily, doesn't embrittle metals, requires much less cooling and can be produced cheaply from CO₂ and H₂ O. (High temperature steam reacts with Carbon Dioxide.) When burned with O₂ it exhausts mainly the initial Carbon Dioxide and Water.. A useable production method for Methane has been employed on the ISS for many years, but they want the Oxygen and water in a process which removes CO₂ from cabin air, and they discard the Methane to vacuum.

Excellent point.

Hydrogen is one of the most difficult and dangerous forms of fuel. It cannot be used in commercial aviation unless regulators are willing to sacrifice safety. I won't say it will never happen, because I've seen lots of crazy sh*t done in the name of the Green agenda.

i think the hydrogen capsules solve this problem. the airport crew don't have to do any work on the tanks, the third party does.

@manitoba2445 Ok but their point still applies. Just because a different group does it doesn't make much difference. They will still have to touch the airplane and have some ground crew experience.

@@manitoba-op4jx The inherent difficulty still applies. And "grunt work" of making physical connections, etc. is still going to be done by people being paid "grunt work" wages. Some of these people will be highly skilled and take tremendous pride in their work. Some will be marking time and doing the least they can get away with.

I flew that plane a few times back in 1997. The world is really small it seems.

No, you've just correctly pointed out why all those other technologies are more stupid than green kerosene. But it doesn't take away from the fact that green kerosene is still very stupid economically and very stupid for engine durability and consequently very stupid for passenger safety. But you're right, the other technologies are much worse.

@@suserman7775 Just curious what “smart” fuel technology do you recommend?

@@manabellum The most likely solution is a radical scale-down of the aviation industries

@@manabellum There is no smart fuel, its just conspiculous consumption.

@@churblefurbles What is not conspicuous consumption?

I'm pretty sure they settled on ammonia because cracking it to release hydrogen doesn't create CO2. Which buys into the common misconception that hydrogen and electric vehicles are zero emissions. They're not. They just shift the emissions to the power plant. Generally, hydrocarbons have the highest energy density. If the hydrocarbon you use to store the energy (hydrogen) is created using atmospheric CO2 (e.g. plants take in atmospheric CO2, and use photosynthesis to create sugars which you convert into alcohols), then it's a closed cycle and there's no net CO2 created even if burning the fuel creates CO2. So it doesn't matter that it's not "zero emissions" at the plane. Volumetric energy density (MJ/L): 11.5 - liquid ammonia (-33 C boiling point) 15.6 - methanol 22.2 - liquid methane (-161 C boiling point) 24 - ethanol 25.3 - liquid propane (~ 22 atmospheres) 27.7 - liquid butane (~ 2 atmospheres) 34.2 - gasoline 35 - fat 35.0 - kerosene (jet fuel) 38.6 - diesel Specific energy (MJ/kg): 18.6 - liquid ammonia (-33 C boiling point) 19.7 - methanol 30 - ethanol 38 - fat 43 - kerosene (jet fuel) 45.6 - diesel 46.4 - gasoline 49.1 - liquid butane (~ 2 atmospheres) 49.6 - liquid propane (~ 22 atmospheres) 53.6 - liquid methane (-161 C boiling point)

On the positive side, at least the cabin will be very clean after a leak.

@@benoithudson7235 That's a great factual comment. Ammonia is the basis of all cleaning products.

@@solandri69 : Ammonia is tempting as a packaging for hydrogen because it's easily liquified, because there's a lot more nitrogen in the air than carbon, and because ammonia is useful in itself. Not because engineers don't understand carbon cycles.

​@@solandri69 Power plants are going towards 100% emissions free.

COPVs might help that last issue

All this "save the earth" stuff is getting ridiculous. Plains crash. Hydrogen won't burn like kerosene. It will explode! Killing everyone on the plane and further endangering those on the ground. So while some accidents are now survivable, hydrogen will ensure certain death!

Odd thing about hydrogen is that is presented as future tech, when it's used in rocket ~80 years and Example Apollo module was powered with fuel cells. Non of the advancement have made it more scalable. It is made and used in-situ, or it's treated like rocket fuel, -Because it is. After 2019 accident most of Hydrogen stations for cars were closed at Denmark and Norway...

Yes, but COMPLETE TRIPE ! He's totally skated over the realities of doing this with fuel cells, especially their weight and the problems of getting tens of megawatts of heat out of them.

Yup, the effect of CO2 is near nothing compared to water vapor. It's the height of stupidity to try and fight "global warming" by replacing CO2 with water vapor.

Yup, it's one of the worse greenhouse gas, however it's very well regulated by meteo and climactic phenomenon, meaning that for a certain temperature of the atmosphere water vapor concentration remain nearly constant, In other world if you release water vapor it won't stay long in the atmosphere (it may not apply to very big quantities of water vapor so i guess it is still a concern for aircraft, just don't feel bad when boiling pasta)

@@anosv9797 it's a bigger problem at high altitudes than at ground level (multiplying factor) but elevated levels only persist in the atmosphere for a matter of hours/days Aviation is clutching at straws in many ways (so are several other transport systems). We're on the cusp of changes as large as those wrought by the introduction of automobiles in the 1900s or the destruction of the USA public transportation system in the 1950s

@@anosv9797 *worst* illiterate murican

@@miscbits6399 you're brainwashed

It can be further processed into methane, and (iirc) ammonia. ...Ammonia lacks the caloric oomph. Any methane that leaks is really bad for global warming. 😬 I'm not an engineer or chemist, fair warning.

Ayy another space flight fan ! Everyday Astronaut ? Also yeah challenges for SLS are infinite lol

@@suchirghuwalewala The leaking problem should be know to most anyone who has been paying attention to more than hydrogen promotional materials. Somehow being a fan is becoming a bad thing. So sad.

It's a tough challenge, not even talking about the ça y that the density is far lower than kerosene, and on top creating hydrogen is very bad in terms of efficiency. So just no.

Yup. Its the smallest atom.. it can fit thro anyinthing.

Glad you enjoyed it! 💕

If I remember correctly they couldn't get the mileage they needed on a single tank vs aviation fuel so they had to make the tanks bigger which worked against them. They couldn't seem to resolve it so they stopped the program. Ben said it was very disheartening to fuel up a plane then when you went to fly there was no fuel left in the tanks.

Ships.

Unfortunately I suspect that some companies will charge ahead regardless of the challenges and wind up creating potential hazards as well as wasting time and money on the hydrogen infrastructure. It is a sad reality that often the risks are not fully appreciated until a tragedy happens. Hopefully no one loses their lives over this. It isn’t Hindenburg style fires that are the threat but ruptured metal tanks or cells weakened over time by hydrogen leaking through metal walls. Kerosene tanks are more stable over time than hydrogen tanks. The questionable economical viability will turn negative as insurance rates and lawsuit payments increase in reaction to tank failures in future years. The frequency of replacement of tanks could eventually be mandated to be more frequent and thus more expensive than the projections of current hydrogen fuel companies. That is all in addition to the extreme challenges of working with hydrogen even during normal operations when nothing unusual happens.

The whole “green talk” around cars and airplanes is a smokescreen. 1. Transportation is consuming only about 20% of global energy. 2. There are no substitutes for powering large portion of transport vehicles (ships, mining equipment, trains) 3. 84% of global energy is derived from fossil fuels. Electric cars and hydrogen planes don’t solve anything, just move the problem to places where electricity is generated. Still, the portion of electricity consumed by EVs and hydrogen production is minor compared to the amount consumed for heating and cooling 24x7 in all densely populated areas everywhere . But addressing that is much bigger and more difficult to solve. From technology point it is rather boring so journalists don’t want to talk about it, thus contributing to the problem. Talking about EVs and hydrogen planes is much more exciting that about improving building code and insulating old buildings. That is why we hear about EVs all the time, about hydrogen and electric planes from time to time, but never about insulating all homes everywhere, even though that is where the biggest improvement in global energy consumption could be achieved.

@@rok1475 Or the simple fact that nuclear power is as green as it gets. But nobody wants to talk about that. You could very easily replace coal and natural gas power plants to nuclear, and eliminate a HUGE amount of greenhouse gas generation. And newer designs not only generate power, but can consume nuclear waste from older designs, resulting in a net DECREASE in nuclear waste currently on the earth. But again, nuclear is simply a "forbidden" technology, regardless of the simple fact that nuclear power IS green. And i'm only talking about fission designs, not fusion. Because we have extremely promising and proven fission technology already. Fusion may be close, but they've been saying that for a very long time, and it's still not here yet. And i 100% agree with you that building insulation and increasing the efficiency of heating/cooling solutions is an obvious answer as well. It's just hard to make that work, as you have to get billions of people to spend money to fix their little piece of the problem. And, let's face it, people are self centered selfish buttholes, for the most part.

They are probably possible if you want to spend an infinite amount of money and time fixing all the problems they cause. But that doesn't mean they are smart. Planes are one of the most energy density sensitive things I can think of. As such, it's one of the hardest things to de-carbonize quickly or economically. Thus, it's likely way more efficient for airlines to simply _offset_ emissions by doing things like funding solar installations, for example. This would be an effective means of accomplishing something _immediately_ instead of just spending the same amount on research and hoping for a breakthrough which may not matter until it's too late. Carbon acts over time, so getting rid of one ton today is worth much more than one ton 20 years from now, in the same sense as compound interest and investments. We need this kind of broad, pragmatic action if we want to actually make a dent in climate change. Energy is fungible, after all, so it makes far more sense from a macro perspective to attack the easiest (most cost effective) carbon sources first, because we can have a greater effect for the same economic cost. This is a really, really, important thing to understand, because of just how vast the problem is. Better yet, we could simply pass a carbon equivalent tax to weaponize the market by actualizing hidden negative externalities like climate change... but I've given up on this being politically viable until either things get a lot worse or we fix our actual elections (FPTP, etc).

Yes Kelvin is absolute temperature while Celsius and Fahrenheit are both relative temperature. So C and F are both degrees and K is just K.

@PsRohrbaugh 2 minor nitpicks - "1 degree Celsius" is a definite temperature on the Celsius scale, i.e. 1 Celsius degree above the freezing point of water, and only means that particular temperature. When talking about increases/decreases/differences in temperature on the Celsius scale, one deals in Celsius degrees, not degrees Celsius. You mean "an increase of 1 Celsius degree is an increase of 1 kelvin [not Kelvin]"

You have to be aware of the fact that several South East Asian countries are destroying vast areas of pristine jungle - home to many of the region's fauna and flora - by chopping/burning/clearing them away to make way for intensive mono-culture palm-oil palm plantations. The catastrophic damage caused by these operations is incalculable - the plantations support no other vegetation than the palms, which none of the native fauna can or do eat. All the native fauna therefore die off and become extinct. And all this for palm oil which can be made into - what? ice-cream, fast foods, margarine, so-called bio fuels. But it's not those products which drive all this destruction: it's quick profits. Vast profits from death and destruction - think about that next time you write on the subject from your comfortable chair in front of your computer.

There was an attempt to create a thermal depolymerization plant around 2000 (Changing World Technologies). This could convert biowaste (specifically animal offal and byproducts) into diesel. It had a lot of backers, including Google. It got shut down partly because residents downwind of the test plant complained about the awful smell.

Massive amounts of hydrogen have been discovered underground much like oil fields but in different places. Google it. Hopefully this will be able to be tapped for energy needs.

This is a problem for most sustainable energy production from combustible fuels- it can move the CO2 production to a different point in the fuel cycle. Ammonia synthesis requires hydrogen which then requires either electrolysis (using green electricity, which is another issue) or steam reforming of natural gas/methane which creates CO2. There is also the issue of competition for ammonia with the fertiliser industry. We all need to be aware that sustainability goes beyond the final point of energy production - it has to be a holistic evaluation.

I guess the idea of the capsules is probably that they could do the refueling of the capsules in a controlled environment, and probably capture and reuse vented gas. And ideally not have to vent during the time between when they load the capsules onboard and start the engines. But yes the connections in the plane would be a real problem unless they figure out a way to make a nearly instantaneous leak proof connector.

Oh good, a random person on the internet approves of another random persons video.

@@SloppySalad And a random individual comments approval from a random person of another random person's video. This individual's life must be so dull.

You are right. Currently, producing hydrogen from methane or from water is not green enough. It is assumed that in the near future we will find ways to go from blue, grey, etc hydrogen to green hydrogen production. There are known theoretical solutions, for example nuclear (High-temperature gas reactor) which may work. We just need time to develop those technologies.

@@user-yt198 I really like the idea of molten salt reactors, personally, as a means of providing the power and/or heat for cracking sea water. But in the meantime any sort of nuclear devised in the last 20-30 years provides a really clean and safe source - the SMRs being built by Rolls Royce right now look like they're going to take off (no pun intended!) I think it's ironic that the MSRE at Oakridge which ran successfully in the late 60s was initially funded in the hope of producing nuclear aircraft! (All the scientists involved knew it was a stupid idea, but they at least got to build their amazing reactor!)

And it just occurred to me that if you want to produce thrust, throwing a CO2 out of the back that weighs 2.4 times what an H2O weighs is a big benefit that has to be compensated. Burning methane would still let you have a big exhaust mass advantage. Or are H2 burning engines going to run sooo much hotter to compensate? There's a reason to leave all this to the engineers and physicists - my brain hurts too much already!

I'm glad you brought that up. I've seen comments here to the effect of "NASA figured it out for spacecraft therefore its doable," as if a NASA engineer maintaining a spacecraft is interchangeable with a ground crew person at your nearest airport. For that matter, as if a spacecraft can be maintained like a 737.

I have worked with Hydrogen Gas in a generator cooling median. It’s hard enough to keep it sealed in a generator with oil seals. This won’t ever happen in aircraft. Waste of money, guess it will pay a lot of salaries for all the “research”.

Almost as big as storing it in the plane.

I am quite pessimistic about very high density storage batteries simply because of the fire risk. Batteries useful for aviation need to have a very high energy storage in those batteries at a very low weight. Having a lot of electrical potential with very thin electrical insulation that are still safe from shorting and catching fire is a challenge, I would think. We have already seen this with the older Lithium ion batteries which could spontaneous;y catch fire, and even with newer ones which have to be disposed of carefully.

So what happens when u park the aircraft inside a hangar. U probably need more than just a vent on the aircraft to be sure that the hydrogen is converted to H2O or u will be unintentionally modifying the hanger’s roof. NASA learned the hard way with that on a space shuttle engine test stand. Absolutely need vents in the roof.

@@Mentaculus42 That will be a logistical problem indeed. You'll probably want to detank the airplane whenever you know you won't be using it for a while. However, the vent line might also be designed to work as a flare stack in such situations, with the boiled-off H2 being burned harmlessly.

@@CLipka2373 I was wondering about a flare or some sort of catalytic oxidizer or maybe a fuel cell that could provide a little power to help with this issue.

It also lowers photosynthesis so plants use less CO2 and also lowers the heat radiating back into space during the nighttime.

Which hydrocarbon addict told you that?

@@danafletcher2341 That is outright misinformation. You're either a Russian bot desperately wanting the world to buy more oil, or you're an oil company bot lamenting that your industry is coming to an end.

@@danafletcher2341 Nonsense Commie.

@@NeonVisual Common sense should tell you that blocking the sun lowers the amount of photosynthesis that can take place. Are you claiming that the contrails reflect only in one direction?

Oh and for Spacex. Starship with it's Merlin engines will be using hydrogen, but for now Falcon 9FT is using RP-1

@@Macialao No, Starship has Raptor engines and they use methane

​@@Macialao The Falcon 9 has Merlin engines using RP1 (aka highly refined kerosene/jet fuel). Starship/superheavy has Raptor engines using methane. SpaceX has talked about but never developed a hydrogen engine. For instance, Raptor I believe was planned to be a hydrogen engine for an improved F9 second stage.

I was 6412/13 in K-Bay, Hawaii and Iwakuni, Japan 90-95. That led to many great careers.

Мені дуже приємно коли ви говорите та застосовуєте руки, мені це дуже подобається ,якось мені легко запам'ятовується😊❤.Це цікаво.Дякую.

always good to hear from another Marine avionics person! I worked on A-4 avionics from 77 to '81, which was an adventure of sorts. :-) Went on to get an electronics engineering degree and designed avionics. There's something to be said for working around aircraft, but it's also nice to work indoors when the weather is not great. Troubleshooting and problem solving is fun in both cases, though!

@@SkyhawkSteve That is Very cool. I had planned to do just that, bit when I got back home after EAS, there weren't a lot of options for avionics guys.. as our local Airport, CAE, is small....and was way smaller back then...so I went where I could get good money quick...the same place i always swore not to go..the same plant my father raised us working at....but i got into fitting pipe and that ended up in becoming a CWI (AWS Certified Welding Inspector) which turned out to be a rather lucrative thing to do too.... They always said the majority of people who came through the Corps ended up being pretty well to do...and I wont argue that I'm not capable.... But congratulations on achieving your dreams, DevilDog. Are you still running every morning? Come rain, hail, sleet or snow???

@@h.e.floydiii7259 Aviation is a small industry, so finding employment requires moving to where the jobs are. I went to McDonnell Douglas, but learned about how sensitive defense jobs are to the whims of Congress, and especially to the defeat of the USSR! I ended up designing 'tronics for earthmoving equipment, which is kinda cool too. It evolved into a "fly by wire" sort of arrangement, similar to military aircraft of 20 years earlier. As far as running, my knees were giving me trouble, so just bike riding for me. I'd been riding and building my own bikes since high school, and had bike riding friends in the Corps, so it's been a 50 year hobby so far. Still riding in all weather and rode over 9000 miles last year, so I hope the Corps isn't disappointed. 🙂

I am all in on ammonia as a hydrogen carrier but its use in an aircraft is a bit problematic due to its toxicity. The work on using ammonia as a fuel on large ships, trains, trucks and tractors already have to deal with the health issues in a less demanding environment.

@@Mentaculus42 True, ammonia is nasty stuff. Leaking or spilling is dangerous. Still, compared to the alternatives, easy to implement for ships, trains. But some research institutions are working with less dangerous methanol as an alternative, also for turbine engines. No major problem with ICE, as we know. Methanol fuel cells for battery charging already exist, but they are expensive, fragile and not very powerful.

@@janhanchenmichelsen2627 Agree with everything you said. An interesting thing is that ICEs and large turbines can be extremely close in efficiency to fuel cells but with the added issue of dealing with NOx formation.

@@Mentaculus42 Ammonia is so poisonous and volatile that it will not be used in mobile vehicles. Ocean going ships perhaps but even then I doubt it. Methanol, synthetic aviation fuel or even synthetic methane will be more practical.

Thank you Antonio! 💕

@@MentourNow Jesucristo! Thank u for taking the time to reply Petter I know u a busy a man and that means a lot to me..these videos man I can't get enough of em especially since aviation has fascinated me since I was a little boy(I'm 37 now) and being a pilot would be a dream job for me so I'm hoping I'll get there ..these videos really help and I truly appreciate em ..sorry to yap but it's also cool you're from Sweden as my greatest friend is also from Sweden and his middle name is Bo Petter and I could tell by your accent you were swedish but then I heard your name and I'm like oh now I know for sure..take care man and thank u again I'm goin to try to get on Patreon to return the favor

Not only that, but we've flown rockets using hydrogen as a fuel for decades, including ones that carried people. While there have been accidents, none of them were caused by spontaneous ignition of the hydrogen.

Yes the aluminum particles in the fabric coating have been documented and it is one of the theories that is presented as to what happened. But the anti hydrogen crowd have differing opinions. Maybe reality is somewhere in the middle.

@@Mentaculus42 "Anti-hydrogen". I see what you did there. There are certainly people who see battery-electric aircraft as the inevitable future, with hydrogen as a wonky stop-gap. Hydrogen has many problems that need to be worked out, but I think we're likely to see a mixture of the two.

​@@fighteer1 Yes to both of you, but not over cities with millions of victims to those hydrogen bombs. Imagine the last accidents involving airplanes striking buildings in the middle of the city. Those tanks would have ruptured and reacted like a barometric bomb.

@@fighteer1 Absolutely, short range aircraft have a future possibility with batteries. One of the foremost world authorities on battery research (from Stanford) has stated that his “dream” is to fly on a battery powered commercially available aircraft from the Bay Area to LA in his lifetime. He is still relatively young! Have been following his research for more than 10 years and his prognostications have been a bit optimistic.

Thank you so much!

@Chris NREL has demonstrated a halving of carbon dioxide releases from electric vehicles with a current infrastructure with the potential of reducing them by 90%. Not sure where you get your ideas about EVs?

I'm pretty sure the efficiency of hydrolysis is worse than 70%. But the efficiency of charging a battery (converting electrical energy to chemical), then drawing electricity out of it (convert chemical energy back to electrical) is also around 70%-80%. There are a *lot* of electrical losses that renewable advocates gloss over or pretend don't exist. e.g. Overall energy efficiency of EVs with our current power generation and grid is about the same as a diesel ICE. The main problem with battery tech is that its energy density by weight is two orders of magnitude worse than jet fuel. If you loaded up a 777 to its max take-off weight with Li-ion batteries, it would only have a range of several hundred miles. And that's with zero payload. Battery energy density has increased by about 2.5x in the last 50 years. So (assuming we're able to keep that pace of development) unless you're willing to wait ~200 years, battery-powered intercontinental airliners aren't going to happen. Airliners need a denser form of green energy storage, even if it is less efficient.

@@solandri69 Hehe, think i was trying to be optimistic and not give that bad of a efficiency % conversion rate too pessimistic ;) If memory serves me, getting hydrogen is really messed up, there are ??? types methods of getting hydrogen. all rated at how "green" they are, black was the worse and is how must hydrogen is gotten today i thought. Thus my comment if we use oil a large amount of energy to get x% energy. Double checking some of the conversion methods are at best 50->60% efficient. Great we burn 2x the oil to burn a "green" fuel. Also about battery to store it, might suggest looking at or researching John B. Goodenough. WOW! What an inspiring person, few ever event anything to effect most people in the world, he has two, soon three... Well worth checking out videos of him on youtube... First he helped developing computer ram, second Li-on batteries, and soon the third will be solid state battery. Heard they have a working prototype and finishing the final steps. Believe from what i read solid state batteries will be amazing charge super fast, allow for a lot more power cycles, they only have a slight decrease in efficiency after 1000 charges, but should last for a projected 5000. And they are suppose to have 2->2.5x the power density when compared to li-on batteries.

@@dand4485 Yeah, best efficiency I'd heard for electrolysis of water in the lab was about 65%. I believe most industrial scale processes are down around 30%-40%. There's research being done on catalysts which cause sunlight to directly break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. Efficiency is abysmal right now, but the same was true for PV solar at first. Who knows what the future holds. The problem with lighter batteries is that lithium is already the 3rd-lightest element. There's just not much more room left for improvement. The only battery solution I've read about which might get us somewhere close to 2 orders of magnitude improvement are structural batteries. That's where you build the vehicle itself out of material which can function as a battery. That allows you to share the mass budget between both the structure and battery, essentially giving you "free" mass for energy storage.

100% of the CO2 produced by burning SAF just came from the atmosphere and 100% of it is needed to be there to make the new gallon of SAF. Just like the leaves which fall off the trees which return to the atmosphere as CO2 to be turned back onto leaves again.

SAF will make air travel unaffordable for many too.

We can be pretty sure that the ticket prices will go up in the future no matter what. Unless we can come up with a very cheap new type of energy source

Hydrogen is used as a coolant for some large commercial generators...🤔

Exactly... So the comparison with kerosene is just incomprehensible.

@@MentourNow Not necessarily. Due to the very high cost of electricity storage, the cheapest way to convert our electricity grid to 100% renewables is to install enough solar+wind etc to meet the winter demand without seasonal storage. That means there will be a tremendous abundance of electricity during the other seasons, which we could use to manufacture fuels such as hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons at a fraction of the cost we see today.

@@markmuir7338So u r saying that over building is all it takes to have a reliable electrical grid ¿

I don't usually like videos, but I did on this one just for you.

Doesn't burn as well tho 😀

😂

The main reason, why CH4 is used for Starship besides beter handling than H2 as a fuel is that Mars atmoshpere is rich in CO2 and it is believed to be H20 underground. By combining CO2 and H2O you can make CH4 and O2 which means there is no need to bring fuel and oxidiser from Earth. I believe this way requires less energy than H2O electrolysis.

Hydrogen have no futur... 25% to 30% is lost when storing or transporting it.

@@Didier88600t really comes down to an economic issue. Besides, a lot of hydrogen will be transported via ammonia. If you actually want to learn about hydrogen’s future, watch the 10s of billions of $s going into the green ammonia industry.

100%.

High speed rail all day any day! Maybe even high-speed sleepers could take over some demand for transcontinental routes?

In some places, definitely. In others like the US where the infrastructure investment is prohibitive, and here in New Zealand where we have low population and mountains and seas to navigate, no.

Yup, problem is that low cost carriers are so much cheaper and faster than rail. A carbon tax which 'internalised the externalities' would probably be needed.

@@chendaforest True, London-Amsterdam by train is about twice as expensive as a low cost flight. Unless you want to bring along more luggage of course. Then prices are a bit closer. But given that ticket prices are rising anyway, I think trains may become more competitive. Especially if you’re willing to pay a bit extra for CO2 emission reductions.

I completely agree! We need to focus on the “low hanging fruit” first, like global shipping for example. But that doesn’t stop us from also trying to innovates be prepare for a situation where normal jet fuel is no longer available.,

Global shipping is very efficient.

I like the Universal Hydrogen "nespresso pods" for this reason. Build a fuel cell electric airplane and it will be trivial to retrofit batteries to it when energy density reaches a tipping point.

Nuclear fusion’s ability to ever supply energy at economic prices is so unlikely that it should be characterized as the fossil fuel industry’s way of distracting us from viable alternatives that are in front of us right now, but not exploited because of their massive propaganda effort against renewables.

LASERS 😅

Issue with liquid hydrogen is that it leaks. Liquid oxygen, especially when it forms by accident in labs is much more dangerous per se (just add something oxidazible, like organic fumes and kaboom), but it doesn't leak in storage.

Yes, no stupid weird faces!😂

​​@@mapleextOn an ENTIRELY unrelated note, Noel Philips. 🤐

Yep, that’s correct

And planes construction...

Well there may be two outcomes: 1. H2 does not combust. 2. When there is right mixture ratio of H2 and O2 and right temperature it can make VERY spectacular explosion similar to that on Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy. Survivability in this instance would be nearly imposible compared to fire.

Well... At the extremely high pressures needed to store gaseous hydrogen densely, a tank rupture would (1) cause quite an explosion merely from the pressure differential being released, and (2) the rapid drop in pressure would freeze a lot of nearby things including people (think of what happens to the temp as you use up a can of compressed air, and multiply it by a thousand times). That's why LH2 rockets store the hydrogen cryogenically - it's less problematic than compressing it. Any high-density energy storage medium is dangerous, whether it's avgas, hydrogen, or batteries.

@@jackyse The Challenger disaster was very different, as it was carrying both hydrogen and oxygen, in the "right" proportions, meaning BOOM. A plane accident would not have such a huge supply of oxygen available for a major immediate explosion. Sure, a fire could start, but it would not "just so" get to the explosive mix, and the hydrogen would rise while mixing. Combustion would be more gradual with the arrival of oxygen, and lots of the fire would be some distance above. Still dangerous to passengers, just not BOOM. Anyway, suggestions are that the astronauts on Challenger may very well have survived for some time, until crashing. Hard to guess if they were conscious or not. I hope not.

@@JohnnieHougaardNielsen And what about domestic use of gas stoves and reports of explosions? Haven`t heard about that?

@@JohnnieHougaardNielsen All gaseous fuels are inherently dangerous and more so as the equipment ages. If something happened on a liquid natural gas tanker ship in port, it would be like a nuke going off.

Corn ethanol is not made from a dedicated crop, it would be too uneconomical. Rather corn ethanol is value-added from already existing feed production which leaves 100% of the protein (& other things) still available as feed in a healthier, more digestible/efficient, and more concentrated form called distillers grains. This explains how ethanol is so cheap despite the current high price of corn, they make it up with high prices for the distillers grains. With the feed factor, corn ethanol can outcompete most any other source out there including sugarcane which makes more ethanol but little else. So much so that Brazil put an import tariff on our ethanol. Iowa State University measured all the energy it takes to produce an acre of corn into a "diesel fuel equivalent" This included making of the machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, tillage, planting, spraying, harvesting, drying, trucking etc. They found it takes 34 gal of diesel to produce one acre of corn. What do we get from those 34 gallons of diesel? We get >500 gallons of ethanol. But wait, that is not the kicker. The kicker is, as I said before, we still get 100% of the protein from that acre of corn still available for an even better feed. A win, win.

Every time you say Hydrogen, people think of the Hindenburg!!! This will cause issues of Trust! Also both Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen expand something like 55,000 times when becoming a gas. Then when you're talking about ultra-high concentrations of Oxygen, anything Organic (cotton, wood, humans) and even some metals (once an ignition source occurs like a burst seal venting a large flame) will BURN!!! Add in the super-rapid expansion from liquid to gas and both O2 and H2 being present = BOOM!!!!!!!!!

Watch the video to the end 😉

The Hindenburg fabric was doped with a compound that produced the spectacular flames.

@@danharold3087 solid rocket fuel

@@freeculture Sounds right. Thanks

Then one day you'll be sitting on the ground watching all the hydrogen powered planes flying.

That’s ok.

Remember my dad.. he wanted a electric car for 15-20 years before they was available. He never got to experience it. Things takes time.