Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why." video.

I'm an Australian engineer and I hate to break it too you but that happens to many many engineers who get dragged into projects with massive hopes. I have lost chunks of my life to things like that. I have known other engineers to lose chunks of their lives in similar ways. Sorry for the longer explanation below. The problem with this video is that Sabine skips past a number of other areas where hydrogen technologies need to be discussed on both the pro and con sides. I've never thought Hydrogen was a solution for cars, irrespective of if it was with fuel cells or combustion. I did my degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. I'm also formally trained in electrical equipment in hazardous (explosive) areas. Hydrogen is the most difficult gas to deal with around electrical gear because it ignites so easily. My #1 concern is how do you prevent hydrogen cars, busses & trucks doing a Hindenburg? BUT that doesn't mean its unsuitable in other areas. That's where this video is a little frustrating. Maybe she'll do more vids??? I checked Sabine's bio on Wikipedia. She's did undergrad in Math and a PhD in theoretical physics. It appears she's never worked outside of the University & Research environment. She's very good on the theory behind the issues but she has no real experience with problem solving in industrial environments. The issue of the efficiency of bulk energy supply is almost irrelevant compared to reliability of supply and the cost to consumers. Rio Tinto did a public campaign about how their new hi-efficiency coal plants had brought them up to about 42%. Most coal is under 30% and older units as low as 20%. Kirk Sorenson (Thorium proponent) points out that the Pressure Water Reactors (PWRs) are under 1%. But those systems are VIABLE because they can reliably supply bulk energy at an affordable price. Fuel cells are around 60% but theoretically capable of higher. That didn't matter for the Apollo missions because they also provided water for the astronauts at no extra weight cost. The area where I think hydrogen is going to be huge is in grid level power and grid level power is the enraged mega elephant in the room that everyone is afraid will stomp on them if they make a noise. For decades now methane fueled turbines have been used for GRID STABILITY and SURGE CAPACITY. Batteries are very good and efficient but lousy for sustained surges. Gas turbines are not only very good and reliable but they can also have steam units powered by the exhaust heat. That's called cogeneration and there are companies that quote 90% efficiency for cogen systems. You can't just feed hydrogen to a standard gas turbine, but in the 1990s Rolls Royce, GE and others worked out how to make gas turbines (for aircraft) run on hydrogen. The technology is already done, it just wasn't going to happen for aircraft because of the tank issues. So the technology is all sorted out. It just never had end users or the hydrogen supply.
5
@nagualdesign I'm an engineer and pretty much everyone in this thread is right. Sabine skips past a number of other technologies on both the pro and con sides. I've never thought Hydrogen was a solution for cars, but that does NOT mean its not the solution in other areas some of which she doesn't discuss. Sorry for the longish reply. I did my degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. I'm also formally trained in electrical equipment in hazardous (explosive) areas. Hydrogen is the most difficult gas to deal with around electrical gear because it ignites so easily. My #1 concern is how do you prevent hydrogen cars, busses & trucks doing a Hindenburg? BUT that doesn't mean its unsuitable viable in other areas. That's where this video is a little frustrating. Maybe she'll do more vids??? I checked Sabines bio on Wikipedia. She's did undergrad in Math and a PhD in theoretical physics. It appears she's never worked outside of the University & Research environment. She's very good on the theory behind the issues but she has no real experience with problem solving in industrial environments. The issue of the efficiency of bulk energy supply is almost irrelevant compared to reliability of supply and the cost to consumers. Rio Tinto did a public campaign about how their new hi-efficiency coal plants had brought them up to about 42%. Most coal is under 30% and older units as low as 20%. Kirk Sorenson (Thorium proponent) points out that the Pressure Water Reactors (PWRs) are under 1%. But those systems are VIABLE because they can reliably supply bulk energy at an affordable price. The area where I think hydrogen is going to be huge is in grid level power and grid level power is the enraged mega elephant in the room that everyone is afraid will stomp on them if they make a noise. For decades now methane fueled turbines have been used for GRID STABILITY and SURGE CAPACITY. Batteries are very good and efficient but lousy for sustained surges. Gas turbines are not only very good and reliable but they can also have steam units powered by the exhaust heat. That's called cogeneration and there are companies that quote 90% efficiency for cogen systems. You can't just feed hydrogen to a standard gas turbine, but in the 1990s Rolls Royce, GE and others worked out how to make gas turbines (for aircraft) run on hydrogen. The technology is already done, it just wasn't going to happen for aircraft because of the tank issues. So the technology is all sorted out. It just never had end users or the hydrogen supply.
4
@Weaseldog2001 Buddy that's not a slight exaggeration that's a 99% exaggeration. Nobody learnt much about hydrogen in High School other than it combines with almost anything to make all sorts of compounds. If you were lucky the occasional teacher would show easily it can go bang with oxygen.
2
@rosman2635 What makes you think they need neutrons for Hydrogen PRODUCTION or for fuel cells? This isn't nuclear fusion we are talking about.
1
@rosman2635 WTF have a look at the comment that started this thread. Do you know that to call someone ignorant means they IGNORE things?
1