For anyone interested in learning more about hydrogen combustion engines/fuel cells, here are two videos explaining the fundamentals: How Hydrogen Piston Engines Work - czcams.com/video/l6ECwRnJ0Sg/video.html How Hydrogen Fuel Cells Work - czcams.com/video/0jnZFGx_4kY/video.html
the best engine is the electric one since its energy travels by cables not by trucks and boats that consume more fuel with an efficiency that does not even reach 40%, also because fewer parts are needed gearboxes, spark plugs, starter batteries, clutches , sensors, air filter, fuel filter, oil filter, catalyst etc, which means to spend less energy in the manufacture and transportation of all those parts. Electric vehicles pollute less because they do not discard as many parts during their useful life and waste control would be simpler because recycling the batteries and having to declare their replacement would suffice. It would be much simpler and more efficient to use oil, natural gas, hydrogen etc in power plants and from there feed the EV since the stationary engines are more efficient and it is not the same to take the fuel to a point in the territory and then the Energy trip by wires that take it to all the gas stations. And heat treatments and melting so much metal for combustion vehicles spends a lot of energy.
So... You're saying I won't be able to convert the engine in my classic car to run on hydrogen, because I was hoping for conversion kits? Now I have to swap in a fuel cell at best or go electric? @engineeringexplained
Why not plain old ordinary 2 cycle engines, like Evinrude? What about a 2 cycle engine with computer controlled DC motors (from the machine tool industry) for each wheel?
@@ME-kp5iz while that is true, keep in mind that battery technology is pretty much in its infancy - there are many chemistries being explored at the moment - efforts focused on reducing cost (by using more readily available materials), reducing wieght per KWh (which will improve efficiency of EV's), improved charging speed and improved safety, both during production, during use and eventual disposal. We will make many mistakes, and I expect we will have a few breakthroughs in the next decade, and possible overcome many shortcomings of battery technology. Currently hydrogen production, transport and use has its fair share of unacceptable environmental impacts too (and being improved). One thing that is certain, as far as I can see, is the fossil fuel powered vehicles is going the way of the dodo slowly. Which technology replaces it? - exciting times!
You forgot to mention that fuel cell vehicles don't make vroom vroom noises, which is something that the internet likes to bring out as a k.o. argument as to why they would never drive an EV.
This is why people should be able to load in their own engine sounds. You could choose different types, like a Ferrari, or an Indy car, or a tie fighter.
@Dimetri Drossos what is def fluid...and why would it matter if diesel engines produce this fluid? Surely you are not arguing that diesel engines are a good thing as far as pollution goes? I'm not a mechanic...but I understand when I stand next to a diesel truck I can't breathe well. And almost every person who drives them removes the environmental protection and tries to make the biggest black cloud they can....
@@Alex50cc I'm guessing it's up to the owner to decide whether or not to keep this part maintained? Especially in places where there are no inspections. Florida has no inspection for example. Safety or emissions..or otherwise.
Neither do engines or fuel cells, battery production can be made green too as some papers suggest, the problem with hydrogen is transporting, storing and producing it
I'll stick to my CBR900RRn but would need the right injector for this.... these I see on youtube are just a rip of of someone elses idea, I want the origional, even if they had him killed years ago
One more thing: Fuel-Cells require the mining and smelting of Cobalt and other uncommon metals, as opposed to the common iron used in internal-combustion and moderate-temp Stirlings.
The battery is also a big deal. People quikly forget what a durable society means. We need to find system that are suitable for milienear. How can you recycle a battery or a fuel cell ?.... One big advantage not mention here about combustion engine is that it can be easily remelted.
@@EnderDeaD14 Yes, battery-recycling is a problem. And children are dying in the cobalt-mines in the Republic of Congo, where most battery-cobalt is mined. Heat engines, including the efficient Stirling, can be made of iron, including stainless-steel. Iron is an abundant component of the Earth's crust, and is the 5th most abundant element in the crust. No mining of exotic scarce metals. Mining the lithium for our lithium batteries, is harming the water supplies of the people who live in the Andes mountains. Stirling, Otto and Diesel engines can run on ammonia fuel, easily made from water and air,by renewable-electricity. Fueling stations can quickly & easily be converted to ammonia fuel, which liquifies at around 200 psi. We already have a widespread infrastructure to make, store & transport ammonia. Belgium converted their buses to ammonia-fuel in WWII, and it took only 5 months. But Stirling engines, being external-combustion engines, can easily cleanly burn any fuel, including ammonia or biodiesel.
@@michaelossipoff2433 I don't think car manufacturers should replace bad gas with another bad gas. And I think that fuel-cell is the future. But because we have so many combustion engines already made and on the road. I think we should make hydrogen conversion kits for a bunch of different engines to make the road more green. And affordable for people to get a greener way to drive their car. Not everyone have the money to buy a new car we know that. And by doing this classic cars can still be on the road Without gasoline. Now I am a guy that hate non combustion cars and don't like the thought of combustion engines coming to a stop. So by doing this I can still be happy and make the world a bit less polluted.
Even Rains ---- Electron abuse is rampant. They are being ripped out of the ground, forced through wires and made to power all our devices with no compensation. How much more will they put up with before they rebel.
I could see a future where both systems are a thing, and that's by design. We could have fuel cell cars be the "people carriers", no gears, fully autonomous at some point, all that jazz. As Hydrogen ICE these could replace gasoline ICE engines for enthusiast vehicles - so there'd be a very true separation between "cars" and "sports cars", where the sports cars could be more focused when not strangled by emissions, by a way of introducing NOx capture devices or running the fuel lean. Sports cars could become a true niche of it's own, used for purely sporting purposes and not considered A to B transportation, owning a sports car that you drive yourself, change gears yourself and create noise with would be more akin to owning a jetski - it would be a leisure toy, stripped of it's previous function. I don't know if this makes sense to anybody but it's my two cents
For performance vehicles I think you'd just put a bigger battery on the vehicle, or even have it exclusively battery-powered. EVs haven't had nearly as much R&D time put into them as petrol ones yet still there are relatively affordable battery EVs that have crazy good performance due to how electric motors get that instant torque. FC could work too as long as the technology improves a lot. Would still use _some sort_ of battery or capacitor system but wouldn't need to be too large if it was a really powerful advanced fuel cell.
Since I’m only 16 y/o I can’t really talk about price because I’m not experienced but later I really want to have my electric truck or hydrogen full cell truck but for my toy (snowmobile, motocross) I would rater theme to make “noise” and be light and quick responding. So your point off view actually make sense, for me at least
@@yupyupmyjelo1677 it will be slower responding and accelerating though when it's ICE, that means that if you want the sound you have to give up a lot of speed and power
As a car guy I have always been intrigued by fuel cells. We actually started using them in place of a battery for our equipment at work (fork lifts and such). Not only did it have better range over the lead acid battery's but it also was more efficient since it took about 4 min t fill the tank vs 15 min to swap out for a fresh 600lb-1000lb battery (depending on which equipment needed the swap).
I do not I understand what you are saying... As a real car guy myself, having a 700hp 300zx, I should understand what you are talking about. Doesn't sound correct.
@@VtecdippinBB6siR basically the fuel cells are more energy dense than the lead acid batteries and they only need to be refilled which can be done quickly
@@Simon-dm8zv He means that for the workplace man-hours, refueling is more time-efficient than swapping batteries. In both cases, (electroysis of water to capture hydrogen vs recharging batteries), there are significant energy losses. That being said, hydrogen is great right up until the instant that the fuel tank, which has become embritttled due to hydrogen (held under high pressure) migrating INTO he fuel tank material like water in a sponge, shatters and explodes (even WITHOUT ignition of the hydrogen), because any liquid hydrogen at temperatures tolerable by humans is necessarily at a VERY high pressure.
Lots of people saying hydrogen is dangerous because it's combustible haha. Same can be said of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, etc. They're good for combustion engines because they combust!
@@EngineeringExplained The fuel is not under pressure or thing like that ? Beacause it take some place otherwise Ps for the time battery also are not the best in accident
@@zblurth855 batteries dont explode, they start to burn after few minutes, allowing passengers to escape. Gasoline and hydrogen explosions can be violent.
Diesel engines also make a lot of NOx, and we mitigate that with selective catalytic reduction and urea injection systems. How big of a pain in the rear end would it be to stick an SCR or DEF system on an H2 engine?
Is the N and O combine into NO Becuase combustion then I would assume we already put it into the atmosphere unless there is a device we use on vehicular already in that case we just put it on this
And an electric vehicle wouldn't need those things at all. Hydrogen vehicles aren't even a stop gap, they're just a technology that has been jumped over leaving scam artists and retards to pretend they're a thing people should care about.
Your explanations are all true, except for financial considerations. Yes, a fuel cell is twice as efficient as an IC engine. I worked for the leading fuel cell manufacturer for 10 years. Our city buses before conversion to Hydrogen fuel cells cost $325 thousand each. After converion $3.5 million each! Now these were 100% Hydrogen power, no hybrid battery involved. It is ten times more expensive if you compare Kw to Kw, Hydrogen to IC piston engine. The diesel busses converted to Hydrogen diesel would have cost perhaps $500 thousand each. As you can see the Hydrogen fuel cell as a large industrial vehicle power source is not viable. The non-renewable Platinum catalyst alone for one of these busses is $350 thousand. Your arugument is interesting, but not applicable to the actual real World.
@@Cruner62 gas engines already emit NOX. Technology can be developed to help stop that like modern Cat. Converters. I’d say in terms of pure economics the HCE would be preferable over the HFC
I think that hydrogen combustion engines are indeed a good idea. First off, they are significantly lighter than a fuel cell, just like how a standard engine is, and are still able to put out just as much torque as a diesel engine. This is very much necessary for large industrial vehicles (that are already ridiculously heavy) since installing a fuel cell or a lithium battery pack would increase the weight by a significant margin, making them inconvenient and unusable. Another plus is that with the production of hydrogen combustion engines is that thousands of people wont have to lose their jobs and be forced to find a different line of work, since batteries and fuel cells are so dramatically different in structure and production than a combustion engine. It definitely has its uses, and it will probably be just as significant as a lithium battery or fuel cell power.
I'll take pure electric over an hydrogen vehicle any day of the week. Storing hydrogen in large quantities is difficult and dangerous. You are required to store it at very, very high pressures. It takes a lot of entry to compress it and fill the tanks. Hydrogen isn't easily contained either. If it leaks, it is a LOT more volatile than gasoline. You are sitting on a bomb.
@@chrishaase "you are sitting on a bomb" Not necessarily, as one could use a system that worked on demand, in this way you would never have enough stored in the lines to do anything serious. H20 as the residue, and oxygen as the release, does not sound too bad.
@@TheCartoons4you It's not about the volume as much as getting everything sealed. If one fitting starts leaking, you have an issue. The flow has to be continuous while the engine is running. Hydrogen storage needs to be done at insane pressure. You need 3500 cubic feet of hydrogen to get the same BTU as 10 gallons of gasoline. You don't have 3500cubic feet of space in car so you need to store that at very, very high pressure to make it fit in a reasonable amount of space. One leak will cause a LOT of hydrogen to come out.
Jesus Christ, the Hindenburg Disaster has fucked people's reactions to hydrogen storage, especially as fuel. The Saturn V's second and third stages ran on hydrolox, and they used aluminium fuel tanks. No S-II or S-IVB stage blew up or leaked in flight, only having premature engine shutdowns due to pogo forces on Apollo 6 and 13. It's easy to see how much safer hydrogen fuel is than it seems.
Gasoline powered cars also produce NOx, as well as having a relatively same amount of efficiency overall. In my opinion, Hydrogen combustion engines would be a perfect alternative for race cars and high performance sports cars, as well as car enthusiasts in the event that the world runs out of oil and gasoline... There are already those same NOx emissions coming out of normal gasoline vehicles, and with the subtraction of carbon emissions, they could prove to be a great alternative.
I know this is late but yes I agree. Not to mention that it would be fairly simple to convert existing cars to a hydrogen based engine instead of just having to buy a new car
If it were only that simple. Unfortunately, NOx released into the atmosphere becomes acidic and results in acidic rain- increased corrosion where ever it lands; bad for crops, buildings, roads and cars. FWIW, I am a life long motorhead myself, cannot make peace with the idea of broadcasting my "motor noise" via recording and speakers. Guarantee you it is just not the same. FR
Two things I like to say I think hydrogen combustion has its place in replacing old cars and people who still want something to have noise but be greener Because a few nitrous oxide is still better than tons of nitrous oxide tons of CO2 all that stuff combined
CO2 is plant food. The atmosphere barely has enough to keep plants alive. Also, CO2 is a very negligible "greenhouse gas." The number one greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR, and it's ALWAYS going to be there in such vast quantities that the effects of all others are negligible. That being said, just as an oven's temperature is controlled by the heat source, not the insulation around the box, the EARTH's overall temperature is controlled by solar output, not the atmosphere. All the atmosphere does is minimize the difference between the daylight side and the night side. Venus isn't insanely hot due to CO2 in the atmosphere, it's insanely hot because it receives 9/4 as much sunlight per unit of area as the earth does. The temperature of the Earth's surface, overall, is approximaately 300 Kelvin, and that of Venus around 700 Kelvin.
I see hydrogen combustion as a way to keep classic cars going into the future, without having to electrify them, and remove the internal combustion engines which we love so very much. For the everyday person, electric is definitely the way to go, but for car enthusiasts, hydrogen will provide a way for us to tinker with combustion for our own enjoyment.
Exactly what I've thought for years now. Not just for enthusiasts, but for the hundreds of millions of perfectly serviceable cars around the world. Imagine the impact on the economy and environment if we suddenly tried to replace all those vehicles with new EV cars. It just isn't practical. Converting old cars to run on new fuels is much more reasonable.
sorry to ruin the party but cast iron (as in my Javelin 71 monoblock) is "poisoned" by diffused hydrogen becomming brittle, and aluminium won't like it that much either so hydrogen will ruin your car if the engine is not reinforced somehow
It is not a simple way to convert them. It's not just to put in different injectors, and thanks. Hydrogen burn hotter and that demands more of the materials exposed to the combustion. And getting water vapor and hydrogen blowby (from piston rings not sealing 100%) into the oil is not good either.
What you are forgetting is that hydrogen is very easily produced with electricity if you simply think outside the box just a little bit, say you were to put a alternator on each wheel going to a battery, and you were to get a bunch of stainless steel plates with a battery ran to said stainless steel plates then submerge them in a water/potassium hydroxate solution, you could produce it as you use it
This is why people have scarcely reproduced the real Stanley Meyer version of the HHO cell. It was regulated by a central control unit. I do believe what he made is not only possible, but the implications expand very greatly. And I think for this reason, his technology was hushed
I just came from a video made in 2011 where he explained how a combustor works in a dark room with a little whiteboard. It's cool to see when life works out for someone. Keep it up man, good job!
Well, currently, they are. Which is why you see much more investment into EVs and traditional gas/diesel engines versus hydrogen. They're too expensive. Not efficient (versus electric). Not clean (currently most hydrogen is made using natural gas). And no infrastructure (refueling).
@@mandernachluca3774 The main benefit of hydrogen vs battery is that you can refill to your maximum range a lot , lot faster with hydrogen (around 5-10 minutes) . In every other way it is not as good as current gen of batteries.
@@mandernachluca3774 the benefit is the increased range, the cost is the problem. But if your a politician spending other people's money you don't care about the costs being practical so long as you can make yourself look good. For private companies you have the marketing aspect of reduced emissions, and government regulations to contend with. Dealing with the extra cost of hydrogen may be the only way a private fleet can get the permits to operate in certain areas.
Didn't we just talk about a hydrogen Wankle the other day? I'm really just poking fun Jason, but the message is this: As discoveries are made facts get flipped. That's just how it is, no fault needed. Great Job. I feel very comfortable that if a new discovery rendered an older video less than accurate you would try to be the first to correct it. It's why I subbed some time ago. Now, has there been any discussion on the channel about the various ways to get hydrogen? It would seem relevant .
You're argument about NOx emissions is ridiculous. If all of the internal combustion engines were converted to hydrogen, the environmental impact would be WAY less than producing new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
@@jessharriman3254 germany has thrown away 550 GIGAwatts of green power, as the network simply could not take it. and storage was not possible. might as well could had made ammonia out of it . even if very low efficiency, its still better to same some of that 550 GIGAwatts, then just to throw it away. allmost an eqvivalent of what our single nuke plant produces in 200 days. wirth thinking about it from this perspective too.
@@jessharriman3254 you could the say about owning a private vehicle rather then using public transport. But we all want freedom of movement and not the greenest solution.
@@nagyandras8857 Large wind farms and solar fields of sufficient size should have ammonia-producing factories built on-site. They'd have easy access to large amounts of the power generated, and when there's peak power production and not enough demand, they could produce ammonia. Raw hydrogen itself is not very useful as a fuel source, it has none of the properties you'd desire for a fuel source, it's a low density, highly volatile gas that can escape almost any containment, and will frequently damage and embrittle the containers themselves. Ammonia, on the other hand, is fairly non-volatile and low toxicity compared to other liquid fuel, it can be stored in almost any container, and is reasonably energy dense at atmospheric pressure. It's also an extremely valuable fertilizer component, so simply having "green ammonia" available on the market would reduce fossil fuel use elsewhere. While hydrogen is still a key component here (being needed for the Haber-Bosch process), the transportation sector would be better served by having ammonia-burning PHEV's. Pure ammonia combustion would be less efficient well-to-wheel than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but that could be easily offset by having the battery-electric functionality that a PHEV vehicle posses. An ammonia-PHEV with 50km+ range would satisfy the daily driving needs of most of the world, and the infrequent times when that range isn't adequate, the NOx emissions per-vehicle would be acceptable. Cities and towns could ban *running* combustion engines within city limits, and engine use could be restricted to highways away from urban centers (where you need to use the engine, anyways). There's definitely potential within the broad "hydrogen economy" scheme, but hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a waste of time and resources, governments should abandon support for them, and eyes should turn towards ammonia combustion in the short term, and direct ammonia fuel cells in the long term, if such a thing is viable.
It's easy to run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen if you have a distributor to adjust the timing for the faster burn makes it ideal for the commoner.
As a person who just been studying chemistry on my free time for a year, I think your video helps me cement some of the chemistry concepts. Still behind the race with knowledge of energy/ elements applied to real life things like cars. Man, this is a great way to learn. Thanks for this information and professional video.
Thing is, that's the only mode of non-excercising transport that works to give back to nature by continuing nature's real cycle. We really SHOULD Go back to Horses and Carts.
Blurgamer 17 nope. Well to wheels efficiency of a horse and cart is terrible. Massive amount of arable land would have to be turned over to hay production, much of the hay would be eaten by the horses carting the fodder into the cities, horses runs at about 1.5 to 2 horse power so we would need exponential more horses then truck.
@@francesconicoletti2547 Not as a Major transport, just to Compatible lands (Non-city/Land with good hay produce.) where we could make Horseback riding common to people. I'm just a Red Dead fanboi, don't listen to me ;)
BlackHawk ----- Horses fart a lot. And they kick and bite and panic and poop all over the place and you have to feed them when they are doing nothing. Their main advantage is that shoveling manure is good exorcise. Yes I know you were joking around and so am I.
@@BoopShooBee so here are the points as I understand them: 1 all of our current technology in transportation is bad in some way or form. 2 going back to animal traction can possibly be even worse 3 even if we went back to the horse and cart i'm pretty sure environmentalist groups will get pissed off because we are forcing unnatural breeding in order to satisfy or demand for transportation. 4 even if the whole human species decided to refuse any form of transport that does not include walking will still generate some form of pollution. Conclussion: We must... ermm... maybe... U KNOW WAT? FLAK IT [furiously bodyslams the exterminatus button (repeatedly)]
If you compare your two diagrams, you'll see that the FuelCell vehicle requires vastly more components to be mined, extracted, purified, fabricated, shipped, and assembled. And all of that "busy work" taxes the environment. The simpler, less taxing piston engine is the better bet. People think that "more tech" will save the world. They are fools.
You're right, but we should make it *clean and efficient* piston-engine. ...an external combustion engine. Their continuous, well-controlled combustion is clean and completely fuel-versatile. The Stirling engine is the most efficient heat-engine. It's external-combustion.
Honestly, many of the points you make about hydrogen ICE being inconvenient aren't that much of a deal if you change infrastructure. Lower range from Hydrogen ICE could be countered by more fueling stations for example. Oh, and hydrogen has an octane rating of >130 RON, so its THE highest that exists. That means you can run CRAZY amounts of power in an engine.
@@aaronwestley3239 much more stored energy in the same space with hydrogen, there are barely any electric charging stations Climate friendly power will run both but It’s less pollution than mining rare materials for batteries More simple you dont need so much technology in a hydrogen car where if one small sensor goes wrong the car is a brick aviation and homes will use it may as well run cars on it keep electric too though
You mentioned the passenger compartment being taken up by a larger fuel tank, but wouldn't it be about the same by the time you added the Fuel Cell, Converter, power Control Unit and the Battery?
Engineering Explained Why did you use old gasoline ICE engine efficiency in this comparison when you know tailored engine design and excellent H2 combustion characteristics could easily double that? -Higher compression ability (120 octane equivalent) - Incredible combustion stability allows air fuel ratio nearly 10x leaner than gasoline -Tremendous mixing & flame speed vs gasoline, for nearly ideal heat release - No radiant heat loss Either platform requires new power plants that will be cutting edge. Also you gave no or inadequate comment on the consumer acquisition cost differences. Very disappointed in your work on this as I have greatly appreciated your factual and thorough technical analysis on other engines.
Tim Duncan You can already have quite a sizeable battery just on the cost savings from an engine when comparing to a electric engine. The cost for similar power can be 20x... (Tesla driveunit 10k$
@@timduncan8450 if hydrogen were really feasible as fuel for a reciprocating internal combustion engine there would be a lot more research and experimentation. Hydrogen sucks for this application and is very hard to control its combustion, also is very prone to detonate and i mean real detonations not preignition which is what many call "detonation".
5:15 Did you forget to include the volume of the engines? And the weight? E.g. the battery is gonna be super heavy, as we know from petrol/diesel hybrids.
@@tomhejda6450 this isn't a hybrid, the energy source for a fuel cell vehicle is the hydrogen. The battery is for things such as starting the vehicle, similar to the function of the battery in your car. Depending on the output of the fuel cell they can also act as an accumulator, trickle charged by the fuel cell and then providing the power necessary for the electric motors. In either case it's a much smaller battery than you'd find in an ev/hybrid where the battery is actually acting as a primary storage medium.
The battery as shown in the video is only for storing energy from regenerative braking, so it's smaller, and most likely lithium-ion, so it is lighter. The fuel cell car does not need a transmission, so that saves a significant amount of weight.
@@xxportalxx. had a few drinks but why store the electricity neeeded ?why not use a dynamo system ie the electricity generated is used to directly power the electrical feed to convert charge to no lost it too much gin supply to charge electrons to change water to power
Without major breakthroughs in battery technology, it will be hard in the present decade to ramp up BEV production towards ICE numbers. That's why there's a possible switch in agenda towards Hydrogen powered cars. A push for ICE Hydrogen cars, with particle filter systems, would quickly reduce Carbon emissions, as these type of powertrains are more easily scaled in production.
This is all missing the point. With hydrogen you don’t have to worry about efficiency because it’s not Finite. It’s a game changer. There are so many different ways to run hydrogen into a car, down to the wheels, and it’s so clean, that it’s the biggest disappointment to both electric, and gasoline industries. That’s the only reason it’s not mass produced in cars. It’s not a secret, or a conspiracy. They do not want the game to change. They want everything to be about who has the best efficiency of finite resources.
Many of you talk about efficiency and differences between hydrogen combustion engines and hydrogen cells. To my best knowledge as an engineer, many R&D teams struggle to store the hydrogen inside the tanks as it is the most devastating medium to any materials it is nearby. It comes from the size of the hydrogen that causes corrosion - voids, hydrogen compounds, local pressure growth, etc. More should be discussed in regard to materials for hydrogen storage rather than only to the drivetrain as it may be the cause of limited development of hydrogen powered cars.
My humble opinion. Store hydrogen as aluminum + h20. At that point may as well skip the plumbing and combine storage with the cell. Tadaa! Al air battery. Replace the aluminum when it's used up, send back to Alcan to be recycled into Aluminum using their hydro electric dam. Renewable and compact.
The real advantage to the combustion engine is that it is a known technology which doesn't require rare earth elements which there isn't enough to replace all the vehicle in the world.
It's all ball bearings nowadays. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads, and I'm gonna need 'bout ten quarts of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.
Informative, but not that helpful for those of us who ride motorcycles. Could you do another video contrasting the pros and cons of these two solutions for motorcycles. There is a great variety of ICE motorcycle designs to suit different types of usage, but for example my Yamaha MT-07 weighs about 400lbs and produces about 74hp and 50 foot lbs of torque. My daughter's Yamaha YZF-R3 weighs 365lbs and produces about 42hp and a little over 20 foot lbs of torque. Currently, there are a variety of ICE motorcycles available weighing in the 430 to 450lb range producing 200hp or more. Given that motorcycles are very small, the greatest challenges for any new power technology will be to match current ICE power and range without increasing size or weight or diminishing range.
The efficiency it seems like you may be overlooking is the repurposing and building out of the fueling infrastructure. By modifying ice engines to hydrogen fuel, we expand the market share quickly and drive investment into retrofitting the fueling network. At the same time, we gain a real advantage in carbon emissions and help keep costs low for the average consumer. This is a win, win, win. We already have plenty of established, effective technologies in place to deal with NOX. This is just not a compelling argument against hydrogen fuel for ice engines.
I've been very facinated with the idea of water and hydrogen powered combustion engines. And I'm really not seeing the problem. I've seen another comment that also said this, but and exhaust system can filter most NOx so why not?
While a hydrogen fuel cell is certainly more efficient than a hydrogen combustion engine it still has abysmally low efficiency "well-to-wheel" when you put it besides a pure battery electric vehicle. From hydrolysis to compression losses to transport to making power again a hydrogen fuel cell engine is about as power efficient as a combustion engine (about 1/3 the efficiency of a BEV). This isn't even open to being mitigated by technical advances as the energy losses in the conversion are pure physics. To put this another way: in order to supply the energy to an automotive sector run on hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries you'd need - three times as many new powerplants (which need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen) - factories that can produce and compress hydrogen in quantity (which need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen...including profit for the owner of said factory) - a way to distribute said hydrogen (as opposed to power for BEVs for which a distribution network is already in place) - vastly more expensive fueling stations (about 5 million $ a pop...a price for which you could build around 500+ BEV charge points..and which, again, need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen..including the profit for the fueling station owner) ...all of which combined would make commercially viable hydrogen hugely expensive. Certainly there's no way this could be even close to competitive in terms of dollars/mile with just taking the power from step 1 and plugging it directly into a battery.
Hydrogen can also be made via gas reforming where natural gas is abundant. I agree that compact storage remains a major problem, but hydrogen has excellent energy density compared to batteries, so it could be useful for applications where weight is a major concern (e.g. aviation).
-You wouldn't need 3 times as many power plants. In fact, you would actually need fewer. What do you think will happen when everyone gets home, plugs in their cars, and goes to make dinner/watch TV/run the microwave, etc? The only way to make that work is with grid energy storage(GES) systems. Currently the most efficient GES is batteries so that means the full conversion chain for an EV will look something like this: HVAC> LVDC>chemical>LVDC>HVAC>LVAC>LVDC>chemical>motor. Once you consider all the conversions, batteries are actually less efficient. For reference, hydrogen is only HVAC>hydrogen>motor. -Hydrogen is much easier to produce than batteries. Exactly where do you think batteries come from? -There is no disruption system setup that can handle EV. Every car uses power about 100 times as much power as an oven; do you really think the current power grid would hold up if everyone bought 100 extra ovens and turned them on at roughly the same time? -You can't compare a station to what is equivalent to a pump that only one(maybe two) person can use. Only the underground hydrogen tank cost a lot, but a station only needs one. Even a small gas station has 8 pumps which can service dozens of people over a day. 1 hydrogen station per 500 people doesn't seem unreasonable at all. In fact, that is probably more than we have gas stations today. I get the feeling you don't know much about the engineering/science involved. Currently, there is no physical way for BEV to replace oil based fuels. We simply don't have enough raw materials to make batteries and we are on track to run out of the metals used in Li+ batteries way before we run out of oil. Hydrogen will be massively expensive, but at least it is possible in theory.
@@amirabudubai2279 dude batteries are probaly better fore the long run. But batteries take ages to recharge and hydrothing is just a pump. (Like tanking but with hydrogen.)
I was expecting to also see calculations on the US price per mile comparing the two types of hydrogen systems vs a gasoline system, kinda like you did on the EV vs gas video.
You forgot to think about h2 not always beeing very expensive but work as a energy storage option for big renewable plants like the energy from wind. Here in Germany, a lot of them don't work when there's AL lot of wind because of that. So would already get this energy "for free"
As much as I like ICE and its sound etc, I hate to admit that I think that electrical drives are way more efficient and faster and quieter. The instant torque is so good. In the ideal future most of us will have some kind of ICE hobby/weekend car or motorcycle but a hydrogen fuel cell or electric car as a daily. No way I will never want to hear sound of a nice high revving motorcycle ICE ever again.
pardon me, but you haven't read current research. fuel cells use exotic material while hydrogen is everywhere, you can make special reciprocating or rotary engines, or gas turbines running on renewable hydrogen, compressed air or liquid hydrogen or an hybrid of those. you can use a o2 tank so there are no nox emissions, etc. this affects the whole world, not your first world whims.
If we were to build a new car from scratch, then fuel cells would absolutely make sense. The cheaper (and therefore faster) way to decarbonise road transportation though would be to convert existing petrol and diesel engines to run on hydrogen, in that event we'd be talking about an adapter kit your local repair shop can install.
With the whole gas crisis this is a more then feasible option you bc pups install yourself to cut gas prices in half until later models become street legal tht being said water is finite is it truly a good idea to make it a fuel source when already it is in great demand by every living creature of this planet
Yeah but it's not really feasible to convert normal gas cars to hydrogen. We would need to build new tanks which don't fit on the existing cars without extensive body work, the engine is probably the easy swap, but then we also need DEF systems which would be totally reworking the exhaust systems. That means converting a diesel car would be easier. Not to mention not doing so is a terrible idea. NOx is a carcinogen. It's not a greenhouse gas, but is being a direct cause of cancer better?
IMHO: FYI: I'd really like to see someone produce an "OPPOSED PISTON, DIESEL (INTERNAL COMBUSTION) ENGINE!!!.... AND USE IT FOR AN ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATOR, (FIXED BASE, OR PORTABLE)..... THE HYDROGEN COULD BE ELECTROLYZED, FROM ADJACENT SOLAR P.E. ARRAYS (i.e. ...ON A HOUSE/BARN ROOF, ETC.)... A high-pressure storage tank, can hold a lot of hydrogen, and still weigh less that a full liquid fuel tank.
Great. But your first line chemical reactions are overly simplistic because you conflate oxygen with “air”. Neither of these solutions use a tank of pure oxygen. They both use air. Air is mostly nitrogen, as you imply on the left. But your description leaves it a bit unclear how the hydrogen engine produces NOX.
He has in other videos. It comes down to the fact that the temperatures in a hydrogen combustion engine get high enough for reactions that produce nitrogen oxides to occur.
Any time you heat air much above 900 degrees C, the diNitrogen bonds begin to split into atomic nitrogen, the nitrogen then preferentially grab oxygen molecules. Above 1500 C this really starts going in earnest. You don't even need to burn anything if you compress air to a high enough temperature and pressure. Unfortunately, any Carnot heat engine needs a large differential between the hot side and the cold side for maximum efficiency. This set of NOx reactions is also endothermic, further stealing energy from the combustion process that you want to turn into mechanical energy.
If burning hydrogen is such a bad idea why did they use it with them space shuttle and other big rockets? I notice did'nt give much of a comparisment between greenhouse gas an NOX or wether NOX disapates breaks down mor quckly into nitrogen an oxegen morso than greenhouse gas .
Nybbl er Hydrogen is extremely high on the octane list so diesel wouldn’t be a good option because diesels work on an entirely different rating. Plus hydrogen burns extremely hot so it’s not easy to design an engine that can use it.
The Stirling is the most efficient heat-engine. More efficient than Otto or Diesel. With the constant, complete, clean burning of an External-Combustion engine. NASA's MOD2 Stirling-powered Chevy Celebrity beat the original Otto Celebrity in 0-60.
Yeah, but I have a question : could we convert old cars to hydrogen? I would love to be able to go in town centers in two decades with a 427 Cobra, but not an electric/fuel cell one.
I think it is possible because the engine still operates on the same principle just a different fuel source. I am not sure what modifications would need to be made in order to get it to work.
hmm people like me proly prefer H2 Combustion because of the sound of engine good trade over normal gasoline if you will. also as Indonesian an fellow maritime nation, this kind of fuel definitely gonna be cheap.
The combustion engine might need a bigger tank but the fuel cell needs an H2 tank, a Fuel cell tank, coneverter, power control unit, big ass battery, and an eletric motor. Just looking at the drawing, you can see the fuel cell power looks unblanced, heavy and over complex with alot more space needed to make power. I would take the combustion design.
Toyota and Hyundai already have working products not sure what you mean by unbalanced? Is it the weight because alot of our cars have balanced and unbalanced variations.
you have right. atmosphearic air contains N(itorgoen), when we are using it in with high preassure and heat we are producing NOx (look diesel engines and high combustion gasoline engines).
You've stated 2 disadvantages of the Otto engine. First, the Otto's NOx is greatly reduced by EGR, as you well know. Second, internal-combustion engines aren't the only ones that can burn H2. The Stirling-Engine is much more efficient than the Otto engine, and doesn't have a NOx problem because it doesn't use the high temperature that's easily-feasible with the Otto's very brief combustion (In the Otto, the metal doesn't have time to melt). Without the temps possible with explosion-engines or super-high-melting alloys, NOx isn't a problem.
Ah, this is just what I was looking for. I was in search of a type of engine or energy generation system that could be the second part to a hybrid system for a large truck (About the size of an RV, but also potentially heavier due to maybe making it armored.) The main part would of been solar power and a battery array, but I also was looking for a secondary system incase the primary power source is unavailable and the battery array ran dry.
" The main part would of been solar power and a battery array," That's great as long as you don't want to haul more than approximaately 1 ton-mile per day, and drive it only on a dedicated road where it cannot possibly get in a collision, because solar-powered cars(*) have already demonstrated that to even be functional, the frame has to be like that of a WW1 aircraft -- EXTREMELY light weight with no provisions to mitigate injuries caused by crashes. (*) There are actual races between teams at various research universities using solar cars. They're EXTREMELY low, and have less collisioi safety than a bicycle, because every pound makes such a HUGE impact on speed, even more than in horse racing.
Thank God someone isn’t on the hydrogen hype train You didn’t explain how industrial hydrogen refining processes also create carbon. Could you explain that?
Get water run electricity through it, preferably through eco friendly power plants, get 2H and O. Use both instead of taking outside air. No Nitrogen no NOx. Store the used H2O and repeat
@@poisonpotato1 The problem is the "run electricity through it" part. Most of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels. Using electricity from renewable sources to produce hydrogen is wasting it, because it yields about half the energy of just storing and using the electricity directly.
Sorry--let me say all this in one post: . Otto engines' NOx is greatly reduced by EGR. Stirling engines are much more efficient than Otto engines. Ottos & moderate-temp Stirlings use only common iron, instead of the exotic metals currently needed by fuel-cells & EV batteries. Stirlings w/out exotic metals use lower temps, which don't cause a NOx problem. . Yes, maybe someday, fuel-cells & EV batteries won't need exotic metals, and then obviously they'll then be inexpensive and harmless. But, till then, what I said applies. . Obviously we'll need a wide variety of all the sustainable/renewable energy...including biofuels. Stirlings can burn *anything*, including bio-Diesel. Micro-algae ponds produce a tremendous amount of bio-Diesel, without using any agricultural land. Bio-Diesel is carbon-neutral. Stirlings burn clean, w/out hydrocarbon-pollution. .
I love how no one on the "let's use hydrogen" plan bothers to note the differences between gasoline/diesel being group D chemicals and hydrogen being a group B chemical. I don't ever see the general public being able to handle hydrogen. More than likely we will use hydrogen to make hydrocarbon liquids and continue using the existing infrastructure of the world
Aren't the parts for creating fuel cell environmentally worst than hydrogen combustion? I can imagine those rare earth material for creating those battery and catalyst is pretty bad. Just curious if it out weigh the cost or if it's a myth.
Fuel cells are a bit worse than batteries but far better than petroleum. The catalysts use the same materials as catalytic converters in ICE cars. There are no rare earth metals in batteries, just in permanent magnet motor/generators. Cobalt is a byproduct of copper mining and only about half as abundant and Manganese is as common as Phosphorus in Earth's crust. Rare earth is also a misnomer for the most useful ones. Their issue is that they are so chemically similar that they are hard to separate from one another.
How do you make hydrogen commercially, but by chemical decomposition of methane or other natural gas. What is overall efficiency of that process compared to taking same energy of fuel, and turning direct to electric power in a large efficient power plant.
I don't know about the environmental impact of mining the materials for a fuel cell but the lifetime of a fuel cell is (at least as far as I understand it) much longer than the lifetime of a battery.
So why not use solar / renewables to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Compress both and use both skipping the nitrogen part from Air. Use a small turbine engine to charge batteries to run the electric motors to turn the wheels. ?
I see the benefit in making bolt on or drop in solutions for converting gas vehicles to hydrogen vehicles. You have a stout car culture not willing to shift, and you have legitimate limitations which the EV fandom refuses to address. These mods wouldn't even have to be cheap either, just cheaper than buying an EV (which isn't all that hard to do).
And pure oxygen is a real bad fire hazard too. Everything likes to burn real bad in pure oxygen. So not only a massive tank, but lots of extra components for safety
The only good thing about hydrogen, is it would be a perfect way to store the excess energy from wind turbines after a wind storm. Rather than curtailing, it would be nice to have a way to use that excess energy, despite not being as efficient as charging a battery.
@@greynolds17 No, it's because you can directly use the electrons to fuel a battery. Electrolysis of water and compression chew up half the energy before you even figure out how to get the hydrogen into a car's tank.
For anyone interested in learning more about hydrogen combustion engines/fuel cells, here are two videos explaining the fundamentals:
How Hydrogen Piston Engines Work - czcams.com/video/l6ECwRnJ0Sg/video.html
How Hydrogen Fuel Cells Work - czcams.com/video/0jnZFGx_4kY/video.html
the best engine is the electric one since its energy travels by cables not by trucks and boats that consume more fuel with an efficiency that does not even reach 40%, also because fewer parts are needed gearboxes, spark plugs, starter batteries, clutches , sensors, air filter, fuel filter, oil filter, catalyst etc, which means to spend less energy in the manufacture and transportation of all those parts. Electric vehicles pollute less because they do not discard as many parts during their useful life and waste control would be simpler because recycling the batteries and having to declare their replacement would suffice. It would be much simpler and more efficient to use oil, natural gas, hydrogen etc in power plants and from there feed the EV since the stationary engines are more efficient and it is not the same to take the fuel to a point in the territory and then the Energy trip by wires that take it to all the gas stations. And heat treatments and melting so much metal for combustion vehicles spends a lot of energy.
So... You're saying I won't be able to convert the engine in my classic car to run on hydrogen, because I was hoping for conversion kits? Now I have to swap in a fuel cell at best or go electric? @engineeringexplained
Why not plain old ordinary 2 cycle engines, like Evinrude?
What about a 2 cycle engine with computer controlled DC motors (from the machine tool industry) for each wheel?
@@uru-freemind7711 Like a golf cart, but the dead batteries cost money to get rid of.
@@ME-kp5iz while that is true, keep in mind that battery technology is pretty much in its infancy - there are many chemistries being explored at the moment - efforts focused on reducing cost (by using more readily available materials), reducing wieght per KWh (which will improve efficiency of EV's), improved charging speed and improved safety, both during production, during use and eventual disposal. We will make many mistakes, and I expect we will have a few breakthroughs in the next decade, and possible overcome many shortcomings of battery technology. Currently hydrogen production, transport and use has its fair share of unacceptable environmental impacts too (and being improved).
One thing that is certain, as far as I can see, is the fossil fuel powered vehicles is going the way of the dodo slowly. Which technology replaces it? - exciting times!
*Electrons come back eventually because they are very kind*
You so nice man. Community need more people like you.
Electrons are very kind? I dunno, I've always thought they were a bit negative...
@@oodlesofnoodles4660 🤣🤣🤣
????
@@oodlesofnoodles4660 That's all just Benjamin Franklin's fault. He was positive about the wrong thing!
Appearances can be deceiving. Don't be fooled
You forgot to mention that fuel cell vehicles don't make vroom vroom noises, which is something that the internet likes to bring out as a k.o. argument as to why they would never drive an EV.
But you can tape playing cards against the wheel spokes...
Ever heard of a sound system?
This is why people should be able to load in their own engine sounds. You could choose different types, like a Ferrari, or an Indy car, or a tie fighter.
@@AshGreen359 Yes finally, a tie fighter car! Take my money and make it happen!
The faux vroom vroom system should have an ice cream truck tune option
The advantage of hydrogen combustion is million's of car's with regular engines could quickly be converted at minimal cost.
@Dimetri Drossos ...aren't those things the reason for the carbon problem?
Nitrogen oxide instead of carbon?
@Dimetri Drossos what is def fluid...and why would it matter if diesel engines produce this fluid? Surely you are not arguing that diesel engines are a good thing as far as pollution goes? I'm not a mechanic...but I understand when I stand next to a diesel truck I can't breathe well. And almost every person who drives them removes the environmental protection and tries to make the biggest black cloud they can....
@Paramdeep Grewal you mean it absorbs it?
@@Ian-ie3hy No, it reacts with it and eliminates it. Look up selective catalytic reduction (SCR) if you want to know more.
@@Alex50cc I'm guessing it's up to the owner to decide whether or not to keep this part maintained? Especially in places where there are no inspections. Florida has no inspection for example. Safety or emissions..or otherwise.
Creating battery's also causes a lot of carbon and battery's dont last for ever.
Hydrogen fuel cells don't really need batteries anyway the HHO cells are batteries already, but they're powered by a gas which is hydrogen
@@santiagocortez9554 How do you heat the fuel cell to 1000* operating temperature w/o a battery?
@@poppyclypsenoir9156 Many types of fuel cells are "low temperature" fuel cells and run at room temperature.
Yes, but batteries can be nearly 100% recycled.
Neither do engines or fuel cells, battery production can be made green too as some papers suggest, the problem with hydrogen is transporting, storing and producing it
I wanna see Honda making a hydrogen combustion engine with *VTEC*
johnnytheprick but has VTEC kicked in?
@@bandithimself6841 Kinda hard to tell after the whole load of hydrogen ignited at once
But last recollections might have been of neurons kicking into low earth orbit
VTEC*H*
I'll stick to my CBR900RRn but would need the right injector for this.... these I see on youtube are just a rip of of someone elses idea, I want the origional, even if they had him killed years ago
Can't beat kind electrons.
They're the best!
sassy muons?
Manual transmissions tho
Until you touch them, then they are not so kind.
They may electrify you though
blimps are the way to go
Lmao
Up
It's not a blimp, it's a Rigid Air Ship.
@@Caluma122 Also incorrect, it's called the Prydwen. :P
@@jupo672 Nah, the Prydwen.
One more thing: Fuel-Cells require the mining and smelting of Cobalt and other uncommon metals, as opposed to the common iron used in internal-combustion and moderate-temp Stirlings.
The battery is also a big deal. People quikly forget what a durable society means. We need to find system that are suitable for milienear. How can you recycle a battery or a fuel cell ?.... One big advantage not mention here about combustion engine is that it can be easily remelted.
@@EnderDeaD14 Yes, battery-recycling is a problem. And children are dying in the cobalt-mines in the Republic of Congo, where most battery-cobalt is mined. Heat engines, including the efficient Stirling, can be made of iron, including stainless-steel. Iron is an abundant component of the Earth's crust, and is the 5th most abundant element in the crust. No mining of exotic scarce metals. Mining the lithium for our lithium batteries, is harming the water supplies of the people who live in the Andes mountains. Stirling, Otto and Diesel engines can run on ammonia fuel, easily made from water and air,by renewable-electricity. Fueling stations can quickly & easily be converted to ammonia fuel, which liquifies at around 200 psi. We already have a widespread infrastructure to make, store & transport ammonia. Belgium converted their buses to ammonia-fuel in WWII, and it took only 5 months. But Stirling engines, being external-combustion engines, can easily cleanly burn any fuel, including ammonia or biodiesel.
@@michaelossipoff2433 very informative!
@@michaelossipoff2433 I don't think car manufacturers should replace bad gas with another bad gas. And I think that fuel-cell is the future. But because we have so many combustion engines already made and on the road. I think we should make hydrogen conversion kits for a bunch of different engines to make the road more green. And affordable for people to get a greener way to drive their car. Not everyone have the money to buy a new car we know that. And by doing this classic cars can still be on the road Without gasoline. Now I am a guy that hate non combustion cars and don't like the thought of combustion engines coming to a stop. So by doing this I can still be happy and make the world a bit less polluted.
exactly, that's the point to abandon fuel cells and ev, also don't forget that ice engines can be made with hightemp bioplastics
"Electrons come back eventually because they are very kind"
You are the Bob Ross of science
Even Rains ---- Electron abuse is rampant. They are being ripped out of the ground, forced through wires and made to power all our devices with no compensation. How much more will they put up with before they rebel.
What about Mr.Roger
@Mitch fine if you want to get technical it would actually be STEM not engineering lmao
EDITH BARRETT lmao
EDITH BARRETT I think he meant “mob boss”
I could see a future where both systems are a thing, and that's by design. We could have fuel cell cars be the "people carriers", no gears, fully autonomous at some point, all that jazz. As Hydrogen ICE these could replace gasoline ICE engines for enthusiast vehicles - so there'd be a very true separation between "cars" and "sports cars", where the sports cars could be more focused when not strangled by emissions, by a way of introducing NOx capture devices or running the fuel lean. Sports cars could become a true niche of it's own, used for purely sporting purposes and not considered A to B transportation, owning a sports car that you drive yourself, change gears yourself and create noise with would be more akin to owning a jetski - it would be a leisure toy, stripped of it's previous function. I don't know if this makes sense to anybody but it's my two cents
That future I would like to live in.
Great point!
For performance vehicles I think you'd just put a bigger battery on the vehicle, or even have it exclusively battery-powered. EVs haven't had nearly as much R&D time put into them as petrol ones yet still there are relatively affordable battery EVs that have crazy good performance due to how electric motors get that instant torque.
FC could work too as long as the technology improves a lot. Would still use _some sort_ of battery or capacitor system but wouldn't need to be too large if it was a really powerful advanced fuel cell.
Since I’m only 16 y/o I can’t really talk about price because I’m not experienced but later I really want to have my electric truck or hydrogen full cell truck but for my toy (snowmobile, motocross) I would rater theme to make “noise” and be light and quick responding. So your point off view actually make sense, for me at least
@@yupyupmyjelo1677 it will be slower responding and accelerating though when it's ICE, that means that if you want the sound you have to give up a lot of speed and power
2:22 Electrons come back because they are very kind. XD
XD
If only it were protons lol "came back because they were very *positive* " 😂
Better love story than twighlight
EM theory for mechanical engineers.
I was imagining those electrons as floating smiley faces. 🙂
As a car guy I have always been intrigued by fuel cells. We actually started using them in place of a battery for our equipment at work (fork lifts and such). Not only did it have better range over the lead acid battery's but it also was more efficient since it took about 4 min t fill the tank vs 15 min to swap out for a fresh 600lb-1000lb battery (depending on which equipment needed the swap).
That doesn't mean it is more efficient energy wise. Because it obviously isn't.
I do not I understand what you are saying...
As a real car guy myself, having a 700hp 300zx, I should understand what you are talking about.
Doesn't sound correct.
@@VtecdippinBB6siR basically the fuel cells are more energy dense than the lead acid batteries and they only need to be refilled which can be done quickly
@@Simon-dm8zv He means that for the workplace man-hours, refueling is more time-efficient than swapping batteries. In both cases, (electroysis of water to capture hydrogen vs recharging batteries), there are significant energy losses. That being said, hydrogen is great right up until the instant that the fuel tank, which has become embritttled due to hydrogen (held under high pressure) migrating INTO he fuel tank material like water in a sponge, shatters and explodes (even WITHOUT ignition of the hydrogen), because any liquid hydrogen at temperatures tolerable by humans is necessarily at a VERY high pressure.
"Luckily, in the history of humanity, nothing bad has ever happened from lighting hydrogen on fire." Mark Watney, The Martian.
Lots of people saying hydrogen is dangerous because it's combustible haha. Same can be said of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, etc. They're good for combustion engines because they combust!
@@EngineeringExplained Hydrogen does combust *a bit* more violently though :)
@@EngineeringExplained The fuel is not under pressure or thing like that ?
Beacause it take some place otherwise
Ps for the time battery also are not the best in accident
@@zblurth855 batteries dont explode, they start to burn after few minutes, allowing passengers to escape. Gasoline and hydrogen explosions can be violent.
A misunderstood reference to the Hindenburg disaster?
Diesel engines also make a lot of NOx, and we mitigate that with selective catalytic reduction and urea injection systems. How big of a pain in the rear end would it be to stick an SCR or DEF system on an H2 engine?
@THAT Guy pretty sure they just used the acronym to refer to selective calaytic reduction from earlier in their comment
Is the N and O combine into NO Becuase combustion then I would assume we already put it into the atmosphere unless there is a device we use on vehicular already in that case we just put it on this
It creates more complexity and more stuff to break. Fortunatly my 95 F350 has no scr or def
@johnnytheprick Def are the non believers!
And an electric vehicle wouldn't need those things at all. Hydrogen vehicles aren't even a stop gap, they're just a technology that has been jumped over leaving scam artists and retards to pretend they're a thing people should care about.
Your explanations are all true, except for financial considerations. Yes, a fuel cell is twice as efficient as an IC engine. I worked for the leading fuel cell manufacturer for 10 years. Our city buses before conversion to Hydrogen fuel cells cost $325 thousand each. After converion $3.5 million each! Now these were 100% Hydrogen power, no hybrid battery involved. It is ten times more expensive if you compare Kw to Kw, Hydrogen to IC piston engine. The diesel busses converted to Hydrogen diesel would have cost perhaps $500 thousand each. As you can see the Hydrogen fuel cell as a large industrial vehicle power source is not viable. The non-renewable Platinum catalyst alone for one of these busses is $350 thousand.
Your arugument is interesting, but not applicable to the actual real World.
@Art of War Niether are you silly
Yesterday I saw an article where Toyota has a hydrogen ICE prototype that sound like a tuned sports car.
It may sound good but it is fraught with a power problem and the emissions of NOX is fatal against CO2 for a healthy planet.
@@Cruner62 gas engines already emit NOX. Technology can be developed to help stop that like modern Cat. Converters. I’d say in terms of pure economics the HCE would be preferable over the HFC
Video idea: Why Whiteboards are a Good Idea
Next next video: Why whiteboards are racist
They are bad ideas as they may cause us some eyesight problems.
@@Beymdoublevey blackboards matter.
@@efferus Chalkboards lives matter
Its ok to be a whietboard
I think that hydrogen combustion engines are indeed a good idea. First off, they are significantly lighter than a fuel cell, just like how a standard engine is, and are still able to put out just as much torque as a diesel engine. This is very much necessary for large industrial vehicles (that are already ridiculously heavy) since installing a fuel cell or a lithium battery pack would increase the weight by a significant margin, making them inconvenient and unusable. Another plus is that with the production of hydrogen combustion engines is that thousands of people wont have to lose their jobs and be forced to find a different line of work, since batteries and fuel cells are so dramatically different in structure and production than a combustion engine. It definitely has its uses, and it will probably be just as significant as a lithium battery or fuel cell power.
Having H2O as a residue of combustion is a plus.
I'll take pure electric over an hydrogen vehicle any day of the week. Storing hydrogen in large quantities is difficult and dangerous. You are required to store it at very, very high pressures. It takes a lot of entry to compress it and fill the tanks. Hydrogen isn't easily contained either. If it leaks, it is a LOT more volatile than gasoline. You are sitting on a bomb.
@@chrishaase "you are sitting on a bomb" Not necessarily, as one could use a system that worked on demand, in this way you would never have enough stored in the lines to do anything serious. H20 as the residue, and oxygen as the release, does not sound too bad.
@@TheCartoons4you It's not about the volume as much as getting everything sealed. If one fitting starts leaking, you have an issue. The flow has to be continuous while the engine is running. Hydrogen storage needs to be done at insane pressure. You need 3500 cubic feet of hydrogen to get the same BTU as 10 gallons of gasoline. You don't have 3500cubic feet of space in car so you need to store that at very, very high pressure to make it fit in a reasonable amount of space. One leak will cause a LOT of hydrogen to come out.
Jesus Christ, the Hindenburg Disaster has fucked people's reactions to hydrogen storage, especially as fuel. The Saturn V's second and third stages ran on hydrolox, and they used aluminium fuel tanks. No S-II or S-IVB stage blew up or leaked in flight, only having premature engine shutdowns due to pogo forces on Apollo 6 and 13. It's easy to see how much safer hydrogen fuel is than it seems.
Gasoline powered cars also produce NOx, as well as having a relatively same amount of efficiency overall. In my opinion, Hydrogen combustion engines would be a perfect alternative for race cars and high performance sports cars, as well as car enthusiasts in the event that the world runs out of oil and gasoline... There are already those same NOx emissions coming out of normal gasoline vehicles, and with the subtraction of carbon emissions, they could prove to be a great alternative.
I know this is late but yes I agree. Not to mention that it would be fairly simple to convert existing cars to a hydrogen based engine instead of just having to buy a new car
If it were only that simple. Unfortunately, NOx released into the atmosphere becomes acidic and results in acidic rain- increased corrosion where ever it lands; bad for crops, buildings, roads and cars. FWIW, I am a life long motorhead myself, cannot make peace with the idea of broadcasting my "motor noise" via recording and speakers. Guarantee you it is just not the same. FR
You can burn NOx with an egr system
Two things I like to say I think hydrogen combustion has its place in replacing old cars and people who still want something to have noise but be greener
Because a few nitrous oxide is still better than tons of nitrous oxide tons of CO2 all that stuff combined
catalytic converters remove the nitrous oxides in vehicles now, don't know why that would change
CO2 is plant food. The atmosphere barely has enough to keep plants alive.
Also, CO2 is a very negligible "greenhouse gas." The number one greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR, and it's ALWAYS going to be there in such vast quantities that the effects of all others are negligible. That being said, just as an oven's temperature is controlled by the heat source, not the insulation around the box, the EARTH's overall temperature is controlled by solar output, not the atmosphere. All the atmosphere does is minimize the difference between the daylight side and the night side.
Venus isn't insanely hot due to CO2 in the atmosphere, it's insanely hot because it receives 9/4 as much sunlight per unit of area as the earth does. The temperature of the Earth's surface, overall, is approximaately 300 Kelvin, and that of Venus around 700 Kelvin.
I see hydrogen combustion as a way to keep classic cars going into the future, without having to electrify them, and remove the internal combustion engines which we love so very much. For the everyday person, electric is definitely the way to go, but for car enthusiasts, hydrogen will provide a way for us to tinker with combustion for our own enjoyment.
That's a good point.
Agreed!
Exactly what I've thought for years now. Not just for enthusiasts, but for the hundreds of millions of perfectly serviceable cars around the world. Imagine the impact on the economy and environment if we suddenly tried to replace all those vehicles with new EV cars. It just isn't practical. Converting old cars to run on new fuels is much more reasonable.
sorry to ruin the party but cast iron (as in my Javelin 71 monoblock) is "poisoned" by diffused hydrogen becomming brittle, and aluminium won't like it that much either so hydrogen will ruin your car if the engine is not reinforced somehow
It is not a simple way to convert them. It's not just to put in different injectors, and thanks. Hydrogen burn hotter and that demands more of the materials exposed to the combustion. And getting water vapor and hydrogen blowby (from piston rings not sealing 100%) into the oil is not good either.
What you are forgetting is that hydrogen is very easily produced with electricity if you simply think outside the box just a little bit, say you were to put a alternator on each wheel going to a battery, and you were to get a bunch of stainless steel plates with a battery ran to said stainless steel plates then submerge them in a water/potassium hydroxate solution, you could produce it as you use it
This is why people have scarcely reproduced the real Stanley Meyer version of the HHO cell. It was regulated by a central control unit. I do believe what he made is not only possible, but the implications expand very greatly. And I think for this reason, his technology was hushed
What about liquification and transport cost ?
I just came from a video made in 2011 where he explained how a combustor works in a dark room with a little whiteboard. It's cool to see when life works out for someone. Keep it up man, good job!
Why my college lectures aren’t fun like this kind of videos 😭
Next video: Why hydrogen fuel cells are a bad idea
Well, currently, they are. Which is why you see much more investment into EVs and traditional gas/diesel engines versus hydrogen. They're too expensive. Not efficient (versus electric). Not clean (currently most hydrogen is made using natural gas). And no infrastructure (refueling).
@@EngineeringExplained
So why do busses use hydrogen fuel cells as range extenders? Must have some benefit, else nobody would do it, right?
@@mandernachluca3774
The main benefit of hydrogen vs battery is that you can refill to your maximum range a lot , lot faster with hydrogen (around 5-10 minutes) . In every other way it is not as good as current gen of batteries.
@@mandernachluca3774 the benefit is the increased range, the cost is the problem. But if your a politician spending other people's money you don't care about the costs being practical so long as you can make yourself look good. For private companies you have the marketing aspect of reduced emissions, and government regulations to contend with. Dealing with the extra cost of hydrogen may be the only way a private fleet can get the permits to operate in certain areas.
Didn't we just talk about a hydrogen Wankle the other day? I'm really just poking fun Jason, but the message is this: As discoveries are made facts get flipped. That's just how it is, no fault needed. Great Job. I feel very comfortable that if a new discovery rendered an older video less than accurate you would try to be the first to correct it. It's why I subbed some time ago.
Now, has there been any discussion on the channel about the various ways to get hydrogen? It would seem relevant .
You're argument about NOx emissions is ridiculous. If all of the internal combustion engines were converted to hydrogen, the environmental impact would be WAY less than producing new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
"They eventually come back because they are very kind" XD
the short story: hydrogen is a good idea.
The hydrogen economy is a farce
@@jessharriman3254 germany has thrown away 550 GIGAwatts of green power, as the network simply could not take it. and storage was not possible. might as well could had made ammonia out of it . even if very low efficiency, its still better to same some of that 550 GIGAwatts, then just to throw it away. allmost an eqvivalent of what our single nuke plant produces in 200 days. wirth thinking about it from this perspective too.
@@jessharriman3254 you could the say about owning a private vehicle rather then using public transport. But we all want freedom of movement and not the greenest solution.
@@nagyandras8857 Large wind farms and solar fields of sufficient size should have ammonia-producing factories built on-site. They'd have easy access to large amounts of the power generated, and when there's peak power production and not enough demand, they could produce ammonia. Raw hydrogen itself is not very useful as a fuel source, it has none of the properties you'd desire for a fuel source, it's a low density, highly volatile gas that can escape almost any containment, and will frequently damage and embrittle the containers themselves. Ammonia, on the other hand, is fairly non-volatile and low toxicity compared to other liquid fuel, it can be stored in almost any container, and is reasonably energy dense at atmospheric pressure. It's also an extremely valuable fertilizer component, so simply having "green ammonia" available on the market would reduce fossil fuel use elsewhere. While hydrogen is still a key component here (being needed for the Haber-Bosch process), the transportation sector would be better served by having ammonia-burning PHEV's. Pure ammonia combustion would be less efficient well-to-wheel than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but that could be easily offset by having the battery-electric functionality that a PHEV vehicle posses. An ammonia-PHEV with 50km+ range would satisfy the daily driving needs of most of the world, and the infrequent times when that range isn't adequate, the NOx emissions per-vehicle would be acceptable. Cities and towns could ban *running* combustion engines within city limits, and engine use could be restricted to highways away from urban centers (where you need to use the engine, anyways).
There's definitely potential within the broad "hydrogen economy" scheme, but hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a waste of time and resources, governments should abandon support for them, and eyes should turn towards ammonia combustion in the short term, and direct ammonia fuel cells in the long term, if such a thing is viable.
If implemented properly*****
It's easy to run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen if you have a distributor to adjust the timing for the faster burn makes it ideal for the commoner.
You know… except the fuel is super expensive and the tanks are gigantic and made of Kevlar… other than that. Great for the commoner
Correct! Wonder who pay this guy to run the fuel of the future down???
@@andyford2630 Anyone who can do basic math knows this isn’t “the fuel of the future.”
But, why are Honda and Toyota investing millions? They think its a great idea. (Haven't got a clue what he's talking about).
They are not investing millions in hydrogen *combustion* engines.
As a person who just been studying chemistry on my free time for a year, I think your video helps me cement some of the chemistry concepts. Still behind the race with knowledge of energy/ elements applied to real life things like cars. Man, this is a great way to learn. Thanks for this information and professional video.
You mean the redox reactions in this video?
Toyota really said : "Hold my sakè"
For even better efficiency, replace the Hydrogen tank with a large battery and ditch the fuel cell . . . you'll get an even more efficient system.
Where do you get the energy to charge the battery?
@@andrews582 puting generator to the wheels
and some mini wind turbines to the roof 😂🤣
@@andrews582 From the same source you use to produce hydrogen.
Conclussion: All engines are bad lets go back to the horse & cart.
Thing is, that's the only mode of non-excercising transport that works to give back to nature by continuing nature's real cycle.
We really SHOULD Go back to Horses and Carts.
Blurgamer 17 nope. Well to wheels efficiency of a horse and cart is terrible. Massive amount of arable land would have to be turned over to hay production, much of the hay would be eaten by the horses carting the fodder into the cities, horses runs at about 1.5 to 2 horse power so we would need exponential more horses then truck.
@@francesconicoletti2547 Not as a Major transport, just to Compatible lands (Non-city/Land with good hay produce.) where we could make Horseback riding common to people.
I'm just a Red Dead fanboi, don't listen to me ;)
BlackHawk ----- Horses fart a lot. And they kick and bite and panic and poop all over the place and you have to feed them when they are doing nothing. Their main advantage is that shoveling manure is good exorcise.
Yes I know you were joking around and so am I.
@@BoopShooBee so here are the points as I understand them:
1 all of our current technology in transportation is bad in some way or form.
2 going back to animal traction can possibly be even worse
3 even if we went back to the horse and cart i'm pretty sure environmentalist groups will get pissed off because we are forcing unnatural breeding in order to satisfy or demand for transportation.
4 even if the whole human species decided to refuse any form of transport that does not include walking will still generate some form of pollution.
Conclussion: We must... ermm... maybe... U KNOW WAT? FLAK IT [furiously bodyslams the exterminatus button (repeatedly)]
If you compare your two diagrams, you'll see that the FuelCell vehicle requires vastly more components to be mined, extracted, purified, fabricated, shipped, and assembled. And all of that "busy work" taxes the environment. The simpler, less taxing piston engine is the better bet. People think that "more tech" will save the world. They are fools.
You're right, but we should make it *clean and efficient* piston-engine. ...an external combustion engine. Their continuous, well-controlled combustion is clean and completely fuel-versatile. The Stirling engine is the most efficient heat-engine. It's external-combustion.
Yes, The Whole Human Race are Fools~!!!
Honestly, many of the points you make about hydrogen ICE being inconvenient aren't that much of a deal if you change infrastructure.
Lower range from Hydrogen ICE could be countered by more fueling stations for example.
Oh, and hydrogen has an octane rating of >130 RON, so its THE highest that exists. That means you can run CRAZY amounts of power in an engine.
Yes a tinnnnny engine can produce a good amount of power and expand range
@@alphaprime6102 Rubbish
Turbo hondas on race fuel fly they are 7-8sec cars
@@Cruner62 true
@@aaronwestley3239 much more stored energy in the same space with hydrogen, there are barely any electric charging stations
Climate friendly power will run both but It’s less pollution than mining rare materials for batteries
More simple you dont need so much technology in a hydrogen car where if one small sensor goes wrong the car is a brick
aviation and homes will use it may as well run cars on it keep electric too though
The NOx emission was new to me. Very helpful lecture. 👍
the only emission of hydrogen burnt is water.
Thats only if you have a source of pure oxygen, but a hydrogen engine will be using atmospheric air which contains nitrogen.
wasaglass HICEV produces almost no nitrogen oxide, This is not an argument
@Robbierobot574 can reduce NOx hugely by changing medium of combustion as reduces temp of combustion, e.g. petrol engines are very low on NOx.
Cant we store that NOx and use it as power booster for racing 😊
With my bad English, it`s very easy to understand you, thank you, what you create is insane!
You mentioned the passenger compartment being taken up by a larger fuel tank, but wouldn't it be about the same by the time you added the Fuel Cell, Converter, power Control Unit and the Battery?
Yeah. He also said you need to double the size of the tank which isnt true. This guy is wrong about a lot of things ive noticed.
You'd get back some space for mechanicals "under the hood" by not needing a radiator, alternator, water pump, turbo, or hoses of any kind.
“They come back because they’re very kind”
I laughed so hard 😂
>relesses 100 videos about hydrogen engines and explains how they work
>plottwist hydrogen engines are actually useless
Haha, it was just two, just two videos!
Engineering Explained Why did you use old gasoline ICE engine efficiency in this comparison when you know tailored engine design and excellent H2 combustion characteristics could easily double that?
-Higher compression ability (120 octane equivalent)
- Incredible combustion stability allows air fuel ratio nearly 10x leaner than gasoline
-Tremendous mixing & flame speed vs gasoline, for nearly ideal heat release
- No radiant heat loss
Either platform requires new power plants that will be cutting edge. Also you gave no or inadequate comment on the consumer acquisition cost differences. Very disappointed in your work on this as I have greatly appreciated your factual and thorough technical analysis on other engines.
@@timduncan8450
Seems like he did provide commentary on cost differences.
Tim Duncan You can already have quite a sizeable battery just on the cost savings from an engine when comparing to a electric engine. The cost for similar power can be 20x... (Tesla driveunit 10k$
@@timduncan8450 if hydrogen were really feasible as fuel for a reciprocating internal combustion engine there would be a lot more research and experimentation. Hydrogen sucks for this application and is very hard to control its combustion, also is very prone to detonate and i mean real detonations not preignition which is what many call "detonation".
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and it always will be.
sadly it will be kept in check by middle eastern countries whose whole economy relies heavily on fossil fuels.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier.
Hold on to that penny stock...
In this video Jason NOx hydrogen combustion
Niice.
@@matthewfredrickmfkrz1934
Go away, you shouldn't /b/ here.
@@acronus wash the sand out of your Netherland kite
While this is all very factual, we have millions of pre existing engines so it makes the most sense to do the first option
Always good info. I wonder about a cost comparison? Engine vs fuel cell, and H2 vs lithium?
A lot of people already created HHO cells cheaply tho
5:15 Did you forget to include the volume of the engines? And the weight? E.g. the battery is gonna be super heavy, as we know from petrol/diesel hybrids.
Battery wouldn't need to be very large as the hydrogen is acting as the energy storage media.
@@xxportalxx. But he's advocating against hydrogen, and heavy battery in electro/hybrid is an argument for hydrogen.
@@tomhejda6450 this isn't a hybrid, the energy source for a fuel cell vehicle is the hydrogen. The battery is for things such as starting the vehicle, similar to the function of the battery in your car. Depending on the output of the fuel cell they can also act as an accumulator, trickle charged by the fuel cell and then providing the power necessary for the electric motors. In either case it's a much smaller battery than you'd find in an ev/hybrid where the battery is actually acting as a primary storage medium.
The battery as shown in the video is only for storing energy from regenerative braking, so it's smaller, and most likely lithium-ion, so it is lighter. The fuel cell car does not need a transmission, so that saves a significant amount of weight.
@@xxportalxx. had a few drinks but why store the electricity neeeded ?why not use a dynamo system ie the electricity generated is used to directly power the electrical feed to convert charge to no lost it too much gin supply to charge electrons to change water to power
Without major breakthroughs in battery technology, it will be hard in the present decade to ramp up BEV production towards ICE numbers. That's why there's a possible switch in agenda towards Hydrogen powered cars. A push for ICE Hydrogen cars, with particle filter systems, would quickly reduce Carbon emissions, as these type of powertrains are more easily scaled in production.
This is all missing the point. With hydrogen you don’t have to worry about efficiency because it’s not Finite. It’s a game changer. There are so many different ways to run hydrogen into a car, down to the wheels, and it’s so clean, that it’s the biggest disappointment to both electric, and gasoline industries. That’s the only reason it’s not mass produced in cars. It’s not a secret, or a conspiracy. They do not want the game to change. They want everything to be about who has the best efficiency of finite resources.
Exactly correct.
Many of you talk about efficiency and differences between hydrogen combustion engines and hydrogen cells. To my best knowledge as an engineer, many R&D teams struggle to store the hydrogen inside the tanks as it is the most devastating medium to any materials it is nearby. It comes from the size of the hydrogen that causes corrosion - voids, hydrogen compounds, local pressure growth, etc. More should be discussed in regard to materials for hydrogen storage rather than only to the drivetrain as it may be the cause of limited development of hydrogen powered cars.
Hydrogen can be stored in cellular material made of carbon. I haven't seen any data concerning corrosion of metals in the presence of Hydrogen.
Would be interesting to compare efficiency in a cold climate like Canada in winter
My humble opinion. Store hydrogen as aluminum + h20. At that point may as well skip the plumbing and combine storage with the cell. Tadaa! Al air battery. Replace the aluminum when it's used up, send back to Alcan to be recycled into Aluminum using their hydro electric dam. Renewable and compact.
That's aluminium.
@@ShadowViewsOnly right you are good sir. Just didn't want to confuse our 'murican neighbours.
It's even more compact after you crush it
you speak of strange things..
The real advantage to the combustion engine is that it is a known technology which doesn't require rare earth elements which there isn't enough to replace all the vehicle in the world.
It's all ball bearings nowadays. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads, and I'm gonna need 'bout ten quarts of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.
Love some Fletch quotes, lmao
Remember kids, be kind just like electrons. 😂
Informative, but not that helpful for those of us who ride motorcycles. Could you do another video contrasting the pros and cons of these two solutions for motorcycles. There is a great variety of ICE motorcycle designs to suit different types of usage, but for example my Yamaha MT-07 weighs about 400lbs and produces about 74hp and 50 foot lbs of torque. My daughter's Yamaha YZF-R3 weighs 365lbs and produces about 42hp and a little over 20 foot lbs of torque. Currently, there are a variety of ICE motorcycles available weighing in the 430 to 450lb range producing 200hp or more. Given that motorcycles are very small, the greatest challenges for any new power technology will be to match current ICE power and range without increasing size or weight or diminishing range.
The efficiency it seems like you may be overlooking is the repurposing and building out of the fueling infrastructure. By modifying ice engines to hydrogen fuel, we expand the market share quickly and drive investment into retrofitting the fueling network. At the same time, we gain a real advantage in carbon emissions and help keep costs low for the average consumer. This is a win, win, win.
We already have plenty of established, effective technologies in place to deal with NOX. This is just not a compelling argument against hydrogen fuel for ice engines.
I've been very facinated with the idea of water and hydrogen powered combustion engines. And I'm really not seeing the problem. I've seen another comment that also said this, but and exhaust system can filter most NOx so why not?
While a hydrogen fuel cell is certainly more efficient than a hydrogen combustion engine it still has abysmally low efficiency "well-to-wheel" when you put it besides a pure battery electric vehicle.
From hydrolysis to compression losses to transport to making power again a hydrogen fuel cell engine is about as power efficient as a combustion engine (about 1/3 the efficiency of a BEV). This isn't even open to being mitigated by technical advances as the energy losses in the conversion are pure physics.
To put this another way: in order to supply the energy to an automotive sector run on hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries you'd need
- three times as many new powerplants (which need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen)
- factories that can produce and compress hydrogen in quantity (which need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen...including profit for the owner of said factory)
- a way to distribute said hydrogen (as opposed to power for BEVs for which a distribution network is already in place)
- vastly more expensive fueling stations (about 5 million $ a pop...a price for which you could build around 500+ BEV charge points..and which, again, need to be paid for by the cost of the sold hydrogen..including the profit for the fueling station owner)
...all of which combined would make commercially viable hydrogen hugely expensive.
Certainly there's no way this could be even close to competitive in terms of dollars/mile with just taking the power from step 1 and plugging it directly into a battery.
Hydrogen can also be made via gas reforming where natural gas is abundant. I agree that compact storage remains a major problem, but hydrogen has excellent energy density compared to batteries, so it could be useful for applications where weight is a major concern (e.g. aviation).
Are there other ways to make fuel fore warming houses?
-You wouldn't need 3 times as many power plants. In fact, you would actually need fewer. What do you think will happen when everyone gets home, plugs in their cars, and goes to make dinner/watch TV/run the microwave, etc? The only way to make that work is with grid energy storage(GES) systems. Currently the most efficient GES is batteries so that means the full conversion chain for an EV will look something like this: HVAC> LVDC>chemical>LVDC>HVAC>LVAC>LVDC>chemical>motor. Once you consider all the conversions, batteries are actually less efficient. For reference, hydrogen is only HVAC>hydrogen>motor.
-Hydrogen is much easier to produce than batteries. Exactly where do you think batteries come from?
-There is no disruption system setup that can handle EV. Every car uses power about 100 times as much power as an oven; do you really think the current power grid would hold up if everyone bought 100 extra ovens and turned them on at roughly the same time?
-You can't compare a station to what is equivalent to a pump that only one(maybe two) person can use. Only the underground hydrogen tank cost a lot, but a station only needs one. Even a small gas station has 8 pumps which can service dozens of people over a day. 1 hydrogen station per 500 people doesn't seem unreasonable at all. In fact, that is probably more than we have gas stations today.
I get the feeling you don't know much about the engineering/science involved. Currently, there is no physical way for BEV to replace oil based fuels. We simply don't have enough raw materials to make batteries and we are on track to run out of the metals used in Li+ batteries way before we run out of oil. Hydrogen will be massively expensive, but at least it is possible in theory.
@@amirabudubai2279 dude batteries are probaly better fore the long run.
But batteries take ages to recharge and hydrothing is just a pump. (Like tanking but with hydrogen.)
@@amirabudubai2279 like in my country the electrical grid is overcharging because of solar and wind power.
Soo what isnt nessecary pump into hydrogen?
I was expecting to also see calculations on the US price per mile comparing the two types of hydrogen systems vs a gasoline system, kinda like you did on the EV vs gas video.
You forgot to think about h2 not always beeing very expensive but work as a energy storage option for big renewable plants like the energy from wind. Here in Germany, a lot of them don't work when there's AL lot of wind because of that. So would already get this energy "for free"
Thanks EE for this wonderful Hydrogencember..
Is next month Carbuary?
As much as I like ICE and its sound etc, I hate to admit that I think that electrical drives are way more efficient and faster and quieter. The instant torque is so good.
In the ideal future most of us will have some kind of ICE hobby/weekend car or motorcycle but a hydrogen fuel cell or electric car as a daily.
No way I will never want to hear sound of a nice high revving motorcycle ICE ever again.
I like how you make a difficult scenario simple for us old folks! Thanks.
pardon me, but you haven't read current research. fuel cells use exotic material while hydrogen is everywhere, you can make special reciprocating or rotary engines, or gas turbines running on renewable hydrogen, compressed air or liquid hydrogen or an hybrid of those. you can use a o2 tank so there are no nox emissions, etc. this affects the whole world, not your first world whims.
bob Lazar made a hydrogen combustion engine out of his old corvette
He was not the only one. There was another man - with ACTUAL video of a working prototype - but that guy? Yeah he died mysteriously.
@@honklerton732 What was his name? Where would one find more info on this?
@@mirsidorov5112 you couldn’t, that’s the thing about it
If we were to build a new car from scratch, then fuel cells would absolutely make sense.
The cheaper (and therefore faster) way to decarbonise road transportation though would be to convert existing petrol and diesel engines to run on hydrogen, in that event we'd be talking about an adapter kit your local repair shop can install.
you can see how capital isn't turned on by an adaptor kit. They want to make a margin on a whole car.
With the whole gas crisis this is a more then feasible option you bc pups install yourself to cut gas prices in half until later models become street legal tht being said water is finite is it truly a good idea to make it a fuel source when already it is in great demand by every living creature of this planet
If we decarbonize road transportation then where would plants get co2? Our farming areas are already suffering from a co2 drought!
@@michaeledwards8713 As the hydrogen is used it turns back into water, constant recycling, don't see a problem there.
Yeah but it's not really feasible to convert normal gas cars to hydrogen. We would need to build new tanks which don't fit on the existing cars without extensive body work, the engine is probably the easy swap, but then we also need DEF systems which would be totally reworking the exhaust systems. That means converting a diesel car would be easier. Not to mention not doing so is a terrible idea. NOx is a carcinogen. It's not a greenhouse gas, but is being a direct cause of cancer better?
Very helpful! Thank you. I'm considering trying an HHO injection modification to use in addition with gasoline on a '96 LT1 project.
Chuck Fair i already test HHO and got 40% better mpg
Chuck, my recommendation: don't get the HHO system, it's all smoke and mirrors
One drawback off fuel cells is the use off rare metals unlike common metals used in gasoline engines.
Exactly.
yeah, combustion engines never can have hybrid, so great point to the fuel cell. oh wait, is the prius out there introduced more than 20 years ago?
IMHO: FYI: I'd really like to see someone produce an "OPPOSED PISTON, DIESEL (INTERNAL COMBUSTION) ENGINE!!!.... AND USE IT FOR AN ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATOR, (FIXED BASE, OR PORTABLE)..... THE HYDROGEN COULD BE ELECTROLYZED, FROM ADJACENT SOLAR P.E. ARRAYS (i.e. ...ON A HOUSE/BARN ROOF, ETC.)... A high-pressure storage tank, can hold a lot of hydrogen, and still weigh less that a full liquid fuel tank.
I was yelling at my screen too, WHAT ABOUT HYDROGEN COMPRESSION ENGINE??? NOBODY IS USING THIS GREAT PROCESS AND USING IT IN DIESEL ENGINES???
Great. But your first line chemical reactions are overly simplistic because you conflate oxygen with “air”. Neither of these solutions use a tank of pure oxygen. They both use air. Air is mostly nitrogen, as you imply on the left. But your description leaves it a bit unclear how the hydrogen engine produces NOX.
Yeah clearly he is a OPEC agent
He has in other videos. It comes down to the fact that the temperatures in a hydrogen combustion engine get high enough for reactions that produce nitrogen oxides to occur.
Any time you heat air much above 900 degrees C, the diNitrogen bonds begin to split into atomic nitrogen, the nitrogen then preferentially grab oxygen molecules. Above 1500 C this really starts going in earnest. You don't even need to burn anything if you compress air to a high enough temperature and pressure.
Unfortunately, any Carnot heat engine needs a large differential between the hot side and the cold side for maximum efficiency. This set of NOx reactions is also endothermic, further stealing energy from the combustion process that you want to turn into mechanical energy.
@@Markle2k last time I checked a combustion engine doesn't go higher than 300 C.
@@Markle2k: Catalytic converter... they do "magic".
kidding, they do Chemistry..
In 1969, Roger Billings solved the NOX problems while converting a fleet of Pontiacs and busses to run on hydrogen with their ICE engines
Can you put a nox filter on a car with a hydrogen combustion engine?
Of course.
If burning hydrogen is such a bad idea why did they use it with them space shuttle and other big rockets? I notice did'nt give much of a comparisment between greenhouse gas an NOX or wether NOX disapates breaks down mor quckly into nitrogen an oxegen morso than greenhouse gas .
Is there a more efficient engine that could use hydrogen as a fuel source? Maybe we're asking the wrong questions?
Nybbl er
Hydrogen is extremely high on the octane list so diesel wouldn’t be a good option because diesels work on an entirely different rating. Plus hydrogen burns extremely hot so it’s not easy to design an engine that can use it.
@@topsecret1837 you could coat the parts which are exposed to the heat with a plasmacoat. it can withstand temperatures of over 7000 C
The Stirling is the most efficient heat-engine. More efficient than Otto or Diesel. With the constant, complete, clean burning of an External-Combustion engine. NASA's MOD2 Stirling-powered Chevy Celebrity beat the original Otto Celebrity in 0-60.
Yeah, but I have a question : could we convert old cars to hydrogen? I would love to be able to go in town centers in two decades with a 427 Cobra, but not an electric/fuel cell one.
I think it is possible because the engine still operates on the same principle just a different fuel source. I am not sure what modifications would need to be made in order to get it to work.
@@Razor-gx2dq it would probably need the timing to be adjusted because hydrogen burns a lot more violently than gas
A swedish engineer ran his Volvo on hydrogen, back in the early 8ies. Sadly, I don't have that magazine present, 40yrs later. But it IS possible!
hmm
people like me proly prefer H2 Combustion because of the sound of engine
good trade over normal gasoline if you will.
also
as Indonesian an fellow maritime nation, this kind of fuel definitely gonna be cheap.
The combustion engine might need a bigger tank but the fuel cell needs an H2 tank, a Fuel cell tank, coneverter, power control unit, big ass battery, and an eletric motor. Just looking at the drawing, you can see the fuel cell power looks unblanced, heavy and over complex with alot more space needed to make power. I would take the combustion design.
Toyota and Hyundai already have working products not sure what you mean by unbalanced? Is it the weight because alot of our cars have balanced and unbalanced variations.
you have right. atmosphearic air contains N(itorgoen), when we are using it in with high preassure and heat we are producing NOx (look diesel engines and high combustion gasoline engines).
You’re freaking awesome dude, thx for all the info..
You've stated 2 disadvantages of the Otto engine. First, the Otto's NOx is greatly reduced by EGR, as you well know. Second, internal-combustion engines aren't the only ones that can burn H2. The Stirling-Engine is much more efficient than the Otto engine, and doesn't have a NOx problem because it doesn't use the high temperature that's easily-feasible with the Otto's very brief combustion (In the Otto, the metal doesn't have time to melt). Without the temps possible with explosion-engines or super-high-melting alloys, NOx isn't a problem.
"You know, besides the whole 'Oh the Humanity, they'll blow up in your face' excuse."
Ah, this is just what I was looking for. I was in search of a type of engine or energy generation system that could be the second part to a hybrid system for a large truck (About the size of an RV, but also potentially heavier due to maybe making it armored.) The main part would of been solar power and a battery array, but I also was looking for a secondary system incase the primary power source is unavailable and the battery array ran dry.
" The main part would of been solar power and a battery array,"
That's great as long as you don't want to haul more than approximaately 1 ton-mile per day, and drive it only on a dedicated road where it cannot possibly get in a collision, because solar-powered cars(*) have already demonstrated that to even be functional, the frame has to be like that of a WW1 aircraft -- EXTREMELY light weight with no provisions to mitigate injuries caused by crashes.
(*) There are actual races between teams at various research universities using solar cars. They're EXTREMELY low, and have less collisioi safety than a bicycle, because every pound makes such a HUGE impact on speed, even more than in horse racing.
Thank God someone isn’t on the hydrogen hype train
You didn’t explain how industrial hydrogen refining processes also create carbon.
Could you explain that?
So does refining oil but if hydrogen is More environmentally friendly than the current infrastructure we should pursue it
Get water run electricity through it, preferably through eco friendly power plants, get 2H and O. Use both instead of taking outside air. No Nitrogen no NOx. Store the used H2O and repeat
@@poisonpotato1 The problem is the "run electricity through it" part. Most of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels. Using electricity from renewable sources to produce hydrogen is wasting it, because it yields about half the energy of just storing and using the electricity directly.
@@BigUriel still, renewables are cheap and getting cheaper. Wasting half of your energy might not be too much of a problem if you can store it
Lol electric cars are worse
Sorry--let me say all this in one post:
.
Otto engines' NOx is greatly reduced by EGR. Stirling engines are much more efficient than Otto engines. Ottos & moderate-temp Stirlings use only common iron, instead of the exotic metals currently needed by fuel-cells & EV batteries. Stirlings w/out exotic metals use lower temps, which don't cause a NOx problem.
.
Yes, maybe someday, fuel-cells & EV batteries won't need exotic metals, and then obviously they'll then be inexpensive and harmless. But, till then, what I said applies.
.
Obviously we'll need a wide variety of all the sustainable/renewable energy...including biofuels. Stirlings can burn *anything*, including bio-Diesel. Micro-algae ponds produce a tremendous amount of bio-Diesel, without using any agricultural land. Bio-Diesel is carbon-neutral. Stirlings burn clean, w/out hydrocarbon-pollution.
.
You seem to be assuming a 95% or greater efficiency for the several energy conversions in the FC vehicle.
I love how no one on the "let's use hydrogen" plan bothers to note the differences between gasoline/diesel being group D chemicals and hydrogen being a group B chemical. I don't ever see the general public being able to handle hydrogen. More than likely we will use hydrogen to make hydrocarbon liquids and continue using the existing infrastructure of the world
What
People make hydrogen in their garage all the time with electrolysis what do you mean
As long as you dont breathe it you are fine, but thats like saying dont drink gasoline, its obviois
Obvious*
Aren't the parts for creating fuel cell environmentally worst than hydrogen combustion? I can imagine those rare earth material for creating those battery and catalyst is pretty bad. Just curious if it out weigh the cost or if it's a myth.
They're making new batteries out of non rare metals.
That's a problem that can be worked on, but I'm also curious about the catalyst and the manufacture and disposal of the fuel cell
Fuel cells are a bit worse than batteries but far better than petroleum. The catalysts use the same materials as catalytic converters in ICE cars. There are no rare earth metals in batteries, just in permanent magnet motor/generators. Cobalt is a byproduct of copper mining and only about half as abundant and Manganese is as common as Phosphorus in Earth's crust.
Rare earth is also a misnomer for the most useful ones. Their issue is that they are so chemically similar that they are hard to separate from one another.
How do you make hydrogen commercially, but by chemical decomposition of methane or other natural gas. What is overall efficiency of that process compared to taking same energy of fuel, and turning direct to electric power in a large efficient power plant.
I don't know about the environmental impact of mining the materials for a fuel cell but the lifetime of a fuel cell is (at least as far as I understand it) much longer than the lifetime of a battery.
So why not use solar / renewables
to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Compress both and use both skipping the nitrogen part from Air.
Use a small turbine engine to charge batteries to run the electric motors to turn the wheels. ?
Thanks for the video ! I was wondering. How much Nox is normal gasoline, diesel generate compared to hydrogen combustion ?
It sounds like a good idea. it'd the thought that counts right?
Only with mom unfortunately.
@@EngineeringExplained lol
Boom is much sexier than zzzzzzzz...
I would buy a hydrogen combustion.
With VTEC... and 10000 RPM ^^
Ur right, but that fuel cell will cost me about $20,000 compared to that combustion engine I can get for maybe around $400-$1000.
I see the benefit in making bolt on or drop in solutions for converting gas vehicles to hydrogen vehicles. You have a stout car culture not willing to shift, and you have legitimate limitations which the EV fandom refuses to address. These mods wouldn't even have to be cheap either, just cheaper than buying an EV (which isn't all that hard to do).
This guy doesn't know about GEET or Stanley Myers
What if we use oxygen instead of air during combustion to prevent nitrogen by product
that means an extra tank, and he already said that you need a big tank for hydrogen...
@@Frankgaming How about an stationary engine ?
You can have electrolysis
It's not quite that easy to get oxygen out of the atmosphere, no one wants to refuel twice every time, NOx isn't THAT bad
And pure oxygen is a real bad fire hazard too. Everything likes to burn real bad in pure oxygen.
So not only a massive tank, but lots of extra components for safety
I'm pretty sure a little innovation by actual engineers would solve all the problems you see
What about adding a small amount of hydrogen to an engine operating on gasoline? Can this improve the efficiency of the fuel burn?
Seems like an EV is much simpler
EV is cheaper, too, both to buy and fuel.
The only good thing about hydrogen, is it would be a perfect way to store the excess energy from wind turbines after a wind storm. Rather than curtailing, it would be nice to have a way to use that excess energy, despite not being as efficient as charging a battery.
@@mychevysparkevdidntcatchfi1489thats cuz there are no hydrogen combustion cars for sale
@@greynolds17 No, it's because you can directly use the electrons to fuel a battery. Electrolysis of water and compression chew up half the energy before you even figure out how to get the hydrogen into a car's tank.
@@Markle2k I said hydrogen combustion...not hydrogen electrolysis
You forgot to mention that the fuel cell itself costs $40k