Academician Bao Xinhe: China has scarce oil and natural gas resources, but plenty of coal. Yet many provinces fear coal! This is the only thing we can do!

Thread Content

Academician Bao Xinhe: China has scarce oil and natural gas resources, but plenty of coal. Yet many provinces fear coal! This is the only thing we can do! Author/Source: Bao Xinhe, President of the University of Science and Technology of China and Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Date: 2021-12-16. Clicks: 29. Today, I would like to discuss with you, from the perspective of a scientist, the issue of coordinated development between the economy and the ecological environment. Many environmental problems are related to energy, and energy is inseparable from chemistry. So, from the perspective of chemists, what will the energy world of the future look like? In green and sustainable development, what exactly can chemistry do? The most important thing here is catalysis science. We are all in chemistry, and we are very proud. We’ve always said that chemistry is the central science; we live in a chemical age. In the entire energy landscape, what chemistry essentially deals with are these three elements: one is carbon, one is hydrogen, and one is oxygen. Carbon combines with oxygen; when there’s more oxygen, it becomes carbon dioxide ； When carbon combines with hydrogen, it forms hydrocarbons; hydrocarbons are what constitute our oils and chemicals ； When hydrogen combines with oxygen, it forms water, or some other form of water; basically, that’s what chemistry is all about. Catalysis is a very important field in chemistry. As we can see, whether it’s electrolyzing water, carrying out conversion reactions, or processing carbon dioxide, none of these processes can be done without catalysis. To understand how catalysis can promote the development of a green economy, focus should be placed on these three aspects: one is the optimal utilization of fossil resources, that is, how to make good use of fossil resources ； The second thing is whether it’s possible for us to make use of carbon dioxide ； The third issue, which is also a matter of great concern to everyone nowadays, is the use of hydrogen energy in fuel cells. How exactly should we view this? First, let’s take a look at our **overall energy environment**: what challenges do we face regarding green development? 1. With “scarce oil and limited natural gas”, how can we unleash the tremendous potential of coal through catalysis? In the world’s energy structure, about one-third is coal, about one-third is oil, and about one-third is natural gas; there is also a portion that comes from renewable sources. But for China, the situation is different. For a long time, coal has been the dominant component of China’s energy mix; in some regions, it accounts for as much as 80%. However, due to changes in recent years, the proportion of coal usage in our energy mix has been gradually decreasing. Last year, coal accounted for roughly 60% of our total energy consumption. At the current rate of oil extraction, China’s proven recoverable oil reserves will last for about twelve years, natural gas for around thirty years; coal reserves are greater, lasting approximately forty to fifty years, or even longer. In terms of external dependence… For example, when I go to fill up my car with fuel now, about 70% of it is imported, while 30% is produced in China itself ； Approximately 45% of natural gas is imported, while about 50% is produced domestically by us. China’s energy intensity is very high. But what does energy intensity mean? With a GDP of 10,000 dollars, the amount of energy consumed in China is not comparable to that consumed in other countries. At the beginning of this century, our energy consumption was roughly 8 to 10 times that of Japan. In other words, to produce $10,000 worth of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), we consume, say, 8 units of coal. The Japanese, on the other hand, might consume only 1 unit of coal. Therefore, our efficiency is indeed very poor. Additionally, coal burning causes severe pollution to our air and water. How exactly will China develop? Looking at the data on China’s dependence on imports for oil and natural gas from 2000 to 2018, what exactly do we mean by “dependence”? In other words, how much do we actually need to import? In 2018, about 45% of our natural gas came from imports, while our reliance on imported oil was around 70%. But how much oil do we produce per year now? The maximum output is probably less than 200 million tons; currently it’s around 190 million tons, but we need 600 million tons of oil. Next, we certainly won’t be able to develop that much, but for China, the resource that accounts for the largest share is, relatively speaking, coal. Nature has its own arrangement: the Middle East has abundant oil, while China, relatively speaking, has more coal. In some coal mines, layers of coal that are several dozen meters thick can be found there; it’s just piled up in that area. We then use machines to extract it, and what we get is coal – high-quality coal at that. Therefore, for China, there is one thing that is very necessary to do—and it’s a strategic task—namely, how to transform our existing resources, specifically coal, into more oil, natural gas, or chemical products. Americans don’t produce this stuff, because they have plenty of oil and natural gas; there’s no need to use coal for this purpose at all. Will Europeans do it? Europeans don’t do it either. So in fact, this aspect is highly characteristic of China, and we must definitely keep it as a strategic reserve for us. But will it start operating as a factory for mass production right after that? It’s not certain; it depends on the economic situation. When there’s economic demand, I’ll use it; when there isn’t, I won’t. But we must know how to convert coal into oil or chemicals – that’s what we’ve been working on all along. I think many of us here are also doing this, and it is the Chinese who do it best. For example, in the field of coal-to-oil conversion, China has an annual production capacity of 160,000 tons; there are many facilities for this purpose in China, and the largest such facility is located in Ningdong, Ningxia. The largest unit can enable us to produce 4 million tons of oil per year; this is a very substantial amount. China has also done something by first converting coal into methanol, and then turning that methanol into olefins. Olefins are compounds composed of carbon and hydrogen, and they are important basic raw materials in the chemical industry. It is widely used in the production of various products such as plastics, rubber, clothing, automobiles, furniture, decorative materials, and packaging materials. Industrially, olefins are primarily produced through petroleum cracking, and can also be synthesized from other raw materials such as methanol and ethanol. If olefins can be produced directly from coal, it is possible to **reduce oil consumption**. After coal is converted into methanol, methanol is then turned into olefins, and those are further transformed into polyolefins; this entire process constitutes an industrial chain. How did we obtain olefins in the past? It is all naphtha produced during the refining process, which is cracked to produce olefins. About 3 tons of naphtha can be produced from 10 tons of crude oil; 1 ton of olefins can be obtained from 3 tons of naphtha, and it takes 10 tons of crude oil to produce 1 ton of olefins. In China, we consume around 40 million tons of olefins per year; in other words, an oil refining capacity of 400 million tons is required to meet such demand. As you can see now, there are over 10 million tons that we can obtain from coal, which solves a major problem. Therefore, this is very important for the Chinese people. But when it comes to coal, many places are hesitant. Why are they hesitant? One reason is that coal is polluting, and the other is that China still lacks water. As we all know, some people may be familiar with coal chemical industry; to develop this industry, water is absolutely necessary. How on earth do we solve such a problem? So, let me first show you what coal actually is. Don’t think that coal is just carbon; it isn’t. You have to look at the coal carefully, all the way to its interior; it contains many molecules. Through photosynthesis, nature combines carbon dioxide and water; when hydrogen and carbon are combined, they form various aromatic hydrocarbons. After such hydrocarbon molecules are buried underground, they gradually remain there. Many of these molecules are exactly what we need. So, people are wondering: Is it possible to use a catalyst to literally “cut” coal apart, like using scissors, so that it becomes something we need? As we all know, in oil refining, catalysts are used to break down the oil products in order to obtain what we need. So, isn’t it possible that one day we’ll find a catalyst for this coal, or some way to break it down? Wouldn’t that be exactly what we need? In 1924, two Germans—one named Franz Fischer and the other Hans Tropsch—developed this process, which became known as the “Fischer-Tropsch process”. For over ninety years, it has been such a process. “How does the “Fischer-Tropsch process” work? It is a reaction in which water reacts with carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide; this is the water-gas shift reaction. Next, this hydrogen is used to remove the oxygen from carbon monoxide, turning it into water; when carbon monoxide reacts with hydrogen, it becomes CH2 (a low-carbon olefin). So what have we done so far? Over these past ten-odd years, we have been doing one thing: instead of using the F-T reaction catalyst, we use another type of oxide as a catalyst. The catalyst is simply used to react this carbon monoxide with oxygen, turning it into carbon dioxide, while the carbon reacts with hydrogen to form this substance. One advantage is that no water is needed; recycling is no longer necessary ； Another advantage is that these three steps of the reaction are ultimately reduced to just one step. At present, the best results in the world, for example in the production of olefins, achieve a low-carbon hydrocarbon selectivity of only 58%. So, we’ll use this reaction for that purpose, because it has high selectivity; it can achieve a selectivity for low-carbon hydrocarbons of over 90% in one go. As we all know, there’s a huge difference between this 58 percent and 90-odd percent. After this development, we didn’t just respond in that way; we further promoted this concept. It essentially serves as a platform that can, at the very least, help reduce water usage, carbon dioxide emissions, and energy consumption. This is because the process itself is energy-efficient, and it also exhibits high reaction selectivity. So this process is also a green process. Why do I say that catalysis can support green development? What supports this coordinated development? Well, this is also one of the things we do – using catalysis in the coal chemical industry to support green development. Global warming has become a major obstacle to the sustainable economic and social development of humanity. Greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a rise in the global average temperature, causing ice cap melting, extreme weather events, and sea level rise, thereby threatening human survival. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas today, and it represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity; the United Nations has made numerous efforts specifically to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, in the eyes of scientists, carbon dioxide is not only a hazard but also a readily available \"carbon source.\" If it can be transformed into something useful through technological means, it will not only help mitigate the greenhouse effect caused by carbon emissions but can also be reused as an ideal source of energy. How can the culprit behind the greenhouse effect be turned into a resource for our sustainable development? 2. Can catalysis transform the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into something useful? What is the greenhouse effect? When we were kids, we bought ice pops in the countryside. The person who sold them would place the ice pops in a box and cover it with a blanket; when someone came to buy them, they could take one for a few cents each. When I was a kid, I never understood why ice pops had to be covered with a blanket Aren’t ice pops sensitive to heat? Isn’t it hotter if you cover yourself with a blanket? Because we generally have this impression: we only use blankets in winter when it’s cold. So, why would anyone sell ice pops covered with a blanket? I gradually came to understand that, in fact, covering with a blanket is meant to insulate and prevent heat from escaping, thereby achieving a warming effect. So now people believe that when there is too much carbon dioxide, it creates something like a blanket in our atmosphere that covers the Earth. But where does Earth’s energy come from? It comes from the sun, and a large portion of the sun’s energy is emitted into the atmosphere as infrared light, thereby helping to maintain a relatively stable temperature on Earth. Well, if we cover the Earth with a “blanket,” thick or thin, wouldn’t it be harder for the energy from the sun to escape? Hasn’t the Earth’s temperature increased? So according to this theory, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Around 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere each year in the world. In the early years, China’s carbon dioxide emissions were very low – the total amount emitted was minimal, and per capita emissions were even lower. At that time, developed countries such as those in Europe and America emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide. In recent years, this quantity has been gradually increasing. After the reform and opening up, and following the significant economic growth, our carbon dioxide emissions were very high. According to statistics, as of 2018, China emitted around 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, with a significant amount of this emissions coming from industrial activities. Its energy structure, which relies heavily on coal, places considerable pressure on China’s environment. The international community got together to discuss this matter. Everyone agreed that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that it has a significant impact on global temperature rise as well as the environment. So people are considering restricting carbon dioxide emissions. Westerners say that restrictions should be imposed first, a total limit should be set, and whatever needs to be reduced should be reduced first. Therefore, whether it is the Paris Agreement or climate negotiations, China has played a significant role in them. Finally, China believes that the West developed earlier, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accumulated over the course of hundreds or even thousands of years of emissions. Well, now that China wants to develop, and the West suddenly imposes restrictions, we find ourselves unable to emit anything. There was a time when planes flying to Europe had to pay a carbon tax; otherwise, they were not allowed to land, due to the carbon dioxide emissions produced by airplanes. So, in the event that one day it becomes widely recognized around the world that carbon dioxide is a problem, and that the Chinese are responsible for one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions, then taxes must be imposed on the Chinese – and we really won’t be able to do anything about it, right? Everyone is asking again: Can I use energy without emitting carbon dioxide? But we know that whenever fossil fuels are used, carbon combined with oxygen always produces carbon dioxide. One ton of coal results in the emission of more than two or three tons of carbon dioxide. Some people say that carbon dioxide is a source of energy, so I should use less energy. But wouldn’t using less energy pose a problem for development? China wishes to assure the international community that there is a relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and development; however, it doesn’t mean that reducing CO2 emissions will necessarily slow down development. From this perspective, there is no direct correlation between reducing carbon dioxide emissions and development; in other words, we still need to find ways to use renewable energy sources in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which would be beneficial for the international community as well as for everyone else. But now, suppose there aren’t many available renewable energy sources, and carbon dioxide has already been emitted, or will be emitted soon—what should we do? The Americans came up with a solution called CCS, which stands for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. This involves collecting the carbon dioxide that is produced, purifying it, and then compressing it. Haven’t we already opened so many coal mines? Ultimately, can we store this compressed carbon dioxide in mines or within rocks? Some also say to hide it at the bottom of the sea. The method used by Americans is called CCS (Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage). It’s very costly, but everyone is doing it. Let’s all consider whether it is a viable idea to place compressed carbon dioxide beneath rock layers or somewhere else Of course, it’s quite good if it’s well-preserved. But what if there’s an earthquake one day or some other natural disaster occurs? What is the key question? The cost is extremely high – how high exactly? For example, the energy efficiency of our highest-capacity power plants is currently around 50% – half of the waste heat is lost, while the other half is used to generate electricity. If this method is used, the power generation efficiency will drop to 40% in the future. In other words, 10% of the energy will be used to handle carbon dioxide. So, is this really a suitable approach? But it’s still being researched now, and no place has done this on a large scale. But soon someone will ask, can we make use of carbon dioxide? What has anyone been doing recently? In electrocatalytic conversion, carbon dioxide and methane are co-converted into the chemical methanol; in the future, this methanol can be further transformed into substances like ethylene and ethanol. Suppose that in the future, we can use electricity to convert carbon dioxide on an electrode into chemicals we need, using substances like water or methane. I believe this process is still feasible. Electrochemical processes can be scaled up quite effectively; they also have relatively high Faraday efficiency and good specificity. Actually, what is one important thing? The conversion of carbon dioxide can be viewed as a process of energy storage. In other words, you harness wind energy and convert carbon dioxide into methanol; in effect, the electrical energy generated by photovoltaic systems is used to produce methanol, thereby storing energy within it. When methanol is burned, energy is released. Many people wonder whether it might be possible in the future to create leaves, as leaves use photosynthesis to convert water and carbon dioxide into the hydrocarbons we need. So is it possible in the future to use artificial leaves for direct conversion? Others use a photoreactor to directly add carbon dioxide and water; when light is shone on it, over the catalyst, we can obtain fuel and oils. Is it possible for these to convert carbon dioxide in the context of renewable energy? I think it’s possible, but I don’t know when it will be achieved; it will depend on everyone working together on this. I think we all have a long way to go; scientifically, these things are feasible, but turning them into actual actions requires a lot of effort from everyone, so it is a wonderful vision. Humanity’s pursuit of energy is endless, and various new forms of energy are making their mark in an effort to take a dominant role in the future energy landscape. Hydrogen is one such form of energy; it is known as the ultimate energy source of the 21st century. As people expect, hydrogen energy is inexhaustible, clean, and efficient; it does not produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nor does it pose the risk of depletion associated with fossil fuels. In 2018, China designated that year as the starting point for the development of the hydrogen energy and fuel cell industry, while Japan became the first country in the world to make the development of hydrogen energy a **strategic** priority. However, it is undeniable that hydrogen energy is not yet the most convenient and practical form of energy; many critical technical challenges still hinder its widespread use. In the future, how will we address the issue that hydrogen is currently produced primarily from fossil fuels? How to overcome the issues of durability in hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen storage? Can the vision of using hydrogen as a new energy source by 2050 be realized? 3. Can catalysis help accelerate the arrival of a hydrogen society? These days, there is a lot of talk in society about hydrogen energy, as well as a hydrogen economy and a hydrogen society – people are discussing such things. But those of us in the field of chemistry need to make a judgment as to what hydrogen energy will actually be like What will be the future path? Under what circumstances can we talk about hydrogen energy? Let’s take a look at what hydrogen energy actually is. When energy-related carbon reacts with oxygen—for instance, when air mixes with fuels like gasoline or diesel and encounters a spark, an explosion occurs. This explosion takes place inside the cylinder, producing hot and high-pressure gases that push the piston to do work. This is how internal combustion engines function. The efficiency of the energy conversion in such engines is roughly 30-40%; the remaining 60-70% of the energy is lost. Carbon exists in nature, and we can extract it, but it produces greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide. So as we can see, nature is still quite balanced and fair; whenever something good appears, something bad will inevitably arise as a result. Hydrogen is great; when it reacts with oxygen, it produces water. But the problem is that in nature, hydrogen doesn’t exist on its own. Hydrogen can be used in fuel cells, and it operates with high efficiency—up to 60%. However, there is no hydrogen in nature. We’ve never heard of anyone who could dig up a hydrogen mine anywhere. Therefore, although the use of hydrogen energy produces water and causes no pollution, hydrogen as a raw material does not exist in nature. Why do people think of using hydrogen? As we can see, in terms of the development of energy sources for humans, wood was the earliest source. Wood is essentially carbon, with a little bit of hydrogen as well ； After that comes coal; in coal, there’s roughly two parts carbon to one part hydrogen ； Later on, it evolved to oil; oil consists of roughly two parts hydrogen and one part carbon ； After that comes natural gas, which is four parts hydrogen and one part carbon. Looking at this development process, it is evident that humanity’s progress in energy development has been moving gradually in the direction of higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratios. Hydrogen does not exist in nature, but it can be produced from water through electrolysis, and it can be linked to renewable energy sources. With these conditions in place, people believe that hydrogen could be a very important energy source in the future. What role might hydrogen play in our energy system in the future? So, how does the current energy system work? Fossil fuels can be transformed into liquid materials, such as oil, which ultimately reach the end users. Another very important point is that fossil fuels can be used to generate electricity, which is then delivered to end-users. But I believe that no matter how the future evolves, there will never be a shortage of electricity. Whether it’s nuclear energy, solar power, or wind power, electricity is indispensable. But can electricity power a plane? There are no such planes yet. If, in the future, hydrogen fuel cells become available for powering airplanes and ships, it would be similar to how oil is used today. Therefore, in the future energy system, hydrogen could potentially replace liquid fuels. To develop hydrogen energy, there will be a very long industrial chain involved. Firstly, hydrogen does not exist in nature; you need to produce it first, and then store it, convert it, and apply it. So as you can see, there are many researchers throughout the entire industry chain working on this task. For example, in terms of the production process, there are many methods for generating hydrogen, such as through fossil fuels, water electrolysis, chemical raw materials, and industrial exhaust gases. Globally, about 500 billion cubic meters of hydrogen is consumed each year. Unfortunately, within this hydrogen production structure, only 4% comes from renewable energy sources, while 96% originates from fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels results in carbon dioxide emissions; therefore, to develop a hydrogen economy based on fuel cells, it is essential to integrate them with renewable energy sources. In the future, it will be possible to develop renewable energy sources; using light, wind, and nuclear power to electrolyze water into hydrogen. Only then can hydrogen energy be utilized on a wide scale. So, to use a marketing slogan: there is actually no hydrogen in nature, nor any hydrogen energy. Hydrogen energy is essentially just a carrier for renewable energy, used to transport it from one place to another. So, what are the key challenges we face when it comes to utilizing hydrogen energy? After all this time, why hasn’t it been accomplished? Where exactly is the problem? As you can see, one aspect is manufacturing technology – how to make fuel cells extremely reliable. Hydrogen and oxygen do not react in this fuel cell; a catalyst is necessary. What is a catalyst? Precious metal catalysts, using things like platinum, palladium, and ruthenium. This precious metal adsorbs hydrogen or oxygen; only after dissociation do hydrogen and oxygen react on the surface, and it is through electron transfer following this reaction that electricity is generated. So, after some calculations, it seems that the best technology available at present is one that requires around 50 grams of platinum per vehicle, given the current conditions. Who among you has a platinum necklace or ring these days? It’s not that easy to get one that weighs 50 grams, right? It takes 50 grams to make a car. It’s not a problem to spend some money; for example, for those who have money now, how much would 50 grams cost? 50 grams – I guess it might cost tens of thousands of yuan; maybe it’s possible to get it though? Isn’t it? It might not necessarily be a big deal, but there isn’t such a large quantity of these precious metals in nature; that’s where the problem lies. So, what kind of research came out as a result? Non-precious metal catalysts for fuel cells. Problems regarding the durability of fuel cells have seen relatively good breakthroughs. So why is there this problem? In the laboratory, fuel cells can operate for 3,000 or 5,000 hours without any problems. But once they’re installed in a vehicle and put into use, they fail after just 1,000–2,000 hours. Why isn’t it possible anymore? Fuel cells need to draw in air, right? There are particles in the air, and within those particles there is metal, precious metals, as well as sulfur. Once this substance is inhaled, it gradually poisons the catalyst in the fuel cell. It is because of these things that the membrane gets clogged, and the catalyst becomes poisoned. It worked fine in the laboratory, but it doesn’t work here. The next very important thing is hydrogen storage. As we all know, hydrogen is used, and there are also hydrogen storage cylinders in laboratories. Hydrogen is very light, right? You need to take this hydrogen onto the vehicle; you can’t use something too large – it must be kept very small. Now there are three ways to make it very small. One way is to compress hydrogen; that is, to compress hydrogen into a cylinder. Aren’t we using gas cylinders now? But the cylinders in our laboratory are at around 130 atmospheres or 150 atmospheres; there are few in the lab that operate at over 200 atmospheres. It is said that China is now setting standards for vehicles, aiming for 350 atmospheres; what is the target for the Japanese? 700 atmospheres. As you can see, 700 atmospheres is a little over twice as much as 300 atmospheres, and it’s 5 times more than 150 atmospheres, right? In other words, a steel tank at 150 atmospheres can supply enough hydrogen for the vehicle to travel 100 kilometers; if the pressure is 700 atmospheres, the same tank can provide enough hydrogen for a distance of around 500 kilometers. So, hydrogen storage tanks are still the better option for storing hydrogen; this is what is generally done around the world these days. What is the second thing? Just cool down the hydrogen to turn it into liquid hydrogen. Cool it down to this temperature, and then release it. This hydrogen has a very high density, but it is unsafe, and it requires a lot of energy to cool it down. Moreover, during transportation, it’s necessary to prevent the bottles from leaking. Once they leak, heat gets in and then is released, which could potentially cause an explosion. If this pressure were too high, wouldn’t it explode? Therefore, there are still problems regarding security. Thirdly, this is all related to chemistry – material hydrogen storage. There are various types of hydrogen storage materials – polymer-based ones, metal-based ones, those using nanocarbon tubes, and all kinds of others. But unfortunately, to date the weight percentage has not reached 6%. In other words, 100 kilograms of hydrogen storage material cannot store even 6 kilograms of hydrogen; the efficiency of hydrogen storage is extremely low! It would be great if, one day, hydrogen storage could reach around 10%. Because the pressure isn’t very high, right? It’s stored right inside this. So, once fuel cells are developed, the issue of hydrogen storage still needs to be taken into consideration; you can’t move forward without addressing it. The Japanese have been making significant efforts to promote hydrogen energy recently. As many of you may know, just how far have they gone? It is set to become widespread by 2040, with 40,000 units available by 2020. As you can see, the Japanese use 700 atmospheres of pressure to store hydrogen, with a hydrogen storage weight ratio of around 7.5%. In other words, if a large bottle is used here, it can travel a long distance. Its range, reportedly, can reach 1,000 kilometers by the year 2040. Think about it: if a single tank of fuel allows you to drive 1,000 kilometers, that’s pretty good, right? In China, demonstration projects involving fuel cell vehicles have been carried out since the Olympics. Starting from the World Expo in Shanghai, such demonstrations have been ongoing; they’re still being conducted today. They’ve been quite successful. But there are still many problems, especially regarding hydrogen production. As we all know, Zhangjiakou will host the Winter Olympics in 2022, and it is hoped that hydrogen fuel cells can be promoted as part of those Olympics. Therefore, they have recently launched a project to generate electricity using wind and solar energy, to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis, and then to use this hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles. If this is successfully carried out, I believe it will be quite meaningful. Economically, it might not yield immediate results or reach the level of being economically viable; but at the very least, it serves as a model for the future. Therefore, China also has a goal: by 2035, it hopes to bring the price of one kilogram of hydrogen down to 25 yuan. One kilogram of hydrogen occupies about 11 cubic meters. It is said that with modern vehicles, one kilogram of hydrogen can enable the vehicle to travel just under 100 kilometers. Does everyone know how much oil costs per liter now? It’s probably around six or seven yuan per liter, right? So how far can one liter of fuel get you? A car generally covers about 100 kilometers on a full tank of fuel; a good car consumes around five to six liters of fuel per 100 kilometers, while larger SUVs may need around 15 liters. So that would cost 60 yuan, right? Well, if the amount of hydrogen consumed per 100 kilometers could be reduced to 1 kilogram, and the cost for driving 100 kilometers were 25 yuan, then it would be 25 yuan per 50 kilometers, which I think is a reasonable price.