Financial Times 
The global push for net zero carbon emissions is one of humanity’s greatest challenges. In this film, the FT’s Simon Mundy explores how hydrogen – the lightest, most abundant element in the universe – could play a crucial role. From southern Spain to Swedish Lapland, we meet those at the forefront of this fast-growing space – all seeking a share of the billions to be made in the emerging hydrogen economy.
#hydrogen #greenhydrogen #EmeraldHydrogen #steel #hydrogeneconomy #zerocarbon #emission
00:00 What is Hydrogen
00:50 Green Hydrogen
02:50 Current uses of hydrogen
04:10 The concerns
05:00 The Hydrogen rainbow
05:51 Emerald Hydrogen
07.35 The investors
10:50 The policymakers
13:40 Green steel
17:35 Cleaning up aviation
22:15 The hydrogen economy of the future
See if you get the FT for free as a student (http://ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: https://subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmentId=3d4ba81b-96bb-cef0-9ece-29efd6ef2132.
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: https://www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/financialtimes’
source
About The Author
Watch FT Moral Money editor Simon Mundy uncover some of the biggest opportunities and challenges within the global shift to cleaner energy. Click the links below for related videos:
Fusion power: how close are we? | FT Film
https://on.ft.com/3uo1yvB
Inside the global race for lithium batteries | FT Film
https://on.ft.com/46ojrrA
It can. Question is how much. If it helps 0.01%, what's the point?
Great coverage, thank you!
hydrogen is like oil right, still burn and damage. What about electric or water engine
Need 4k
So, hydrogen it is?
The short answer to the question posed by the video is 'no' – for the most part hydrogen would be highly inefficient and extremely expensive. Just use the electricity produced don't waste it converting it to hydrogen and back to elecricity.
The WORLD does not need NET ZERO ! Take a walk !
Green hydrogen worth when made from renewable otherwise worse than fossil fuels ❤
The current nuclear fusion energy programs are spin-off programs that were inspired through the development of thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs) in which deuterium/tritium fusion reactions result in a major portion of their energy release. An initial portion of the video obscures that connection by suggesting that nuclear explosions are primarily based upon fission reactions. It has become common practice to distance nuclear fusion energy research from the efforts that were behind the vast majority of today's major nuclear weapon state's nuclear weapons arsenals.
Nuclear fusion energy video productions are often overhyped, typically focusing upon the future promises rather then upon the numerous problems that have been encountered since the research began in the 1950s. The pitches are often done to attract potential investors as well as public support for the dozens of experimental machines now operating around the world. A listing of the past and current machines can be found in the following Wikipedia article.
List of fusion experiments
The promoters have typically claimed that the fuel is unlimited and there will be no radioactive waste. What they often fail to mention is that in most cases the tritium fuel is radioactive and the current market value of it is approximately $30,000/g. The 14.1 MeV neutrons, resulting from the D/T fuel fusion reaction will transform some of the elements, in the reactor structures, into radioactive elements so some components will require disposal as low-level radioactive waste. Most announced nuclear fusion energy 'breakthrough' announcement experiments don't even involve the use of nuclear fusion fuels such as deuterium and tritium but frequently refer to fusion reactions, something that didn't take place during the experiment.
Reference are often made to the National Ignition Facility (NIF) experimental shot that occurred on 5 December 2022. That experiment took about a week to set up. The nuclear fusion reaction occurred within a microscopic volume and lasted for approximately 0.000,000,000,08 second. The measured output energy was about enough to boil two liters of water. Approximately 96% of the extremely expensive fuel was blasted away from the reaction center before it had a chance to participate in the reaction. It was later noted that the input power to the laser was over 100 times greater than the nuclear fusion energy that was generated during the experiment. It's been estimated that the target assembly cost approximately $100,000 which was vaporized during the laser shot. This so called 'breakeven' shot was supposed to have been achieved by 2012. The NIF has always been primarily funded as a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb) research tool. The lab management has become masterful in obscuring that fact when presenting it to the press and to the general public.
The ITER project in France is grossly over its original budget and at least a decade behind its original schedule. A couple of major problems have recently been identified with its key modules so now there are further delays. It is unlikely to achieve its first fusion reaction by the year 2030. Even then it will likely take another decade before a commercially practical nuclear fusion power plant can be demonstrated.
Those who work in such fields, along with the vast majority of Earth's 8.0+ billion humans, tend to have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 5.5 years ago.
The Hindenberg explosion canceled hydrogen-fueled transportation for almost 90 years. Hmmm…
Combine ultra capacitors to collect solar and wind energy more efficiently .
Well this is ridiculous gas company has surplus and wants to profit.
Is this TOTAL MADNESS ? The fertilizer is required to increase FOOD production. FOOD is required by MAMMALS to provide the CARBON that allows them to surive. If MAMMALS CONSUME CARBON based food THEN THEY EMMIT CARBON DIOXIDE . Quite simply carbon cannot be destroyed (one fundamental law) – the proposition FAILS.
USA should build small Pelton wheel generators using a direct drive washing machine motor that could be plugged into a 2 inch polypropylene pipe going up the creek to a home made dam with a floating inlet pipe, 231 feet higher gets 100 psi = 300 – 500 WATT output, = FREE+CLEAN+CHEAP+RELIABLE Hydro electric power.
Which can run LED lighting system, charge batteries, play a car stereo with house speakers, radio, 2 way radio, TV, etc. All for very little money.
A 300 foot 3/4 inch ID black poly pipe on the roof gets free hot water forever during the sunny day time.
With coils separated so the shadow of one pipe doesn't shade the others on south face of roof.
Stainless steal bailing wire holds it in place. With coils on a black flat surface, a HOT water tank above works. Clear visqueen wind break makes steam.
We should build nuclear after that. It is a "Common Sense First" approach that we can do NOW. Should do NOW, Need to do NOW, & sell to the world NOW.
Rewire 3 phase coils to 3 ac circuits.
LED lights run best on AC current, no rectifier control is required. Add lights to suit voltage output.
Battery charging needs 4 diodes to DC & a resistor to limit electric breaking. This sets the out put voltage to that of the battery bank.
Keep It Simple Stupid = KISS method.
Oil or fuel should not be burned to make electricity ever.
Too much energy is wasted in the process, & too much pollution is created.
We must use energy that is being wasted any way, like hydro+solar+wind power.
Burning methane in cars/ships gets rid of the methane instead of venting it.
Venting causes green house effect.
Cap old oil wells now, or use the gas that is venting.
Home heating burns gas responsibly also.
Fire is natures cleanser.
The EU is just the most beautifully ignorant and corrupt insitution to sell hydrogen to a gullible public – and pushing the blame for our energy woes onto Putin is a stroke of genius. Great work FT.
Answer is NO!
Interesting.
NO
Wow, I wonder why we don't use solar energy to make hydrogen as energy storage instead of batteries, especially for rooftops solar?
It’s time we had a reality check to grasp the benefits of Hydrogen. Consider the following.
Cold Fusion (LENR) – Unproven hypothesized type of nuclear reaction that creates nuclear fusion at room temperature by producing more energy than the input energy can be produced from its altered state.
Tokamak Nuclear Fusion Reactor (ITER) – Development cost for the ITER is $150 billion. Requires a temperature of 150 million degrees Celsius to create nuclear fusion. Reportedly the record to date but having to use more input energy than produced is 69 megajoules of fusion energy for five seconds using 0.2 milligrams of fuel.
4,536 Mw (VOGTLE) Nuclear Fission Reactor Costs $35 billion requires 1,282 hectares, nuclear safety costs $200 million per Mw, no technology to deal with nuclear waste and only has a known minable uranium reserve at current extraction rate of 80 years.
The alternative.
Solar Hydrogen Energy Recovery Gas Turbine – 301Kwh of solar energy collected from the sun’s constant nuclear fusion at atmospheric temperature is sufficient for electrolysis to provide the start-up sequence to enable a hydrogen Gas turbine to synchronize with the turbines Variable Frequency Generator and provide constant electrolysis to continually fuel the turbine and operate the energy recovery system on a hydrogen use as produced basis to generate a variably regulated energy range between 80 – 330Mw with optional co-generated steam capacity up to 700Mw of electrical energy on a 24/7 basis.
The turbine consists of three operational parts, cost $36.5 -49.5 million, requires a footprint area the size of a football field, noise level is 60dbl at 60m, incorporates direct air capture of CO2 at 1,400 Kg/sec and includes a 14-year end of life decommissioning or optional refurbishment program.
Sixty-five carbon and pollution free, shovel ready installations generating a total of 21,450 Mw, retrofitted to any of the 120 Hydro-electric schemes would provide Australia's entire energy needs covering a combined operational area of 33 hectares for a 2023 total cost between $2.4-3.3 billion, construction period is 3 to 5 years, meet net zero twenty years earlier and makes wind and solar farms including hydro, gas and nuclear energy production redundant.
16:23 hydrogen for transportation
Anyone in the investing field looking for hydrogen plays, Quebec Innovative Materials aims to extract hydrogen under the ground. Crazy high PPM readings in the soil. More news to follow
Sarawak in East Malaysia also producing hydrogen and SAF and other Renewal Energy Power
Hydrogen is not a fuel. That is, iit is not a source of energy like petroleum – it is only a means of energy ttansport, at which it is extrmely inefficient. It wastes a huge fraction of the energy that is input into the electrolyzers.
Furthermore, to get the energy back out to electricity, you need vast numbers of hydrogen fuel cells which require huge amounts of palladium and other rare earth metals – which we do not have.
It's a shame that policy and finance are so ignorant of basic science and engineering…
thanks
Eñergi yang paling ramah lingkungan, air bila molekulnya berhasil dipisahkan akan menjadi hidrogen dan oksigen yang kedua duanya busa jadi bahan yang mudah terbakar lalu saat dibakar untuk bahan vakar hasilnya akan kembali menjadi air lagi sebagai emisi nya . Jadi sepertinya energi itu hanya berputar di lingku air dan api namun bisa menghasilkan energi yang besar
Moore Jose Robinson Mark Hernandez William
Davis Mark Martin Margaret Hernandez Anna
Puertollano: No tiene puerto, no es llano. Pero tiene hidrógeno, así que guay.
This is The most useless way to waste solar energy
Let's reach zero in something it will be a change
Jackson Frank Anderson Larry Williams Melissa
energy intensive to make enough hydr to replace petawatts of e needed, so it is dirty to make, not the answer. geotherm, solar, limit population, controls on superfluous consuming of you're stupid asian et al walmart crap goods etc
Have you heard of Dennis Lee?
Dennis Lee invented a Free Energy (by Cost Analysis) Panel System that uses a subzero gas that collects heat from anywhere in the world, compresses it to turn water into steam that runs a steam engine in a closed loop. Quite simply really. Easy to manufacture and maintain. It can be retrofitted to Simi Trucks and Rail Car right now. Cheap enough for third world countries to afford.
How much do you think that facility cost to build? You can get better results with just a fraction of the cost of any other system!
They absolutely do know about Dennis Lee's Free Energy Panel System because he was sued by the full force of the U.S. Government and Dennis Lee won. The only person who has ever won a Free Energy lawsuit.
There's a lot of information on Dennis Lee. It's not hard to look up. Compare this video with Dennis Lee's videos. You decide. 11:03
Where is the conversation about safety from contaminating the atmosphere and explosions?
You're damn right it will. Batteries are an awful burden on the planet, including carbon enissions. 7 years is how long it takes to break even with battery manufacturing, nott to mention dirty electricty, which is in abundance in many countries arround the world. I for one dont want anything to do with a product that uses slave labor & doesnt deliver on it's promises, lack of supply chain, no indication when a machine is down, forget rural or remote areas, you'd need a generator in the trunk, oh yeah, what trunk. It's junk!
The graph of the forecast of green hydrogen cost in favourable locations, such a Spain, predicts less than $2 per kilo by 2023.
Reality check, greenwash alert!:
"Giant Spanish green hydrogen project lowers ambitions"
"Argus currently calculates costs for producing hydrogen in Spain using dedicated solar PV and wind assets and a 100MW electrolyser at just under €4.70/kg."
That is over $5 over 2.5 x higher than predicted by this presentation. Furthermore this includes the use of wind to increase the capacity factor of the electrolysis, which should reduce costs, not nearly triple them.
Then unless you're using it virtually on site, you've got transport/distribution, storage and dispensing costs to add and economies of stale won't help much here. For example, a 10 fold increase in hydrogen filling stations will need a 10 fold increase in the number of hydrogen delivery trucks you need, and the cost of those ain't going to reduce much with scaling.