Since it's not being said unambiguously: yes, it's correct; it works the same as Spanish .
When you have zero of something you use the plural:
0 hours, no cows, zero degrees, etc.
The singular is used exclusively for when there is exactly one of something.
Stylistically, "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usual, but can be appropriate when you have tasks of varying lengths in the minutes to hours range and want to express the times in the same style.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/892/Jack Aidley
It's not "incorrect," but normally you'd omit the hours instead:
The process required five minutes.
I suppose there are some exceptions.
For example, I can see where an author might decide keep the zero for the sake of parallelism: Process A required 2 hours and 12 minutes.
Process B required 1 hour and 47 minutes.
Process C required 0 hours and 14 minutes.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/113/J.R.
J.R.'s answer is the correct one, deserves the tick, and all the rest
but since no one else mentioned it—
No , it's highly unusual to bother mentioning “ zero hours ” of time but,
yes , it is common military jargon to say “ zero hundred hours .”
It’s not talking about a time period of 0 hours but about the time of day 00:00 (i.e., midnight).
It’s part of the military’s way of reading their 24-hour clock but, of course, the hours don’t actually include 100 minutes, just the normal 60.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/52137/lly
Not typically.
I can't think of any situation other than where text has been produced artificially.
The correct way of saying it would be: The process required 5 minutes Because zero by its definition means nothing, it's not included.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/79758/Crushed Under
As a former technical writer (and native speaker), I answer “yes and no.”
It is correct usage to use the plural for zero.
However, in writing, it is better to spell out short numbers instead of using digits.
Defining “short” in this context is tricky.
I think almost all would agree anything under ten.
For me personally, it’s any single-word number.
For example, seven, seventeen, seventy, hundred, but digits for 77, 101, etc.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/43210/WGroleau
Not to be too contrarian, but there are some idioms that use 'zero' with 'hour' singular, not plural.
To quote Elton John/Bernie Taupin in "Rocket Man":
"She packed my bags last night, pre-flightZero hour:
9:00 a.mAnd I'm gonna be high as a kite by then" "Zero hour" is the start of something.
The universe's zero hour was the moment of the Big Bang.
ell.stackexchange.com/users/28413/user8356
Spanish uses the singular to refer to one and the plural to refer more than one or zero of something. Is the same for material things and other abstract concepts, for example, time measures: hours, minutes, seconds...  Examples:   Tengo 1 hora libre.       Faltan 2 horas para terminar.       Finalizará en 0 horas 5 minutos y 2 segundos.   Is it correct, in English, to say, for example?   The process required 0 hours and 5 minutes.
Is it correct to say "0 hours"?
ell.stackexchange.com
<singular-vs-plural>
ell.stackexchange.com/questions/174489
ell.stackexchange.com/users/45482/Orici
When you have zero of something you use the plural. The singular is used exclusively for when there is exactly one of something. However, stylistically, "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usually used but can be appropriate when you have tasks of varying lengths in the minutes to hours range and want to express the times in the same style. Normally you would omit the hours if the number of hours was zero. With zero you use plural
As in Spanish, the singular is only used when there is one of something. While "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usual, it could be used to highlight that there are no hours.