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’
34 Comments
Good video. Do a video on thin film solar on standing seam metal roof.
NO
Definitely this is the future, methanol liquid 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 .
I watch it for a hours💀
Digging into the #science of #hydrogen as a #feul
We set out to assess the current science in a paper, and find that under the right circumstances, hydrogen could indeed be part of a clean energy transition. But done wrong, it could be worse for the near-term climate than the fossil fuels it would replace.
While carbon dioxide can be a byproduct of hydrogen production, hydrogen itself emits no carbon dioxide when burned or used in a fuel cell. But when emitted into the atmosphere, hydrogen contributes to climate change by increasing the amounts of other greenhouse gases such as methane, ozone and water vapor, resulting in indirect warming.
That’s a problem because hydrogen’s small molecule is difficult to contain. It is known to easily leak into the atmosphere throughout the value chain. The farther it travels between production and end-use the greater the potential for leakage.
That much is well understood. But it turns out we know very little about how much hydrogen actually escapes from real-world systems. It hasn’t been clear because there has been no reason to look beyond basic safety thresholds — until now.
This is because traditional metrics systematically ignore the near-term impact of hydrogen and other short-lived climate-forcing agents by expressing the warming effects from a one-time pulse of emissions over a 100-year timeframe (GWP-100), masking a much bigger, more immediate influence.
There is another reason the warming effects of hydrogen have been underestimated. Until recently, every estimate of hydrogen’s climate-forcing power considered only the troposphere and not effects in the stratosphere. Accounting for both reveals that hydrogen has greater warming potential than is typically recognized.
Applying the combined atmospheric effects over a shorter, more relevant timeframe, we estimate the five-year warming power from a pulse of hydrogen relative to CO2 is 20 times greater than current calculations show using the standard 100-year approach.
And when we look at the relative warming impact from continuous instead of pulse emissions — which are more representative of the real world — hydrogen is 100X more potent than CO2 emissions over a 10-year period.
Net zero will occur at the same time as the Second Coming.
People are gonna cry about it like innthe early days woth petroleum and then with electrics as they want to provw that the new technology will not suffice as they are using more mineral extensive evs which requires more maintenace than a bullock cart 😂.
The idea that human caused greenhouse gas emissions is causing global warming is marketing not science. In the back of the nearly 200 page United Nation's IPCC science report it tells the truth it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases or earth's greenhouse effect by stating it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the whole air column would be sampled. All greenhouse radiant energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface in earth's greenhouse effect. Global warming has been at about 1°C for over thirty years as of 2023. Global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C typically rounded to 1.1°C. There is no correlation between global warming and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
By stating it took its greenhouse samples at 20,000 meters altitude it can be legally argued the IPCC has been transparent with its data and is therefore not engaged in fraud, because it is high school taught science earth's greenhouse is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature that takes place within 20 meters from the surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapor. I well educated high school student should known that by sampling greenhouse gases at 20,000 meters altitude the IPCC is not dealing with active greenhouse gases and thus mechanism pertinent to global warming. This is the same type of marketing that takes place with a beverage labeled as "All Natural Fruit Flavors" then in the ingredients it tells the truth "contains no actual fruit juices"
Whichcountrywillwinthehydrogenracewillitbegermanychinajapanaustraliaorindiagodsrulewilltruelybetheirs
no
Hydrogen DOA
Excellent documentary on Hydrogen and zero carbon foot print. Good news for 22st century revolutionary way to save earth..
Why can't you convert solar energy to battery form and use when you want.
No, it is stupid in design to take power from hydrogen back is 5 times less. hydrogen is only worth it if want to replace OI.
the world needs new tech batteries and capacitors
other tech -what is from the future is energy fast draft or like filters something like capacitors "from low charge – charges up to higher values" in industrial scales
Water vapor from hydrogen is the WORST green house gas and will create more clouds, heavier rains and flooding and greenhouse effect. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Its also about $40 a gallon. And it is created by burning COAL, not nat gas. Instead of wasting all this money on scams that enrich the politicians, why not just stop it all, lower the prices of cars so people can afford them and make PROFITS to enrich the shareholders.
Interesting to see Hydrogen costs are reported to be decreasing.
This is a very good documentary …
No.
The only advantage of H2 is it’s big inner energy, but to realize these gravimetric 39,4 kWh/kg H2 the electric or chemical expense exceeds the revenue. All other is desire-thinking and irreal😂
Clean Energy and Clean Tech 🎉🌿🌿🌿
Someone is making a lot of money at the tax payers expense.
great documentary to list all names to short as soon as magic R&D budgets will be over
22:45 it's really that simple. electrification and nuclear are generally more feasible and the better choice, overall, in most cases but when they aren't, alternatives such as hydrogen could be and should be of great use. it is not either or and anyone who says so is presenting a false dichotomy. the energy transition WILL demand the use and implementation of as many different sources of renewables as possible. hydrogen is part of that.
Everything in a circle. Takes too much electricity to make hydrogen , same as distillation from sea water, lithium not the answer too. We’re running out of water that grow our food. Same as ethanol from corn, also biodiesel or biomass they are cutting down forest and reserves. As a circle the green people are destroying the earth. We’re mining all country for lithium that nature separate this poison from ground water over decade. We’re going to mix it up again everywhere on top of we don’t need lithium, watch in a few yr million of these fire hazard batteries get more easy to catch fire. The tech not ready.
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
@FT, @DOE, @EUC
My father in Las Vegas has been researching and designing hydrogen systems for at least ten years.
Enjoy.
Hydrogen takes 3 times as much energy as you get back. SO that's NO for storage and land transport because pumped hydro and batteries work better. But hydrrogen will be useful for synfuels for airlines, and to replace coking coal in metals manufacture that require a reductant, and some green chemistry – and maybe SOMEindustrial heat (but most will be direct electricity and thermal batteries for that.) So NO to hydrogen in cars and trucks and grid storage, but yes the others
Can you say inflation?
I used to be lukewarm about hydrogen but recently read about a project at the hospital Rijnstate in Elst, the Netherlands which changed my views. They have a huge array of solar panels of which the electricity oversupply will be stored in a local hydrogen tank by electrolysis. When electricity is needed the hydrogen is converted to electricity by a fuel cell.
They also use all the waste heat in the entire round trip process for heating the hospital which increases the efficiency significantly. Because of the waste heat re-use and because it takes less area they choose this solution over batteries.
The solar panels never feed electricity back into the grid which also prevents those problems. So the grid is not burdened by this renewable solution, and the grid electricity usage has gone down to some 40% of the original grid electricity usage.
There’s a lot to look forward to in this video. I’m happy to have watched it and it was very informative.
Having said that (and with an understanding that a certain ideology comes along with the Financial Times given it’s name) you all could stand to have interviewees explain why it has to be the private sector that saves us and why it’s so crucial for Europe to be more business friendly. An uncritical relationship with free marketeer neoliberalism kept Big Tobacco untouchable for decades, paved the way for Big Pharma to create the opioid epidemic, led to bank bailouts after they almost ruined the world with their greed, and has gotten us face to face with climate change as we know it today after half a century of corporate propaganda. Again, lots to be hopeful for, but we can’t continue to blindly worship the private sector.
This film/ talk missed (like so many others I have watched)such an obvious problem that I can only believe it's deliberate. That problem is that when you split water to its two atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, you destroy the water. Now, on a small scale, this may be justified, but just like the auto industry, when the internal combustion engine was invented, no one foresaw the effect it would have on society and human health as mass production took its numbers going to 1.5 billion registered vehicles approximately we see today, so what sort of trouble do you foresee from the destruction of billions of litres of water per year,considering its the staff of life.
how much cost per cube meter of hydrogen
Very very good.
CO2 is life it makes the world green not dead SEARCH AND YE SHALL FIND . Lies lies lies makes liars millionaires