Lol no. Petrol is not at 700 atmospheres.BIG difference in danger.

Also I have snuffed out cigarettes in a cup of gas.

@@jhoughjr1 lolh gasoline at one atmosphere is highly flammable. remember the 72 pinto

@@jhoughjr1 Yes, the gasoline/petrol is much more dangerous than hydrogen. Hydrogen is so light that it rapidly rises and the flames rise well above the point of release. Gasoline flows onto the ground, under everything and burns up everything as it burns.

@@johnlarson111 you might want to retake physics if you think the pinto fires are anything near what an equal energy volume of 700 ATM hydrogen will do. Kinda why incendiaries are not regulated like explosives are.

Howcom Iron? Does it have anything to do with finding an alternative to using CO to remove the oxygen from Iron during the production of steel?

God stored a lot of hydrogen in the oceans, it is wet, does not burn, can be stored and transported.

This would be great for seasonal storage of solar power. 1MWh (3.6GJ) per house would do in mild climates like Southern California. It's fairly cheap to over-size the solar installation such that it will produce enough excess throughout the year to be able to last out the winter deficit. Lithium ion batteries are great for day/night cycle storage, but way too expensive for seasonal storage.

I've been focusing on the magnesium oxidation route, specifically in the combustion realm. It's fascinating stuff, for a metal on fire at approximately 3000K.

So question about iron: it’s quite abundant which is an advantage, but isn’t it quite energy intensive to recover to base metal? Or are you looking at hydrate versus oxide cycling?

The old "Veracity is inversely proportional to hyperbole" formula.

@Dekoth-OGN : You know the saying: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!". 🥴 😋

As an engineer I find that a very good way to describe it.

What happens to hydrogen if it escapes as a gas. Is it possible that losses of hydrogen to space due to industrial processes could be problematic to the planet. Has anybody done a risk analysis.

Look into ionization with pwm 10kV, 3kHz on atomized water.

Wonderful! I'm delighted you enjoy the videos :-)

Thank you. I appreciate that!

@@JustHaveaThink I've watched several of your videos, and was surprised that I hadn't subscribed yet, so I went ahead and did that.

I think it's spelled Deakin.

Hi Sir. I would like to engage with you further on this topic, as my current PhD Project is based on metal hydride storage.

Yup. And then they woke up from their dream and went to the pub.

Yup, probably mixed beer with toothpaste and came to a whole new solution.@@curryattack8985

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpaste#:~:text=Powerpaste%20is%20a%20magnesium%2D%20and,%2DGesellschaft%20in%20Dresden%2C%20Germany.@@curryattack8985

There was a recent company talking about embedding hydrogen in a bimetallic tape and using laser to store and release it.. looked like a old music casette. Advantage being dry and low pressure. Personally i dont care as long as someone makes a working ironman suit with it or i can drop one in my el camino.

​@@ThirtytwoJI have seen a lot of videos debunking that company. So it could most likely be vaporware, sadly. Think Thunderf00t has a video on it. Yet an other guy too. I however can't stand the guy. So I hope he is wrong.

Do you know what else works as a non-rechargeable battery? Gasoline.

It's worse than you think. How is silicon made from silicon dioxide? You guessed it- by reacting SiO2 with coal to make Si and carbon dioxide. Voila, a new method to use coal even LESS efficiently than ever before!

@@hsavietto Yeah, but gasoline is cheap both in energy cost and in capital. Unless you have a way to economically manufacture Si using interruptable power this is a non-starter

@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Yeah, because not only do you have to use coal as the carbon source, but it requires electricity too! Winning!

I'm also curious if they can show what it takes to "close" this cycle. I'm not an expert, but I do know that SiO2 to Si alone is an energy-intensive process, so can the energy from "Si+ + H2O" even hit the energy level of SiO2 to Si-even ignoring conversion losses. My guess is "not a chance by a several orders of magnitude" but I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

I guess it depends on how old one is in order to compare youth. There is another version of this already being developed that uses completely recyclable, abundant, natural, lightweight, iron ore powder (such as biotite iron), and they appear to be doing exactly what you identify by using more expensive zinc. I'm not sure what causes this to be usable as it must be heated to around 200 degrees prior to releasing the hydrogen, but that then allows it to be slowly fed into the firing chamber as needed. Perhaps they use some kind of a hybrid engine that kicks in when the temp reaches the desired level?

Glad you enjoyed it

At 40KWh/Kg for H2 your 450Kg of Silicon dioxide works out at about 2KWh/Kg ignoring fuel cell losses. This isn't hugely different to an internal combustion engine running on petrol. An energy density of about 2MWh/ton isn't terrible for static power generation considering how inert the silicon dioxide is although I'd be a tad careful with the feedstock silicon material. Certainly an interesting idea, I hope it works out.

A Tesla S battery pack comes in at around 750 Kg, so 480 Kg of silicon and water does not sound too bad.

@@hendman4083 Was off by factor 10 for a quick calculation I did at first, so it's actually only 48 kg initially. Much more manageable for vehicles, but still a chemical and energetic mess.

In any case, it probably more useful for roadside refill stations to have the Si+ installation, and from their fill up vehicle HFCs, rather than having hydrogen stored in pure form at the refill stations.

I think plane is the only good use on hydrogen

I looked at their site. From what I glanced, they build containers comprised of 3 modules: Electrolyzer, Fuel Cell, and Metal Hydride H2 Storage at 40 bar. So you get a battery replacement at presumably lower cost and weight. The things weight between 5 ton and 30 ton though ...

@@falklumo So not exactly aimed at home use! They are probably not going to release details of the storage medium and even if they did its probably not going to be easily available! So the whole thing is largely pointless.

@@manoo422 The dream of every battery alternative is that the vast tank or cavern full of material X is so much cheaper than the number of batteries to store the same amount of energy that the cost of the equipment to get energy in and out of material X (which for a a rechargeable battery is simply a positive and negative terminal) and the round-trip efficiency (which is 95+% for a lithium-ion battery) becomes insignificant. The problem is proving it. "If we have a huge pile of silicon/find a big enough salt dome to store the hydrogen/insulate an enormous block of thermal storage/raise a heavy enough weight/build two huge tanks for a flow battery/... our process will be cheaper than installing megawatt•hours of batteries!" Sure, maybe.

Yea, I wonder about that. It's basically a hydrogen extraction technology. In general, you need sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds in order to release the hydrogen in water, and that's always a negative energy process. The energy has to come from somewhere.

Not to mention all that wieght nd space compares to how much hydrogen it actually can hold

@@magnetospin Hydrogen is always thought of as a energy storage medium, not a energy source. I like the idea of using that as a long term storage emergency power source for example. as long as you can keep it dry it should be able to sit on a shelf forever until you need it. For that use case not even the round trip efficiency is all that important.

@@TheCountess666 round trip efficiency as you put it has us wearing blinders to how cheap heat is when mined from below at scale 'inefficiently'. We are funding concentrating solar reactor for hydrogen liberation.... That introduces a fixed cost... 60% of which is in the 'mirros' so mining deep heat is obviously much cheaper since mirrors are expensive but a minority of cost of concentrating sunlight!!! Or so that seems to be the case with my seat having trusts pants or whatever.

Heresy!! Competion, not cooperation, is the religion of the corporate world.

Just another segment of the overall tech revolution which includes AI, etc. (Some call it "industrial", but I call it "tech".)

If it’s energy inefficient then it’s a dead end. We need energy systems which generate net energy, not things like green hydrogen which are massive net energy consumers. Where is all the energy going to come from? It’s THE reason we use fossil fuels. It produces a vast net energy. And it also produces the thousands of chemical products which we use in everyday life. Plastics, medicine but to name two.

Go for it!

Metallic hydrogen maybe ? 🤔🤔🤔

There would have to be fail-safe filtering solutions built into whatever system is eventually developed. You point out an excellent public concern, however. Silicosis is like a nasty permanent pneumonia, incurable as yet.

Difficult as gel is the standard ending of every second sentence in the area around Stuttgart. " Mir ham da scho wasch geiles am Start, gel."

@@Techmagus76 😁 Well he was not natively from Stuttgart, so I guess he knows what he was doing. But if it was gel or a kind of solid state gel like material...? I am not a physician , it was a bit to advanced for me 😬😂

@@christophmartin5381 You probably mean this thing: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hZx_n9KUy6zXn58.html

@@guesswho6038 Yes maybe. Was just interesting what he told me. We had a discussion about energy density of batteries etc. , He told me that for cars batteries will be the tech of the future but hydrogen will be needed in many areas of the industry...

I saw a demonstration of a hydrogen fuel cell car around 1998 powered by golf-ball sized nitrides that released hydrogen. Then, as now, it wasn't clear how much energy it took to remanufacture the magic nitride containing hydrogen.

The suggestion that it would power an ICE engine with efficiency only a third of that of a fuel cell rather casts doubt on the whole enterprise.

You are welcome!

I think they became Aminex/Adamine, a system for storing the chemicals that VW omitted in their fake "clean diesel" products. I also notice that the small Danish network of Hydrogen fuel stations seems to be dismantled. At least the station in Gladsaxe is gone.

It was a scam.

The shortage is of a particular type of sand needed for building or glass making. The worlds deserts are full of silica sand.

@@GilesBathgate I've heard that the ocean floor also contains some sand. And with a rising sea-level ..... ;-)

@@DreadX10 That will be because the earths crust is 27.7% Si, with 60.6% of that being SiO₂...... 😂 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_crust

We are already living in a glass world so why not?

Remember 'free range'!

It is the fossil fuel industry's method for keeping us all brain dead towards sustainability.

Or they could use light-weight recyclable abundant natural biotite iron which is already being developed elsewhere.

I vaguely recall it's don't feed them after midnight and whatever you do, DON'T put them in water (get them wet) !!! but excellent point regarding the thin probability of catastrophic unforeseen outcomes. Mister Think or GooglesTubes deleted my troll comment about a famous Silicon-based life form with acid blood perhaps developing if we replace carbon-based with Silicon-based on Earth.

Scrap the home furnace or boiler, forget about the inefficient hydrogen detour, and instead send electrons to the house to run a heat pump that's far more efficient.

No doubt some of these solutions will be better for stationary uses like generators, but there can eventually be developed quite green versions for transportation uses. Also, most cars already have carbon filters that reroute exhaust back into the gas tanks. I once put more gas into a tank than was indicated by the pump shut-off and the filter clogged up. It took a long time to get that functioning again. I still think that using the powdered iron (such as natural, abundant, lightweight biotite or something similar) instead of SI+ would be better since it is totally recyclable.

But the same people will be impacted won’t they? Having decentralised systems mitigates some risks but introduces others. Many small systems just mean more people required to fix them when they are damaged in just the same way a centralised system is damaged. The cost of decentralised systems is going to be massive if it needs to be capable of shifting energy between areas. All connections need to be built to handle peak load instead of progressively smaller capacities as you get further from the central source. This is already leading to gigantic costs to upgrade the grid here in Australia. Of course this cost which is directly caused by decentralised renewable generation is never included in the cost of renewables. Neither is frequency control, nor storage losses or additional transmission losses.

@@deaninchina01 Babcock Ranch in Florida just North East of Naples, Florida just took a direct hit from Category 4 Hurricane Ian. They did not lose power, internet or any other city services. The city was built to drain water so flooding was not a significant issue. They use a system called community solar. Several years ago aftet another hurricane in North Carolina. The solar systems were up and operational in less than two days. Meanwhile natural gas and coal fired plants spent at least a week offline.

@@shawnr771 The reason they didn't lose power was because Babcock Ranch is still connected to mains power, and used that power during the hurricane. They are only solar powered when the sun is shining. Otherwise they use centrally supplied power.

The book "Small Is Beautiful" covered all this from a utopian standpoint, and yes in many ways this could be true but in reality will likely never happen, or at least not for a long time. If you follow the money, the big corps that offer the power, have the power to squelch any such movements, and will either prevent them or buy them off, like eBay did with any and all possible competition.

@@rogerreiner1846 MIT is researching a low cost battery made from concrete and carbon ash. The foundation of a building could be its battery.

That's what is so amazing about hydrogen! THe liquid form is not the most compact, warmer storage 'trays' store more.

Cheers Martin. Whether it'll work in the real world is an entirely different question though...

@@JustHaveaThink I disagree as to powering small loads the camper buyer's are always looking for weighs of hauling hydrogen. Hybrid EUC's also need this type of constant wattage even though they are maximumally inefficient in micromobility land but also far more of a bargain then a horse and able to travel at car speeds! They use less energy then a car as they are so light. Cars are slippery but still so heavy!!! Micromobility needs a clean powertrain that has certain characteristics but the cost of the energy being what grid requires is not even close to important. And obviously EUC's will become more efficient over time as these high speeds become normal, clothing, angle of attack, yes obviously some sort of enclosure just for slipperyness is coming to euc's... i can't beleive how important a 'jacket' worn on high speed euc' will be to range!!! The turbulence helps peope lean forward of course but that is not critical. a fully enclosed EUC lol!!! Vertical slippery.. the air goes around wheel and body of rider only if prompted without turbulence.... this means that helmets etc. might already be extending range with the present forward leaning wedge not having rider above axle AT ALL. It needs to rise us up to provide space for air to flow under us clearly .... will the platforms we stand on rise with speed? The water can be reprocessed possibl on the vehicle it's not clear what's happening at all chemisty is not my thing yet. My point was not about EUC's but about tablets etc.. phablets on powder will rock even though zapbatt is promissing powerbank makers supply of scib boards and cells

Cars etc. are heavy because that is the way they are engineered with today's available materials. In the future someone will develop a means to mass produce graphene which will totally change everything. For example back when aluminum was first discovered, it was more valuable than gold, but today it is abundant. Airplanes, trucks, cars, etc. will all be magnitudes of strength stronger and much lighter than today. Combine all that with hydrogen power and we will all be traveling in the air on digital highways, thus reducing the amount of actual roadwork, bridges, etc. I still like horses though and would not rule them out in a pinch. @@jims6498

As pointed out elsewhere the process likely starts & ends with silicone dioxide so none is either created or used up during the cycle.

I don’t see the relevance of the comment.

Depends how you use it. If you burn it, yes. You can convert it directly into electricity with fuel cells too. Actually gives you a really good efficiency, but the power density isn't good - fuel cells are quite bulky. And they are finicky - like their rival the internal combustion engine, they do need some care if they are to last.

Hydrogen will only be serious if we have some sort of primary energy generation which can supply the huge energy required to be lost during the process of making it. Modern civilisation needs an EROI of at least 8. Green hydrogen has an EROI of approx 2 if you use wind and 1.5 if you use solar. Green hydrogen is an energy sink.

Well, the automotive industry developed catalytic converters to contain lots of bads coming from gasoline being burned, so I'm sure they will have to do the same no matter which way all this goes. What you identify is very important, but merely a fixable challenge rather than a game-changer.

You run the hydrogen through a fuel cell (or if you're dumb or reusing an existing thermal plant you burn the hydrogen in a combustion engine or turbine). Yes, you need to produce enough hydrogen to generate the desired power (already hydrogen fool cell cars need a battery to deliver bursts of power and to recapture braking energy), but pour enough water on enough powder and it may be doable. You're talking about the rate of the reaction producing hydrogen, a different kind of efficiency than the round-trip energy efficiency of silicon → silicon oxide plus hydrogen → back to silicon.

There's no such thing as solid or powdered hydrogen. These *stores* of hydrogen release H2 (hydrogen gas) which can then be: burned to produce heat, inefficiently burned in an engine or turbine, run through a fuel cell to produce electricity, used to make ammonia and fertilizer,, or used in other chemical reactions (much of the 70M tons of hydrogen we use annually is used in fossil fuel refining which needs to die in a fire).

You may be right, but that is a long way off yet. Cement formulas are beginning to replicate mother nature's concrete which is caliche and which is amazingly better.

'producing' heat is absurd when plenty of heat can be mined from mantle . . . that of course is cheaper, MUCH CHEAPER, at scale. how can fusion be cheaper then mantle heat?

@@jims6498 and how is your reply related to my comment in any way?

​@@human_isomer ​ @Human Isomer The argon is likely not needed but could be recovered and would be cheap compared to value of powder. My comment depreciates capturing low grade heat because high grade heat in the future I fight for will be mantle cheap. THe cost of mining heat from mantle goes down the more you can use and therefore mine with consideration for it. Efficiency is a blinder and a tax that has us ignoring in past and over obsessing on now. When cost engineering has it helpful it is fine but heat is too cheap to not cost engineer ample waste of it into the solution that works best. Heat polution exisits as an efficiency measure for cooling water but we now run turbines less efficiently using air. THere is no concern about such heat being a problem to dump into atmosphere the concern is genuinely solar radiation be blocked from departure not man released heat. The public thinks man can heat planet directly instead of prventing planet from dumping solar heat as it has in past before our pollution that is nonstop. The foil looked like low vacuum but vacuum still packed. So very little Argon and we are being told containers not sample packs but densite comparable to oil if water is included which it should not be. WIthout cost targets I agree it might be unimportant. But costs based upon energy input DO NOT CONCERN ME. Caring about how much energy a soslution requires is to surrender to oil. INexhaustive mantle heat makes energy requiremtns not impediment to scale. I shared this fact with you because you expressed the opposite view! YOu did Oil's dirty deed of spreading myth. IT robbed us of mantle heat hijacking the offshore drilling for it into deep seal oil mining! They denied us fission, deny us mantle, and do so with aplomb, skilled hired hands and even hypnotised by efficiency propiganda 'volunteers.' We need heat to do work and mining it not fuels to generate it is how to disrupt industry and cool planet fastest. This way of moving energy any distance might be part of solution as well given howcheap water is most places and how little energy is needed in surface places without water that people need be. It is more important to get 'hydrogen equivalent for pennies a kg then it itself for a buck and far easier as welll to accomplish. All you haveh to do is use enough mantle heat! Say half of all hte heat we release carbon obtaining now- in first well we seriously tap. How could that cost more then a kg armortised equivalent for the heat? HOw could not be over half a cent a kwh? The mantle is not cheap to tap into but it is cheap to use. IT is also safe enough and certain enough we understand so much all we need to do is apply our knowledge, be willing to not create jobs cooling planet let people do other work so we can get that done sooner and fully. NObody wants a generation of high paying work at expense of future generations not just of people!! This filter we see solutions thru- they must be so taxed as doomed to fail, in requiring human labor to perform, is our presidents senility or his unchecked ignorance with Evil outcome the result. Cheaper heat saves the world and it requires no new science or discovery to procure just however many trillions to get hundreds of thousands of times as much heat as spending that on fusion or oil would cost. The planet is worth such a big project. Going to moon took absurd amount of our gnp. Cooling planet? That's enough heat to mine to justify spending far more then it could conceivably cost. I just typed a lot more but keyboard has a touchpad not turned off so shame on me. I told you how to do the math. And more. Mantle heat sufficient to cool our planet is too affordable to not know budget for. IT takes courage to share how little in trillions or whatever salvation can be definitely safely bought for. THe diligence is almost trivial. FOr most, people like you, it is genuinely trivial. For many, people like me, we struggle to have the few hours or hundreds of hours at most focused it would cost. For me this sits poorly as I lose another day trying to choose my battles but knowing the mot important short term one is neglected too long and indefensibly. So should i someday succeed ambitiously I will know price it came at and be an awe of myself. I pay and pay and pay so thanks for engagement I hope you respect my sacrifice in addressing your response. The ability to use chrome to quickly find comment and type is limited. It is hard to send this there are two vertical scrolls and finding the right one is almost impossible in dark mode as synced from desktop not to netbook so I'm in normal dispaly mode to see it yes the scroll bars are same dark lol really sad. Eventually I will be able to type late at night into youtube with darkmode on despite full browser or use netbook ap duh. but ap liklely lacks direct accesss to replying? ANyway This powder seems far too slow to liberate free hydrogen from water? I need specs on the speed but am not concerned if it needs hot water AT ALL. That's like worrying about cost of hot shower in Phillipenes lol. Scale is everything. Exponential drops in cost upon scaling up makes cooling planet a short term task. NOt forever aspiration 2050 etc. target nonsense for meaningless partial progress. Exponential drops in cost like 90% in a decade for hydrogen but based on todays science not chosen as difficult but chosen as certain. This is not a drill. Trapping heat on this planet like we now sustain doing at ridiculous loss of life unrelated to pollution but blunt force trauma alone, the 7 figures of people smashed from somany pounds of behicle per pound of passenger....it's a swithchj. Turn on mining mantle heat and we turn off capturing solar heat WALLA. But moving mantle heat energy to other side of planet from mantle heat mine might be done by this powder ok? I've said it more than once. Mining is the answer but not based on selling what you get at market price but using it as owner of mine duh. We must stop renting for our energy needs! The world owns the mantle and needs us to tap it for energy in a contract unprecedented a coop or otherwise working model that delivers cooler oceans and restored icebergs soon enough. not careers not aspriation solutions based on facts logic certitdue openness to truth ability to end oils billions in rent daily from a poor world of people needing that for other goods and planet cured therefor for much less. MUCH LESS so less than free planet cooling. GOt it??