what do you suggest ?

​@@visco4916 EVs. Battery materials can be recycled, energy can come from renewables, and the electrical network is basically ready installed in garages. Yes they still have limits and EVs will not stop climate change but look how far the technology has already come in only 10 years.

@@andyjohnson3790 I think it's pretty silly for the US to invest in hydrogen. But for the EU, and their historical cheap gas that they used to have, the lack of materials for production of batteries, EVs etc, they have a real reason to invest in hydrogen.

It's not a "lack" of something to regulate it out of being able to be used. Censorship, and a lack of something, are not the same realities.

Question if hydrogen and oxygen are separate from water💧 is that water💧 again useful for eg for drinking or for farming

how is building hydrogen fueling infrastructure harder than stripping every lithium available on earth for EVs, while still not having enough for the demand

Definitely this is the future, (green hydrogen derived ) liquid methanol fuel to fuel methanol fuel cell (and then electric motor without battery with way longer range and "rechargable" by refueling liquid methanol in just a minute just like any diesel engine. This is the future, better than "normal hydrogen" because methanol is a liquid fuel directly and easy derived from green hydrogen and way better usable than hydrogen because no need compression pressure storage and or ultra low temperature needed. Methanol liquid room temperature fuel is just a drop replacements in any gas station with little modification and same happens even with combustion engine but obviously fuel cell Ev gives more efficiency .

​@@jitendrabalsaraf257All of the water is turned into hydrogen and oxygen, which then ends up reacting whether via combustion or something else back into water, but producing energy.

Very true, TES H2 is also doing the same

metal embrittlement issue of hydrogen is still unresolved, it will be a maintenance and cost nightmare

Hydrogen has great potential but not for domestic cooking or heating

@@koblongata For hydrogen line is used stainless steel AISI 321.

Green ammonia? Where you getting the nitrogen from? Pulling N2 apart is about as energy intensive as it gets.

A sedan, Toyota Mirai, actually only takes 0.78kg of hydrogen per 100km! And that's a decent size car.

Read the KZfaq videos about "Deuterium". It's in the Philippine Deep (Philippine Trench), at the depth of 10 kilometers or less under the sea. There we will find "Deuterium" deposits that can supply the whole world. Question is, is there a technology these days that can harvest it under the sea at that depth?

1kg of hydrogen. If we are to consider two fuels, we should measure them in the same way. As in one liter OR kg. Not both. One liter of hydrogen and one liter of gasoline have an incredible difference in density. To contain hydrogen in liquid form is near impossible unless you cool it to a ridiculously low temperature. To contain one kg of hydrogen requires a very sturdy gas tank with advanced seals and perfect welds. Storing hydrogen at the gas station requires them to liquefy the hydrogen. Also expensive. And extremely inefficient.

@@joachimsingh2929 1l of petrol ~ 1kg of petrol. In transport, weight is the problem, more specifically, fuel to load weight ratio. Just look at trucks and how little space fuel takes. If it triples, it wouldn't matter much, but several hundred kilos of fuel matter when you have a light load. Same with cars, motorcycles, there is enough space for more fuel, but you don't want to carry additional 100kg with you.

1l of petrol ~0.7kg

Similar with Electricity where it’s glossed over that the energy needs to be transported by something several thousand kilometers and that requires thiiiiiccccckkkk cables actually it losses up to 40%* of the energy which makes many places unviable for direct electricity creation. (*For that long of a transmission line with several conversions)

@@platin2148 I believe transmission and distribution losses are only around 6-10 percent combined. I think you are including inefficiencies in generation which is incorrect.

@@platin2148 with 70% energy lost(mostly turned to heat) all cables in this world would be turned on fire already.

fuel nice

@@platin2148 No it actually doesn't lose that much because they increase the voltage by a lot allowing it to transfer with less energy loss

They have a really bad energy density compared to liquid hydrogen.

@@jimj2683 maybe, but Liquid H2 incurs a much higer energy penalty. Liquefying Natural Gas is already energy intensive, and requires heavy insulation. Liquid hydrogen will likely be worse. LOHCs may be less energy dense but they are also much easier to transport on a large scale.

And you waste 90% of the energy transporting the carrier instead of the fuel. 👏

yes they are. BoB lazar has build a nice one, it's not actually liquid it is dissolved into a heat sensitive solid. safe and stable.

Hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. The use of Hydrogen as an element for steel making and fertilizer where Hydrogen is produced where it will be used is vital and should be converted to Green Hyrogen. Hydrogen however fails as a viable fuel for planes fails as it requires so much volume that the plane or truck or boat would have no room for cargo. How you handle the logistics of converting from natural gas pipes to Hydrogen you would need two sets of pipes for every home? The cost to modify stoves, heaters, and pipes would be exorbitant. This whole video appear to me to be another scam by the fosil fuel companies to keep burning gas.

There will be the same problem if solar and wind are the generators for your industrial processes: intermittency/reliability. It would be a shame for the foundry to shut down because of a cloudy week...or winter. Nuclear would be a much better fit, especially considering the enormous heat of the reactor can be harnessed through cogeneration, which for steelmaking is also very important.

Because of a lack or reliability (if it's cloudy or not windy etc. pp. they would have to stop doing what they're doing), the best would be a hybrid approach. Use whatever comes from the renewable generators directly when needed (if possible), use the overhead for hydrogen production. And when there is not enough electricity coming directly from the generators, start using the hydrogen to create the necessary energy. We don't really have to limit ourself to just one solution. Using hybrid ones is usually the best approach.

@@mementomori5580 Except renewable Sucks, they produce fickle amounts of power, are unreliable, and inefficient. A single nuclear reactor could outdo several cities worth of Solar Panels at their peak efficiency.

Why don't you apply for a job there and suggest this if you are sure about it 😄

@@jhonedoe3734 nnbm3p appears

Why do you think H2 should be trying to compete with CH4? What uses of CH4 are you thinking of? Apart from things such as steel fertiliser and chemicals which need hydrogen, the only other things hydrogen should be used for are power for things that move that need too much energy or too much uptime for batteries to do the job. Anything that doesn't move, such as heating, should be powered from the grid. It's always going to take more electricity to make and deliver hydrogen than it would do to just use electricity to do the job in the first place.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191.

Would be dumb not to use the carbon for sure.

Wouldn't burning that carbon defeat the purpose of removing it from the hydrogen in the first place? The feed stock for the Turquoise Hydrogen method was still regular old natural gas. (Methane) The act of removing it and storing it prevents that CO2 from being released to the atmosphere. Burning it for steel production would negate that completely.

@@cmac3530 they're not burning carbon composites, they're only burning the hydrogen, which becomes water, and the carbon used in steel production is actually infused into the metal, that's how steel is made, it is an iron-carbon alloy IIRC which basically means the carbon gets permanently sequestered

@@cmac3530 Nah. The steel needs some carbon content to actually be steel. generating the heat to melt the metal can be provided by burning hydrogen instead.

@@irvingchies1626 Gotcha, I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks for clarifying

I feel like modern startups try too hard to sound innovative and it makes them sound far riskier than what they are actually doing. "New technology" is an extremely risky way of advertising your business. Especially when you are literally just doing something a lot of people learn in highschool chemistry.

Hi Stan...

One use will be using the carbon in the steel at a steel works.

Biochar is seeing rising use in farming, where it adsorbs fertilizer and water, and enriches the soil. For hundreds of years.

Cept that methane is far worse in terms of greenhouse gasses... If we had a solid recyclable binder of sorts for hydrogen that would be ideal.

@@Relics_AI how you going to tap into it? That's the beginning of the leaks.

@@rustyyb8450 I would say tap it as it's being used. So you don't have to worry about containment after it's been released from the solid medium. Preferably this medium can be refilled with gassious hydrogen when it's produced

@@Relics_AI You aren't making methane to release it into the atmosphere. You are making it to burn it.

This is the whole point of capacitors. Capacitors are big and not useful for small scales or portable operations, but great for smoothing out conversions from AC to DC using bridge rectifiers. In a sense hydrogen becomes a great battery for non-mobile applications.

7u7à

Have we not learned our lesson with the Hindenburg? Boom!

@@calidude1114 How about Galaxy Note 7?

@@calidude1114 Hydrogen might well be used to replace coking coal

The production of hydrogen is a major problem as well. We have no means of doing it on anything other than a tiny scale.

We are.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree, the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like a fantastic product for outdoor enthusiasts like us. The massive capacity, fast recharging, and waterproof design make it a reliable option for camping trips. Plus, the smart app control is a great feature for monitoring energy usage. Thanks for the recommendation!

I also wonder just based on high school chemistry that what happens to water when you remove the oxygen? Where is the hydrogen bonded in the meanwhile? If you release oxygen from the water you also release hydrogen at the same time. Something doesn't match up here. I think they dumbified their explanation down too much. edit: There are two stage systems published and they could be using something like nickel hydroxide - nickel oxide hydroxide reaction to store the atoms. Basically an alkaline solution with oxides and hydroxides and shifting those around to either be oxygen rich or hydrogen rich. That way they can have a two stage system. They take *some* of the oxygen out at every cycle of the fluids, not all of it, and keep repeating the process indefinitely.

Maybe by using the 1st hydrogen green that they made

nah why everyone wanna be like Stanley Meyer all of a sudden

That's because you're not a chemist or chemical engineer, so why should you know? If you wanted to know, just ask one.

I mean, we can throw hidrogen at iron ore and transform it into iron and WATER if that doesn't sound like magic, I don't know what does.

Liquid hydrogen is much more energy dense if used in combination with lightweight composite tanks.

@@jimj2683 Well hydrogen is one of the coldest things on earth, and takes super heavy tanks to carry, ammonia much lower liquefying point so easier to work with.

Hydrogens are hydrogens, the colors are just to say HOW they were produced. Green means you produce Hydrogens with renewable, non-CO2 emitting, energy. Funny, it takes energy to create another form of energy.

The gas won't be colored, just a simple way to give each way of hydrogen production a distinctive color.

would that increase the longevity of it??

@@fermentedfruit there were some videos about using graphene snippets, to enhance concrete significantly just by mixing them in. and graphene is just carbon, that would be a way i guess

@@ASKaaron32 how well does it recycle

@@thunderlifestudios that was a question i heard posed multiple times but just answered with not known or that it will need to be researched for every compound material they will create in the future. but the concrete should be 3 times tougher or something, so it doesnt feel significantly different in regards to recycling than other concrete i guess. Better to look for sources than for answers in my memory of the infotainment i watched xD

Nuclear fusion is still not achiavable. At least you still cannot gain power from it. Once we figure it out we basically unlock cheatcodes

It will be too costly and too much risk for it to be popular.

??? I am under the impression that the hydrogen serves not only to obtain the needed high temperatures but also to reduce the iron oxide. But agreed for the melting your described solution might work.

You're thinking of hydrogen as an energy source. Imagine a machine that pumps water uphill to a big dam, and there's a hydro plant. How much electricity will that hydro plant produce? The answer is, Less energy than it takes to run the pump to get the water uphill in the first place. Hydrogen isn't an energy source. You must first insert lots of electrical energy into water to separate out the hydrogen. That's an uphill energy state, if you graph it out, just like the dam. Then you collect some energy by burning it, which turns it back into water. The amount you collect is less. There is almost no application where this makes any sense at all, and none where this makes sense from an energy production standpoint. Hydrogen is great if you need hydrogen. It's lousy if you need energy. I can think of two real-world examples where they needed lots of hydrogen - The Hindenburg and the Space Shuttle. Both blew up eventually.

@@protorhinocerator142 Basic High School Physics. Conservation of Energy. People keep missing that part.

Not possible because this process require A LOT of energy. The cost to install all the solar panels doesn’t justify. Cheaper to use coal and hopefully shift hydrogen soon.

@@irfanvirji5319 yeh from what I’ve seen the steel industry is working towards hydrogen to replace coal

Excellent question

We are talking droplets of water here. It's a non factor.

This is true. I wish electric battery production didn’t require mining so many toxic compounds and heavy metals. Especially lithium mining, the tactics of which are evaporating quite a large chunk of South America’s fresh water.

Hydrogen is a very popular topic in many Asian countries (Japan, Korea etc)

😶‍🌫🤯We will soon introduce the revolutionary FAZE engine technology. The 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖 [𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.] tech best solves the issues present in previous internal combustion engine designs by transforming the old paradigm into a simple, low cost, quiet, power dense, efficient, on-the-go liquid and gas fuel-flexible, ‘non-polluting’ solution for power generation of all scales and advanced transportation, construction, military, off-road vehicles including ships, aircraft, trains & robots not possible before 𝔽𝔸ℤ𝔼 delivers better than 25% ABSOLUTE/ACTUAL [not relative] fuel efficiency improvement over gasoline engines, more than 15% for Diesel engines at any operating condition - speed/load, ambient temperature or elevation, not just at one optimal testing point at STP. Real world driving cycle savings could be an additional 200% higher due to the constant MAXIMAL efficiency and torque. The simple, low cost, native/built-in, non-electric, environmentally safe, non-explosive, temperature agnostic 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕖𝕣ℍ𝕪𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕕© feature recovers more energy than EVs and provides approx.100% fuel savings for a combined absolute vehicle fuel usage improvement of approximately 300%, thus obviating the basic need for expensive EVs & e-hybrids. 𝕚ℙ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥 adds >400% more torque. It’s like 4 engines in 1. 𝕚𝔼𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕪𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥2© further improves efficiency, torque, power & other performance metrics by 10%. This is all done w/o a transmission. Additional fuel saving solutions are available. The FAZE engine perfectly follows the vehicle’s road or genset’s electrical power demand with no energy loss [no fuel waste], This unique characteristic enables dispensing with any auxiliary power units [APU] for power or refrigeration in any application. This also makes for a perfect range extender for battery electric vehicles [EV] or as a standalone EV charging unit even where is no electric grid. The fuel agnostic capability allows instantaneous use of any liquid or gaseous fuel [natural gas at home!!!] incl. biofuels and hydrogen, even if old/dirty/unprocessed like flare gas or employ the concurrent multi-fuel capability…anywhere on the globe. One engine for all locales w/o changes! Unlike EVs, this enables fast fueling anytime, anywhere…with no troublesome infrastructure disruptions or changes. EV’s are not a solution to the [FAKE]climate or mobility topics as high level of electrification globally is unrealistic [See Patrick Boyle's video "Electrify Everything?"] The technology offers smokeless, non-polluting, low odor heat and noise output without costly after-treatments, etc.,… with only the lowest CO2. It has a negative carbon footprint with hydrogen, ammonia, biofuels or gasified municipal, agricultural and/or forest waste and coal from a 2-stroke-like simplicity. These are HUGE business opportunities. We can provide these turnkey solutions The FAZE technology can be integrated into any ICE or vehicle architecture, adding some of the positive characteristics to its own. An advanced Scotch Yoke architecture slated to be incorporated in the 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖 [𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.] With virtually no electronics and emissions equipment, the cost of purchase and reduced servicing frequency make this solution even more appealing.

This is a truth fact. Convert everything to hydrogen and they will switch the Carbon Tax to a Water Tax.

Guess which greenhouse gas they cannot model? Water vapor, especially when it turns into clouds. Explains a large part of why climate models are rubbish.

Correct. As the IPCC is on record as pointing out, ~ 95% of any "greenhouse gas heating affect" comes from water vapour in the atmosphere.

@@aeroearth wouldn't condensed water vapor (clouds) offset that due to their reflectivity creating a cooling effect?

Great point! 👍

@@nathanryweck3137 Correct. When water vapor becomes cloud it reflects the sun reducing heating of the earth. Notice how cloudy days feel colder!

That’s why everyone should study chemistry in High School. Everything on earth are chemicals, including our own body.

@@salvadorcoling8403 i had chemistry at school but they didn't answer the question I asked

Then, you should have studied hard.

@@salvadorcoling8403 lol Smartass

1 liter of water = 1 kg of water. Molar mass of water = 18g, of which H2 = 2g, O = 16g. So 2/18 = 1/9 = 11%. So one liter of water gives 110g of hydrogen. Hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier with respect to weight. 1 kg of hydrogen contains 33.33 kWh of usable energy, whereas petrol and diesel only hold about 12 kWh/kg. This means that 1 liter of water holds potentially 3,66 kWh of hydrogen. It means that 1 liter of water would be roughly equivalent to 305 grams or 400 ml of gasoline (its density being around 0,75). Remember this calculations imply no losses and the energy put into the hydrolysis of water is not taken into account ofc. Cheers.

investors just dont like nuclear because the return on investment is slow. although smr's may change that.

Sea Water has big issues, it forces you to turn off the electrolyzer for more regular cleanings of impurities. Downtime is lost time.

Or if you wanna rise temperature you should go with geothermal energy Basically you dig deep in the ground till it gets hot enough You can do this best when close to volcanoes to improve heat or efficiency

They just showed that... They just saying, it needs to be economical viable.

What about sabatier process? Synthesizing methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, with oxygen as byproduct, surely it will open the closed cycle?

This hydrogen won't be for cars in all liklihood, but for other uses.

@@cow_tools_ what would they use it for? Some of the new cars they want to come out with can convert hydrogen to electrical power or something like that

@@therandomrobert1842 You don't really see the problem. First, you have to buy a new car. It's always about buying one unit of a brand new something to replace the old thing. That's the biggest problem in climate change issues. You always have to be a consumer hence polluting more. You still need to produce new chassis out of metal, the onboard electronics, the seats, various plastics are involved and all that. And said car has to entertain the illusion that eventually hundreds of millions of people will drive those in the future. Until then we are already facing bigger problems.

Have we not learnt our lesson with the Hindenburg? Hydrogen goes Boom!

@@calidude1114 You know, gasoline also explodes. The Hindenburg burned because it was a massive balloon filled with a flammable gas. That was stupidity. Engineers are much more informed nowadays than in the past. Using a single example of a disaster related to something as the sole reason to not pursue that thing is childish. When something like hydrogen has potential as a high efficiency energy storage, we ought to be more thoughtful than to dismiss it due to a single disaster.

Not really. It can be used in conjunction with wind and solar etc because you can't store wind energy at scale. So if there's a way to convert using other forms of green energy and then you can release that energy on demand, that to me is green

@@vueport99 True, you could use any extra electricity you have from solar or wind to make hydrogen. But it's not efficient. It will not be "the future". It will always be more expensive and less efficient. A bit of a compromise for the failures of solar and wind. Wind and solar are not green btw. They use very polluting industry to make solar and wind. In the end it's all about money, not the environment. The same people being subsidized for being green, are the same people who own leaking oil pipelines. They don't really care about nature.

@@vueport99 How is this any better than a battery?

@@davidsandy5917 battery has much more limitations in terms of capacity, and higher cost. Also you can't use batteries to run a steel plant.

@@benanders4412 fair enough, at the end of the day it's all about money. And people now care so much more about alternative energy because fossil fuel is priced so high. If gas was 50c a litre we won't be here discussing this topic now

So they can get government funding. Other than that, hydrogen is completely worthless as a fuel source in every way.

Best way to power something without loosing much of electricity is to connect it straight to the wires, not even storing the electricity. Though, cars with over head wires is something that could be done... heck why stop there, remove the friction I.e. make it steel to steel stop low ridership I.e. extend the vehicle and put more seats There you go, you have a train.

its not a flaw they weren't saying that the fire was hydrogen, they were just saying the disaster was helped by hydrogen's volatility

@@jk-gb4et i understand what your saying but the hydrogen had already flared off at the rear of the airship. The “volatility” exhibited is due to nitro cellulos powdered aluminum combination for the skin dope. This mis-perception scuttled hydrogen development for Decades.

@@FtnHills38 oh Ok but Hydrogen is still flammable and explosive right

@@jk-gb4et yes,

@@jk-gb4et most fuels and energy storage are flammable and explosive

First we need to figure out how to make a big one

Never say Never !

And where is the power coming from the get the hydrogen out?? From the dirty power grid?

@@UnderTheGoldenGate hidrogen its a mean of trasnportation of energy not producing, whats so difficult to understand?

Agree to implement!

its just an energy storage technology. Hydrogen is already our fuel of choice; it come in the form of hydrocarbons. Hydrogen bound up as a hydrocarbon is ready to be used today. Unbound hydrogen is very difficult to store as it very very easily leaks from anything not a perfect container. Did you know that unbound hydrogen passes though a few inches of concrete very easily?

Good catch! All of the other elements cited in that sequence conveniently use their first letter in the periodic table, which made this oversight all the easier to slip through. Thanks for letting us know.

Hydrogen is always the same hydrogen , those colors just show how it was made

I have incurred so much losses trading on my own..I trade well on demo. But I think the real market is manipulated. Can anyone help me out or at least tell me what I'm doing wrong

Nothing a little bribery can’t fix.

@@hamanu666 that will cost even more

Not really tho, you just need to make a tank 8 times more pressurized than a normal tank. And it doesnt really have to be a liquid

@@Hector_pita That's kind of dumb. You're saying to make tanks rated for 80,000 to 160,000 PSI. There's no practical way to even generate those pressures. The tank's weight would be astronomical. And nobody would want to get near that BOMB.

The best solution is to just not use a car, hydrogen or no hydrogen. Other cities in countries that are NOT America actually have a pretty well-developed transportation system that doesn’t necessitate the use of cars and, in some cases, work _against_ the use of cars by forcing you to carpool outside their cities and take other modes of transportation instead, such as buses and trains. One train/bus produces far less emissions than the combined equivalent of hundreds of cars that would have been needed for each and every individual instead. And that goes without mentioning the possibility that the sheer size of trains themselves could possibly allow for viable storage of hydrogen as fuel for the trains. Of course, you can’t justify banning cars either, since people who live in rural areas need some form of personal long-distance transportation in order to access the more-localized trains and buses in urban areas. But at the same time, there doesn’t need to be nearly as many cars as what we currently have. All we need to do is make the alternative modes of transportation viable and accessible (and perhaps make cities a little more car-unfriendly, forcing people to carpool outside the city to take a train or a bus), and that alone would cut down on CO2 emissions in quite a drastic way, all while making cities a lot nicer looking and pedestrian-friendly, too.

@@yojojo3000 Mass transportation only works well in densely populated cities. America's population is WAY more spread out than that of the more crowded European nations. What works in New York or Miami or Los Angeles WILL NOT work in more than one percent of America by surface area. And nobody's got trillions of dollars to create a mass transit system that loses money every day because it runs nearly empty nearly all the time.,

@@Turboy65 America’s population is spread out as thin as it is because the majority of the land surrounding their cities is reserved for car parking lots instead of residential buildings and businesses. These areas are thus not only designed to be difficult (and dangerous) to travel through without a car, but they also prevent high population density from even being a possibility. Majority of these places don’t have any means of alternate transportation either, further preventing and discouraging people from living there. Solve all those issues (and others) and your population density will begin to look more like an actual city, and funding alternate transport systems won’t be so difficult. Creating a massive transit system doesn’t take a day. You have to start somewhere and slowly expand over the course of a couple years or even decades. To fund something like that and maintain it, Tire taxes, Parking taxes, etc. can help fund these things, among other things such as fundraisers (tire taxes especially, since majority of Americans own cars and need to change tires every now and then). If there isn’t enough money on hand, put the transit expansion on hold until you do. It’s really not that difficult, it’s just time-consuming.

There are no different types of hydrogen. Only ways to produce it. This video is not realistic.

Interesting idea. Though I don't think the energy required to split that "glass of water" will be much less than the energy it generates from combining H with O2.

@@zainabe9503 It never will. In a closed system, energy must be conserved. This means that without outside influence the energy cannot increase, you can never get more energy out of electrolysis og water and then burning than you put in. Think about what is actually being done. An electric charge is being applied pulling the water molecule apart. This means that the electric field has to supply the energy to break the bonds of the water molecule. Ths split molecule is then being combusted to get the original. All thag is being done is that you are breaking the bonds using an electric field and then remaking the bonds via combustion, there is no change in energy. It turns out that you will also actually create heat in the process which will leak out of the system, so in reality you won't even get no change in energy, you will actually be losing energy!

that's one of the biggest problems, you have to find a green way to generate it and you have to have a nice compact safe way to store it on an aircraft, ship, etc. (I feel like as far as SUV and smaller, batteries are the best. Hydrogen would be more for bigger vehicles, or maybe cars that have to operate in really cold temperatures.)

@@neutrino78x this video is about production. my point is that containerization is also vital for the H2 to be useful after production. unless produced at the point of use, due to it being the smallest possible molecule, it leaks from any known container.

The way forward is with Small Modular Reactors, which could facilitate on-demand production of hydrogen, even in remote areas. The technology exists for getting off fossil fuels, and we don't have time to wait for either a fusion break-through or other "completely" green solution. These can be transitioned to in the future if practical, but the current climate situation does not afford us the luxury of time. And it could be achieved relatively quickly if every country decided to apportion 15% of their military/security budgets to an international "Manhattan Project of the 21st Century", as national security is meaningless without planetary security. I was disappointed that the creators of this video once again had to dredge up footage of the Hindenburg. A massive public education effort needs to be implemented to teach people that both nuclear and hydrogen technologies have become much safer over the last thirty years, so much so that their risk pales in comparison to our continuing to do nothing, or to wait for technologies that are at least a decade away from becoming reality.

@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry H2 just isn't practical. baring an unforeseeable breakthrough, the molecule is just way too tiny to effectively containerize. that's why Musk calls fuel cells "Fool cells" and why SpaceX fuels rockets with methane/natural gas. using F-T process to convert H2 & other waste gases into jet fuel/diesel is better. Molton Salt Reactor supplies energy to electrolyze water into H2 & O2 at scale plus has the excess heat to power the F-T process. non-cryogenic liquid fuels have exponentially more utility.

@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry agreed. Hindenburg and all nuclear accidents in total have killed about 100 people while we have millions of deaths attributed to fossil fuel burning. It's amazing the difference something visible vs invisible makes to how people react.

And not wasted most of the time 👍

Nuclear fission for generating lots of power and hydrogen as fuel for vehicles

Nuclear fusion with battery powered vehicles is the future, hydrogen is the future oil & gas wants so they have a future business and infrastructure to control

if people just could become a lil less scared of nuclear fusion :(

@@ltpetsema876 i agree but its safer and easier to accept a lie like solar panels and wind turbines than to actually build nuclear fusion stations which could power the entire world

@@ltpetsema876 no one is scared of fusion because it doesn't exist.

They would get wrecked by the oil industry

@@AshGreen359 but the oil industry has how many years before becoming total unaffordable?

@@7XHARDER They don't care, they will squeeze every dime they can and destroy any competition they can

Have we not learnt our lesson with the Hindenburg? Hydrogen goes Boom! There is a reason we don't use hydrogen in air ships!