The Truth about Hydrogen
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2018
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: skl.sh/realengineering13
Errors: I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies.
Credits:
Director: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Narrator/Co-Director: Brian McManus
Animations: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Get your Real Engineering merch at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Editing Laptop: amzn.to/2GKXqb7
Camera: amzn.to/2oyVNp9
Microphone: amzn.to/2HOxVXu
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Henning Basma, Mark Govea, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande - Věda a technologie
Cars in general just aren't efficient forms of transport because your moving a 2 ton hunk of metal when all you need to move is a ~150 lb human
We're getting there. Baby steps.
Finally, an answer that might to solve 80% of the debate. It doesn't matter to me which type of energy carrier will win. As long as we continue to use cars for commuting then we will continue to create environmental problems. Rather, the fact that the US doesn't seem interested to invest more in bus lines or commuter trains really baffles me. The state and federal governments have tendency to support private renewable energy and car companies to avoid increasing public spending, even though the spending might very much help those who can afford cars. Then again, Elon Musk himself hate public transport so I don't expect much of his fanboys to support affordable buses or trams or trains for the people.
fuck commuter and all the stinking and disease infected people
get a motorcycle ;)
That’s why I ride a 300lb motorbike
This video got me an admission offer to a german public university! The interviewers asked me questions that were covered in this video and I answered them all of their questions in an instant! Thank you very much real engineering, you have made my life much better just by your videos! God bless you man! 😭✨
Hey congratulations! May I ask which university? I want to study hydrogen technology in Germany as well.
Nice
Are u an Indian? There’s too many of u all across the world now.
So you learned your lines
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
It’s 3 years after this has been posted and at the moment we are still stuck between inefficient fuel cell technology and not good enough batteries. If solid state batteries could materialize and make the much needed jump in battery technology, that would really help the case for electric vehicles. Unfortunately battery technology always seems to be 5 to 10 years away. The fact that Toyota is investing in both tells you how uncertain both technologies are.
What exactly are you missing from current EV battery tech?
@@Simon-dm8zv lithium battery degradation, they wear out it’s inevitable and there’s no real good recycling option
@@Zadow So what, they last a very long time (much longer than the car itself) and recycling already exists.
@@Simon-dm8zv this is what i was thinking. what problem are people now really trying to solve. batteries distance becomes less of an issue as charge times get faster. you can charge a tesla to 80% on your lunch break and drive 300 miles. 90% of american don’t need more than this.
you can even take a very long trip and charge back to 80% while eating a meal.
@@shake6321 Exactly sir.
Very interesting video and raised a number of issues that I hadn't considered. The video covered and clarified a lot of production efficiencies, t. though I didn't understand if you included efficiency delta of the vehicles i.e. are hydrogen vehicles lighter making the vehicle more efficient. I'm sure there isnt a silver bullet and there will be pros and cons with both finding a niche in the market.
I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about.
Interesting video, although I question your efficiency calculation.
Instead of continuing to subtract the loss from the total available energy, it should be lost subtracted from the available energy at each stage. For example, if you consider 20% loss from electrolysis and 13% loss from compress it is NOT a total loss of 33%. Instead, it is 20% loss of the total energy available then 13% loss from the energy remaining. This would be a loss of 30.4%, not 33%. As you continue the calculation, the problem just compounds. You can't just add up all the loss and say that the efficiency, you need to look at a loss relative to the energy available at each stage.
This bothered me too haha I'm glad someone brought it up
Besides it's unfair to compare an energy source with an energy storage device. Teslas run on fossil fuels, transformed into electricity.
@@vincentblanchard2515 Not necessarily. Many people charge their cars from renewable energy. There are two local utilities where I live both have a choice of partially renewable or fully renewable sources in addition to the usual "I don't care" generation. None use coal.
@@stevekeple7947 because the electricity needs to be produced and transported in either case, so it cancels out
Am I wrong in my understanding that:
Electric Vehicle: Energy is produced, and some of that energy is lost in transpiration/storage/transmission. What isn't lost can be stored in your battery, and used to drive your vehicle (~70-90% overall efficiency)
Hydrogen Vehicle: Energy is produced, used in electrolysis (or other means of H2 production), then compressed/liquefaction, then transported, then fed into a fuel cell, which is then used to generate the power to drive your motors. (~25-35% overall efficiency)
There seems to be a LOT more opportunity for energy to be lost in fuel cells. (Efficiency % source: Volkswagen)
It seems that fuel cells may be a great technology for backup power or supplemental power in certain cases, but so far it doesn't seem to be a viable option for the daily commuter compared to alternatives.
Seeing a lot of comments about a factual error in this video, since it effects the conclusion of the analysis I am pinning a comment here. I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies. I just used the word "add" in the colloquial sense of the word without thinking. Calculations were, for battery: (.95)*(.92)* (.90)*(.90)*(.95) = 67% efficiency Hydrogen Best Case: (.92)*(.80)*(.87)*(.60)*(.90)* (.95) = 32.85% efficiency Hydrogen Worst Case: (.92)*(.70)*(.87)*(.50)*(.90)*(.95)*(.80) = 19.16% efficiency. I need to do a better job of proof reading my scripts, but I always proof read my calculations multiple times over.
Recent test have shown the Tesla Model 3 powertrain has a 89% battery to wheels efficiency (Clean Technica. When you add in the 92% chart efficiency .92 x .89 = 82% efficincy. That is quite a bit better than 67%. Not sure why you add grid loss to your efficiency calculations for BEV, but not for FCEV...
Two other factors you left out were that fuel cell cars still have to have a fairly large battery pack to actually drive on because the fuel cells that fit inside a car can't generate enough power in demand for accelerating into traffic or climbing hills etc., and that without that battery pack, they also can't do any regenerative braking that battery cars can. And also that fuel cells also require maintenance and wear out over time just like batteries do today. Those factors are rarely mentioned. Another is the fuel cells don't like to operate very well in climate extremes, so they also have to be heated and cooled like a battery pack if you want them to be reliable and trouble free.
Then there are the rare and exotic materials that are required for fuel cells to function, much like with batteries. These are some of the things that people don't know about fuel cell vehicles yet, and the hydrogen lobby sure isn't going out of its way to tell anyone either because they're still trying to establish hydrogen as viable and they can't handle that yet. But it's important to get all the factors on the table so people can at least be informed while they make their arguments and state their cases.
The key is that you *ARE* adding the losses due to inefficiency. Which is exactly what multiplying efficiency does.
affects*
This is a good video but I find it lacking in that you don't come back to the specific energy that you start off with. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong, but releasing 19% of 40000Wh/kg is a whole lot more than 33% of 278Wh/kg! Even though Hydrogen is lacking tremendously in the efficiency department, the energy density should more than compensate this.
I find it's like cheating a little bit to compare the two energy source since battery powered EVs are able to take advantage of the pre-existing energy distribution grid where Hydrogen needs to build it up from scratch...
It's great to hear of advancements being made in H-power since it's not something that gets much attention. I look forward to seeing your video on Hydrogen powered aircraft developments! ;)
It’s also important to consider the materials required to make batteries and fuel cells, how easy are they to get, how much is available, and how much pollution is generated gathering each
just use a train ffs
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
@@grisseenot everything can be done by train. How will you get to the train. How does your package arrive. How is food delivered.
@@Bobspineable How will you get to the train?
by using smaller train/ bus/ cycling/ walking, which is doable if cities are built with human in mind
How does your package arrive?
using minitruck/ bakfiets, bigger cargo can still be delivered with normal cargo van on 2 lane road
How is food delivered? for store: same as above, for personal consumption: with bike, also there will be small restaurant everywhere if there's no zoning restriction, so you don't have to order deliveries as much
@@humbleindian6303car fuel cells are way more expensive than battery packs. For example, Hyundai charges over $90.000 just for the part if you need it replaced. You can look that up. Also, for a same priced car, your argument doesn‘t work either. And there is a buffer battery in all hydrogen cars as well. It was left out in this video, for simplicity I guess.
Thanks for this Real Engineering, always enjoying your videos.
I think in your analysis you should also consider the full life cycle costs, for batteries and as well for FCVs. What is the energy costs (ie., losses) for producing li-ion batteries, and fuel cells? What is their life expectancy; and how - at and what energy costs - could these products be recycled and replaced once at end-of-life. Based on my limited knowledge I would assume that this is bigger problem for batteries compared with fuel cells.
Cradle to grave studies are available and have a big variability in accordance to source materials used and assumptions made in those studies. More often than not BEVs come out ahead (lower overall emissions) of FCEV's but as said there appears to be a lot of variability and heck I even saw one which showed a pure Battery Tesla M3 as a PHEV with tailpipe emissions :)
Studies are only as good as the source material used and with plenty of influence on who paid of it as well.
Both batteries and fuel cells are charged (filled) with natural gas, petroleum or coal. No, wind turbines wont do it at all. The amount of fossil fuels required to mine, refine, fabricate, transport, erect, and maintain them is staggering and the environmental damage wrought by them is incalculable.
We had all better quickly pull our collective heads out of our asses and start asking questions. The non-stop demonizing of fossil fuels by the same people whose appetite for fossil fuels is insatiable. Something doesn't add up even for those of you who have had the skills of thinking scrubbed from your consciousness by our ignorant politicians, educators and their media mouthpieces.
The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust. The economic powerhouses of the world trade in oil and coal while the debtor nations delude themselves into believe their green lies. Typically they are childless since they cannot afford to propagate their ignorance which is probably a good thing. They, as well as their cultures, will be displaced by the future.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
I'm excited to see where all of this goes. Whichever fueling method wins out, it'll likely be met by other efficiency improvements - like the autonomous car designs I've been seeing that are meant to carry only cargo rather than people. Right now the biggest energy loss comes from everyone believing they need to drive their 4,000 lb Grand Cherokee down the road to grab a loaf of bread.
*Thomas Frank,*
Or more from the fact that they go back and forth to completely unnecessary jobs... And from the fact that 90% of the time our cars are not used, thus 90% of pollution to produce them is one of the biggest energy loss...
Ensoa Александр Yeah, but cars don't have a set number of years that they last. Most of the damage to cars comes from their use. So even if everyone used a car sharing service, there could be less cars, but they'd need to be replaced more often. You'd maybe get a 10% saving on the number of cars produced, at best. Definitely not 90%.
TmsFnk;Which is a fine opener to the idea that the biggest obstacle to engineering optimized solutions is wrong-thinking about problems. (bad ideas that lead to dead-end futures)
I'm excited by the technologies' respective challenges rather than being deterred by them. If electric cars became the norm and people were cognizant that it takes 5 hours to charge their car, what does that do to society and car use? Will people prefer shopping at bicycle distance, like we do in the Netherlands? And what does that change about supermarket culture? If you forget something, will you be more likely to go back and get more? Will the volume of purchases change? Or will America have a unique culture where supermarkets are expected to have huge volumes while each purchase is relatively little?
The commercial cultural implications make me curious, if I put my skepticism of how total the change from gas to electric will be.
I just assume hybridized solutions are the end result.
Both hydrogen cells and batteries fulfill a different purpose in our energy needs, and I don't see why we won't end up using both for their niche purposes.
Q&A on the topic of this weeks video starts......now: instagram.com/brianjamesmcmanus/
Real Engineering please make a video about machine learning
One thing is missing in this comparison: The weight of the vehicle. The goal is mobility. Moving batteries around is carrying dead weight which costs energy. I don't know the weight difference between battery and hydrogen powered cars so I don't know if it makes a significant difference. I'd suggest comparing the amount of 'primary' energy (from renewable sources) required to move a person 100km as a better comparison. Very informative, great video. Thank you!
Tesla gives free recharging, so you only really pay at home.
You mentioned the extra weight of battery cars but didn't factor it into the efficiency calculation. Heavier vehicles inherently need more energy to move, no? This becomes a serious problem for freight and other heavier vehicles as it limits the capacity of the trucks.
There's a lot of economy of scale here. To claim that battery technology will catch up is laughable at worst, and a misguided fantasy at best.
What you have neglected to discuss several times is that the electric grid is struggling handle the voltage required to charge a few hundred electric cars, let alone tens of thousands.
The marketing behind Electric cars makes them seem as the only option, but this is an infrastructure problem. It is telling that currently there's only mass adoption of electric cars at the consumer level yet governments are purchasing large hydrogen grids. Toyota has driven a large number of these fuel cell innovations with the hell of shell and a few other companies.
Based on infrastructure needs to charge several thousand cars, you'd need to build a few nuclear power stations every couple of miles to provide enough voltage to charge so many batteries.
Batteries are only one part of the answer.
The future looks like Internal Combustion performance cars running on natural gas...
With Hydrogen fuel cars being a nearly identical option for most normal cars...
With electric cars being a toy of the rich or for short range utility vehicles in cities.
Thanks for this amazing overview! However there are three factors I really would like to know more about. 1) If we go with a scenario of our future where all of energy is produced by renewables and the biggest chunk by wind and solar, we will have a storage problem anyway. Wouldn't it make sense to use surplus energy to produce hydrogen? How would that change the calculation on a macro scale? 2) Is there anything promising in the field of (synthetic) liquid organic hydrogen carriers to change demands on transport and storage of hydrogen? 3) What about rare metals? Current battery technology demands huge amounts of rare metals. So does fuel cells. Also lithium batteries use their storage power over time. How would that compare with the mass production of fuel cells? If not for cars we will need them for trucks, ships any maybe airplanes.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
current batteries are around $80/kwh and getting cheaper.
Bravo. You have just explained the downside of hydrogen, the same way they said batteries wouldn't be practical when I was a kid. Battery technology has changed, so will hydrogen technology, if there is a market for it!
There are downsides to both however, many of the downsides to batteries are not efficiency related but related to production and later to disposal. Mining and refining of Lithium for example are highly polluting, and Lithium batteries are not easy to dispose of correctly. Of course, fuel cells are not clean to manufacture either, but more so that lithium batteries.
As for battery technology changing, yes, it has, though not to the degree or to the scale required. One of the major issues with renewables such as wind and solar power for example is what happens when the wind is not blowing? Or the sun not shining. We need energy storage solutions to store energy while it is being produced so it can be released when energy production has tailed off or stopped, say if it is night time and your power is solar! Until we have these energy storage solutions renewables can never be a full solution.
Let me understand... Are you arguing that hydrogen is impractical because it has a downside? Or because it is "expensive?" You're telling me that the maintenance for fossil fuel engines and power plants is less expensive? Are you arguing that the most abundant element in the world is less practical than a complex compound that takes millions of years to create? You're arguing the validity of clean renewable energy in a world where gasoline prices increase by the day?
And yea batteries are so impractical. The fact that a Tesla can now go 600 miles without need of charging, or that they can now seat 7 people, or tow the equivalent weight of a plane? What else is impractical.... Oh yes, the massive Tesla supercharging network that gives you over 100 miles of battery in the span of 30 minutes. What else, oh yes, the fact that it costs a minuscule amount to charge the car. Oh, and the worst of all, those dang pieces of junk last over 500,000 miles (with maintenance of course). Ahhh yes, so impractical. And pff, those goobers built cars, with the best crash safety ratings on the market??? How *impractical* (P.S Im not oblivious, yes there is maintenance on those cars.) However, once you replace the battery, you basically have a new car. Maybe, if you are THAT unlucky, you may need to replace the motor.
I just don't understand why people with no knowledge of engineering or basic principles of logic, try to offer up their opinion because their dads say batteries are bad. Honestly... Where did you study engineering? Where did you study environmental science? (High school physics and bio doesn't count).
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
You can't add percentages like that!
It's not: 100% - 20% - 13% = 66%
It's: 80% * 87% = 69%
You have to multiple what is left.
Well, he also used US electricity price before taxes and compared them to UK experimental hydrogen prices that include a whopping 20% VAT, so...
Here in Germany for example, hydrogen has a fixed price of €9.50/kg while electricity costs about €0.3/kWh which would make his example ~$26 for a battery charge vs. ~$56 for the fuel cell (assumed currency conversion rate of 1.17 USD per EUR and including 19% VAT). Still more than twice as much but *far* less dramatic than his figures, so yeah. He doesn't seem to be much of a maths guy.
Tyler Hansen 80%*87%, Think about ot like this, first you take 80% of something an get a result. This result is your new « whole thing » . Now you take 87% of that. To make that process shorter, you can just multiply the 2 percentages in the first place.
Yeah that is a grave mistake if he made it, I came down to comment but you and a few others beat me to it. Hopefully he just showed it that way for simplicity but those additive % are actually the multiplicative % after he calculated them.
totalermist. If you use the electicity price in germany when producing hydrogen it would cost €18/kg just for the electricity. The spot price of electricity is about €40/MWh in the northern part of europe. When you pay €0.3/kWh to the power company they charge you €0.26/kWh for delivery.
20% times 13% is below 3%, so that results in 97% total
I just don't see why we shouldn't have both... battery power and hydrogen power. In a lot of cases the reduced range and longer recharge time of electric cars is tolerable and where it isn't hydrogen cars could do the long range driving. Both systems have their place and I believe we should stop trying to decide over a "better" solution and embrace both technologies where they are most useful. (e.g. hydrogen powered busses (as we have here in Hamburg, Germany) and electric powered mail delivery vehicles (as seen all over the place in Germany). Busses need long ranges and minimal downtime while mail delivery needs smaller ranges and has long downtimes which can be used for charging.
Hydrogen is not a viable choice. Electric short range ok. Gas or diesel for long range. Hydrogen has no future except in the wet dreams of uneducated leftists
the new toyota has just that ,,battery power and hydrogen power ,hydrgen fuel cell to run the battery
Mike White How can you say this when every car manufacturer see’s it as the future? Biggest issue is lack of investment into perfecting the extraction process. Also this misguided fear that you would be driving an hydrogen bomb.
Indeed, I'd even say make battery/hydrogen hybrid cars, that can make your daily 50km commute on small batteries and have the hydrogen for rare longer drives
Hydrogen stores at a pressure that's twice the pressure energy of a fuel vapor container explosion. Just the pressure alone. It's extremely dangerous
Fascinating stuff, well delivered. Comments section brings out all the issues that make it completely clear that there is a massive role in future transport for hydrogen if we are not to turn the planet into one big quarry site, not to mention the geo-strategic problems associated with the geographic location of all the raw materials
Yeah, thats why i always preach to have a diverse Portfolio of Sci-CZcamsrs and Edu-Channels in youre Watch-List, especially those that upload rarely-but-epicly, therefore putting little to no Strain at youree Time-Schedule. This would mainly include Oversimplified, TIer Zoo and Hbomberguy. But it sure doesnt stop here and being healthy, in my opinion, means to use the Internet good.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
Little late to the party, but would you see any potential in hydrogen carrier fuels like ammonia? There is some interesting papers regarding using ammonia as either a direct fuel (burning) or a carrier for hydrogen. It seems to have a lot less drawbacks than hydrogen, mostly in terms of storage and current levels of production/supply chains. I'm sure there's some drawbacks, but would leave to hear your take on it
ammonia is very toxic to humans so a leak/tank failure is a big deal and also requires very well trained persons to deal with. it is also hostile to many Metals so needs quite specific tank construction also the cryogenic properties of ammonia need materials capable of temperature variations. it also doesn't burn particularly well/stable. not impossible to use though as its hugely common in commercial refrigeration/chiller plants-just not easy in cars/with untrained people
Ammonia has the same problem that steam-reformed methane has in that the energy required to produce ammonia will be greater than the energy gained from using it
Could you please make a video on lithium extraction and how much lithium we have and the impacts of lithium extraction and advancements in recycling lithium batteries and how to dispose lithium 🙂 and great video btw🙂
Yes I would like to see that too.
Mined by little kids in Africa.
I was wondering the same. Is the money saved by using an EV later obliterated by the need to spend 10's of thousands of dollars every 3 to 5 years to replace the batteries?
@@derekakien7379 really? Lithium is mined by little kids in Africa? So do you feel guilty when you use mobile devices or anything else you use everyday which contains elements which supposedly had been mined by little kids in Africa?
@@dahudie +you only replace the batteries when their done, all the time the battery is in use it's efficiency reduces, second the electricity made by solar or wind ain't efficiency also very polluting for the planet. So far the only clean energy is nuclear or thorium until fusion technology takes it over.
Also, BEST segue into advertisement I've seen in my life!! Props!!!
Hit me out of nowhere😂
Do you mean segway?
@@danieldifeo3699 Segue-
A segue is a smooth transition from one topic or section to the next.
I believe Segue refers to musical changes. May have misused the word. But i was just trying to make a joke. Segway(pronounced the same) is those cool two wheeler, side-by-side scooters. Never tried one.
@@shawnsindelar1840 today I learned something new, thanks
This is a PSA: Owning a hydrogen car has been the worst car ownership experience in my life: stations are down OFTEN, when I call to customer service and they tell me they work and have enough hydrogen in them I often go there and there's no hydrogen or it doesn't work. And I live in northern CA where we have the most hydrogen stations. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNTIL THEY RECTIFY THIS HORRIFIC FUELING EXPERIENCE DO NOT, DO NOT BUY a hydrogen car. Just get ANYTHING else
Thank you for your honesty on your experience.
I want to thank you for this vid. It was really helpful for a project of mine in school.
thanks a lot.
love your other vids also.
Hey great video, but how about the cost of production of a battery cell and the cost of liquidation of that same battery cell once it runs out of juice?
Also what are the impacts to the environment?
Thanks
This is a huge issue EV proponents like to ignore or brush off. Battery production costs as well as impacts from mining rare earth minerals, processing them, and transporting those minerals to a battery production factory should all be factored into the overall environmental impact and CO2 footprint. Not to mention the large amount of plastics and toxic waste created by battery packaging recycling and the associated electronics and cooling systems those battery packs require. Videos like this one always act like the batteries are just lying around waiting to be used when comparing the total CO2 and environmental impact vs other options. Hydrogen may be more expensive up front vs pure electric but I seriously doubt EV can touch hydrogen from an environmental aspect once the entire production and life-cycle of both systems are compared. And then of course we haven't even touched on the toxic and environmental impacts of producing the windmills and solar panels EV fans want to power those EV's with...
@@glamdring0007 Where does hydrogen come from? Natural gas. Why not use natural gas, which is much easier to store, transport and much more efficient? Because we have gaosline, which is even better to store, transport, and more efficient. Hydrogen is just as full of shit as EV.
u have to drive 350 000 kilometers with a tesla (with the same battery the whole time) to be eco friendly compared to a gasoline car. what i am trying to say is driving 350 000 kilometers with a gasoline car is as bad as doing it electric and thats just because of the way they make batteries and also you have to charge the battery and that isnt always on a 0 emission way.
english isnt my first language im sry if some stuff is incorrect english
and trucks and tractors will stay on diesel for years and years to come because of power and duration before the tank is empty
@@LoggyWD I don't understand whether you meant it or not, but hydrogen doesn't come from natural gas, it is a natural gas. Realistically, hydrogen can be culminated from a naturally occurring resource while charging an electric car is more favorable to power generation companies. At the end of the day, a charging station is still linked to power generation facilities that may or may not use renewable resources for the power, excluding power plants that run entirely off of said renewable energy sources. And yes, they are both definitely bs because at the end of the day both still use some form of nonrenewable resource in their construction. The battle is only truly about cost vs economical effect. Like I said, I agree that it is all bs.
Sounds like hydrogen would be the new “diesel” and batteries the new “petrol” in regard to their use cases
I really really like this response! I feel like when i check the comments on hydrogen and bev vehicles there's just a bunch of people trying to sell the thing they think is best and hate on the other. I think that both concepts do have their use cases and that development on both technologies should continue.
@@dryvve exactly! This video is comparing them, primarily, in terms of energy efficiency. That doesn't take away the fact that each has pros and cons, and are quite good for certain situations. Just like he mentioned in the end the examples of places that are out of the electrical grid or planes. Hydrogen might be less efficient, but can be stored in larger quantities more easily for certain needs
And both share a lot of components like inverters and motors
Airpolygon as its very focused on efficiency differences it seems to ignore the > 200 times energy density has over lithium chemistry, even so currently the cost delta is quite significant but may well change significantly with technology breakthroughs for both technologies. For now I would still be developing the hydrogen technologies.
@@chapmag6578 I completely agree, it's energy density is far greater, which right now is it's greater quality. Further research and development would be super beneficial to take advantage of hydrogen
Do you have a video on the Truth about motor vehicle batteries ? It would be good to fully understand the real impact on the environment and precious metals' resources, followed up by the longevity of the battery vehicle components versus fuel cell components.
Thank you.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
Probably one of the best and thorough videos I have seen on Hydrogen as an energy source. I believe that there is a future for Hydrogen if the cost can be significantly reduced, which I think will be inevitable as technology to produce it evolves over time. Clearly Hydrogen has some benefits in some areas of transportation. I believe the biggest benefit is the short-term refueling time vs. electric. This can be a huge advantage for transportation areas that require rapid refueling times. Personally, I have steered away from battery powered vehicles because of the amount of time it takes to recharge them. It basically places limits on the usage of these vehicles to being mainly for short commuter transportation, and not for long-distance trips. The advancements in both battery and Hydrogen power has been vastly improving. It will be interesting to see how far they will reach in the future, but for now I think they both still have a long way to go before they are as practical as fossil-fuel powered vehicles.
Bravo! Very well explained. You summarized my entire semester in 13 minutes!
yep
You teach H fuel cell?
The whole vid was a lie, so I guess your comment says something about that school.
@@saswatsarangi6669 I don't teach it but I've studied it just this year.
@@andredeketeleastutecomplex please enlighten us with the truth!
A good video and well worth watching, but it does overlook certain aspects:
The loss of electrodes during electrolysis;
The energy & pollution caused during production of batteries;
The relatively poor life of batteries & end of life recycling/disposal costs;
The extra electricity production & distribution networks needed if all vehicles became battery powered - you only talked about the distribution of hydrogen;
Petrol & diesel is already shipped around the world. Moving to hydrogen would allow poor coastal states, especially African, to become the future equivalents of OPEC, giving them an economic uplift;
What happens in either case in the case of a crash. I'd expect hydrogen to be safer on balance by compartmentalisating the tank;
The impact of current subsidies on the cost of buying & running electric cars. These are effectively a tax on the poor as they can't afford to benefit from the subsidies;
There was successful lobbying of the EU Commission by the large European manufacturers to shut out the primarily Japanese technology of hydrogen as they were already heavily invested in hybrid tech. This reduced R&D and investment in infrastructure leading to higher unit costs.
A very interesting subject, thank you.
Paul, the fuel cell may only last 120kkm.
I wasn't arguing for or against one or the other but that's interesting, thank you. 120k km is a bit lower that the current expected lifespan of a car, at least in the UK but is ball-park there. It's also a lot longer than a battery.
Given that there are Telsas with 400k+ miles (640k kilometers) on the road, including one with that many miles that just had its first battery warranty after supercharging every single day for 3 years (stupid!), no, that's not longer than a battery.
Also, I'm sure there was lobbying in the EU. But in Japan the government has been railroading hydrogen for 20 years, with huge grants and subsidies. As a car company in Japan, you either accept the free handouts and use them for hydrogen research, or you spend mountain loads of your own money on battery research. Which would you choose? If I were Toyota, I'd be going hydrogen too, and trying to make the best of it.
The best bit for Toyota is that a lot of the research they're doing into electric fuel cell cars transfers over to battery electric cars as well (they're both EVs, just with a different "battery" type providing the power). So when they have squeezed the last drops of subsidy money out of the Japanese government, and suddenly need to compete in a worldwide market hungry for BEVs, they'll be able to phone up Panasonic, put in a huge ongoing battery order (a couple years in advance, of course), and slap those batteries into a nicely optimized fuel cell electric vehicle.
It's a great strategy. Kudos to Toyota's execs for thinking of it. There is a reason they're so consistently successful.
There wouldn't be an equivalent to OPEC with hydrogen because all you need to make hydrogen is water and electricity. OPEC exists because there are a limited number of countries with access to oil, but hydrogen can be produced anywhere on the planet from a wide variety of electricity sources.
You need rare elements like platinum in fuel cells;). The vast majority of the world's platinum is found in southern Africa. You'd just be trading OPEC for the African Union.
U explain what is needed to be explained. And that too in the best way!
I think energy loss of charging is depending on the rate. Also battery can easily lose energy by self discharging.
certainly, the higher the charging current the higher the losses are due to heat from charger, cables and battery and that's why battery voltages will likely go up as charging rates increase to keep the current lower.
Self discharging is not really a problem in the large group of Li-Ion batteries, there is some (1-2% per month) but it is far less than what you'd get with NiMH or LA batteries. Furthermore self discharge is non linear in regards to charge level and is influences by temperature with higher battery temps having a higher self discharge rate than lower temps.
@@milanswoboda5457 I see, they minimized the charging energy losses. I’m not sure if the number(1-2%) is correct, but l know to protect from too high or low temperatures, battery’s temperatures should be controlled by using battery’s energy. especially winter season, I guess we lose much energy even if we don’t use a car.
@@perry4054 actually cold temperature reduce the self discharge rate however it also slows down the electrochemical reaction within the battery and with it creates a higher internal resistance thus reducing the maximum "safe" discharge and charge rate of the battery.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
This is a great video but to my experience there are two factors missing in the comparison. Batteries effectiveness and lifetime are both temperature sensitive which means TCO over a longer period should be taken into the equasion and calculated into the efficiency loss. Both factors are less variable with Hydrogen Fuel cells. Hydrogen production is great for energy storage in periods of overproduction of electricity. In Europe there have been peak Electricity production periods when the electricity price was negative. This has lead to users (Industrial) being paid to use electricity. The production of Hydrogen could capture and buffer these peaks to validate the over production and help buffer electricity prices in both directions. As investments in solar and wind energy continue, more electricity production peaks are to be expected which will have a positive effect on the Hydrogen production and availability.
exactly! plus, hydrogene fuel cells do not contain toxic chemicals and produce clean water as a free byproduct. batteries on the other hand are extremely toxic, first in production and then after their lifecycle as well.
Jump NYC
All fuel cells leak! They have plumbing and use gases, hydrogen diffuses through everything
Due to the bottlenecks in the battery production in the foreseeable future and the fact that most of the people outside taxi and truck drivers need the full capacity of larger battery only once in a while, it would probably make more sense to build an EV hybrid with a smaller battery around 30kWh and complement it with a hydrogen fuel cell to allow fast charging and long-range at any weather conditions without needing a big and very advanced battery to perform that action occasionally, of course, non of this can have chance to happen unless there will be good coverage of hydrogen refueling stations to even consider hydrogen as a solution to a battery bottleneck problem in meeting low emission commitments of developed nations that also help them become more resource independent faster...
Unlike current gasoline hybrids, there should not be an issue of needing to use fuel once in while just to prevent clogging of manifolds and to prevent aging of fuel with a limited shelf life as pure hydrogen should not suffer from such issues to such extend although materials used for storing sub-zero hydrogen tends to suffer from aging as a consequence of contact with the extreme environment, so if the issue of finding the proper solution for hydrogen storage will/are solved, hydrogen can be the next logical step of hybrids for masses which are due to the current impact of battery production on the environment often more friendly even in their gasoline form than battery-only EV in case that you don't utilize their maximum range very often and we are talking only about their lifetime CO2 impact. Perhaps Toyota will go in that direction to provide long-range fast-charging EVs on a mass scale in some regions with proper hydrogen refueling infrastructure without the need to match the battery production of Tesla.
@@IonorReasSpamGenerator There is no space to fit such an large batterie in a hydrogen fuel-cell car.
RE the new thumbnail works great, I always watch your vids, but this one caught me eye a lot better
agreed!
I legit thought it was ColdFusion video in the first thumbnail transition
ty for the video. to judge the enviromental aspect better, it would be interesting how far one can travel with hydrogen and battery cars before the power source has to be replaced and comparing the enviromental aspect of producing those would be.
Great video man will you do one on race cars that are run on gas or race fuel and the effect of it if converted to hydrogen and possibly the effects and negative effects. Also show how and what is done. That would be an awesome video.
Charging time for EVs is only relevant on long trips. Day to day, EVs effectively have "no" charge time, that is, you don't have to spend *your* time doing it. I drive an EV and the only charging "time" it costs me every day is a few seconds to unplug it in the morning and plug it back in at night. It's like waking up to full tank of gas every day! I never have to think about going somewhere to "fuel up". As for long trips, if you own a Tesla, their Supercharger network makes it easy to drive anywhere in almost the same time it takes a gas car: one Tesla owner recently drove from LA to NY in just 2 days! I'd rather just have to leave my phone on the charger overnight at home every night then have to go somewhere to charge it in 5 minutes once a week! That's how you have to think about it!
I don't know were you live but your point is verry egocentric ( but don't take it as a insult ,juste see the big picture not juste your life).
In most or all develloped countries ,most of the population don't own a house but an apartment and they don't get to have a parking slot with access to electricity.
TheAbhorash I used to charge my car with the trickle charger that came with it connected to an extension cord going out my window lol, and I still preferred that to having to go somewhere to get gas 😀 You don't need level 2 charging to get by with an EV (though it does make it easier), any 3 prong electrical socket will do, and there are more of those in the world than there are gas stations! Did you hear about that guy who drove a first generation Nissan Leaf from the southern tip of Africa to Poland? You can charge anywhere there's electricity, which is practically everywhere!
TheAbhorash that doesn't have to be a problem.
Here you get a charging station right at the curb if you buy an ev if you don't have a garage or driveway.
In parking garages there are always charging stations available. Same goes for parking lots for shopping centers.
And employers are obligated to let you charge while at work.
All these things have exploded the amounts of ev's on the road here. Range anxiety is taken away by public policy and citizens are reacting to it by masivly addopting electric transport.
Charging stations are everywhere here now, and the vehicles simply follow if you offer the infrastructure.
All you have to do with these percieved problems is offer a convenient solution. And solutions are readilly available allready.
Hydrogen is basically the same filling speed as petroleum
TheAbhorash: In some places of the world an electrical outlet to run the block heater for internal combustion vehicles is a necessity for parking in the winter. Guess what? People generally have access to electricity in their parking slots. Infrastructure naturally comes along when it makes sense.
Maybe a stupid question, but should'nt you multiply the efficiencies for creating, compressing, transporting the hydrogen rather than add up the losses?
Because you only lose 13% to compressing of the 80% you have after creation. For me that seems like you should multiply the efficiencies to get to the total efficiency.
Sorry for my bad english btw.
The given losses might be against original 100% input, not of every phase itself, as sometimes done with pie or stacked bar charts. In that case you can add them together but he should've been clearer about it.
but you cant really determine the losses relative to the original input if you dont know every phase right?
+
I noticed this too. Though I think the conclusion should be basically the same.
I did research on PEM electrolysis back In 2017 with the university of Liverpool and got an efficiency of 15.1% which is really bad compared to batteries.
Thomas, this video holds up four years later. It is such an important topic that it needs a five year update.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
A few glaring omissions: 1) You mentioned a catalyst in fuel cells. The catalyst involves platinum and rare-earth cerium. IF we release the 50% of global platinum production currently taken up by catalytic converters for petrol vehicles, then there is enough platinum to make fuel cells for about 1% of annual vehicle production. And if you avoid that by combining hydrogen with a combustion engine, you are back to that 70-80% energy loss, and subsequent shortening of range. 2) It has been cited that the BULK of compressed hydrogen tanks makes ranges of more than 200km impossible for small cars - and that hydrogen is only a practical solution for trucks. 3) Infrastructure for compressed gases in the oil and gas industry is overhauled and re-certified every 3-4 years at great cost. Given that hydrogen is more problematic and more hazardous than other gases, this level of maintenance should be required for vehicles containing tanks.
1.) correct.
2.) false. Hydrogen makes for poor trucks. real world examples prove this. only a few studies support your claim, all 3 of which neglect to account for the increased vehicle size and therefore weight and aerodynamic drag increase associated with containing more hydrogen. Because whilst its light weight. It takes up more than twice the volume per kWh that batteries do. Additionally, EV's now offer ranges between 400-600km. Infact, if you look at all the fuel cell car offerings, similar sized EV's have longer ranges without the sacrifice to boot and cabin spaces that hydrogen requires to store that much fuel.
3.) Correct. Fuel cell vehicle hydrogen tanks are only rated to be used for no more than 10 years. Infact, fuel cell vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap. Althought this time frame seems monstrously large compared to how long the fuel cells are certified to last. only 150,000 miles. Yet another reason hydrogen isnt suitable for freight.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
Think about being applied in different fields other than arguing with each other guys. Can you power the ships, rockets and future heavy drones taxis/planes with batteries? I highly doubt it in the weights and durability, at least the current battery techs does not support that far. Hydrogen has its ultimate strength that the batteries can not replace.
Exactly. Look at what Plug Power has been doing. It really convinces me they can make it happen for commercial applications.
@@nsshing Is that company from Taiwan? I remember watching a documentary on alternatives (fuels, textiles, transport, etc.) and Taiwan was the country most open to it having several companies dedicated to those. Can't remember the title or name though.
And then you factor in costs as well as human politics and realize why it hasn't already been done.
@@weneedmoreconsideratepeopl4006 us company, listed on Nasdaq
Nut if you burn it, you get NOx
This is like an anti hydrogen information commercial
Or a pro electric vehicle one. He forgot to mention that we don’t have enough power plants to power EVs and windmills and solar panels will never produce enough electricity to power the planet. Enjoy the blackouts!
i don't think so, the videos says both are great for environtment. and of course both has their pros and cons, it's just an options
@@Johnsmith-1224 Good thing we also have hydroelectric energy, wave energy, more efficient wind and solar designs, geothermal energy, nuclear fission energy, and we’re making good progress into unlocking nuclear fusion energy
These are just the physics and engineering realities of the world we live in. The reality is that hydrogen is good and even necessary for many things... but a poor decision for running cars.
(1:15) No doubt the Japanese government got bit of hydrogen inspiration when managed to blow out the roofs of a few of their nuke reactors (couldn't resist).
I remember hydrogen cars being promoted in the 1970's as a replacement for ICE. The car cost a million dollars back then. Here it is 40+ years later and still there are almost no hydrogen cars
Yep, General Motors were making a huge song and dance about hydrogen 35 years ago. The dance ended a while ago.
... are you adding up the efficiency multipliers instead of... multiplying them? That 20% loss from the fuel cell still looks like 20% on the main bar even when bar is already at about 55%.
Yes, which is accurate, though could be seen as misleading. It's a measurement of the entire cycle's overall efficiency loss, not the actual percentage of power offset, if that makes any sense.
RealityVeil I don't think this is a tesla ad, more of case for electric battery power, as much as people want to like tesla, they will not become leaders in the industry, one simple fact, they are a software company, when it comes to cars, they don't know what they are doing, when you look at it tesla cars are just hyped up because they claim to be the "future". The popularity of tesla may very well lead to someone developing a better electric car.
He did a video on batteries awhile ago, this was clamoured for, so he did this as a follow-up. Not an ad.
@RealityVeil
That was pretty dismissive of new information, and a quick conclusion using quite an assumption. Are you sure you're not more biased than he is?
My process for deciphering whether information is trustable generally goes:
1: is the like to dislike ratio mostly positive? (does the audience/community agree with the information?)
2: does it have enough views to for that to matter? (does it reach a wide enough audience to get people more experienced than you on the subject? To get people in the community it's about to look at it?)
3: does it come from a massive information giant like a news site? (too wide of an audience and it becomes about the people that don't know what they're talking about, overshadowing experienced information)
At no point do l question the motivations of the individual behind the piece, only the community around it.
Kain Yusanagi No it isn't accurate, it's wrong. You multiply the efficiency coefficients, not add them up. Argument from the opposite: suppose I had a long chain of electric motors and electric generators, each 80% efficient; a motor directly drives a generator on the same shaft, a generator directly drives the next motor on the same 3-phase power line. A system with one pair of motor-generators is 60% efficient, two pairs is 20% efficient, and three pairs is -20% (negative twenty percent) efficient, which of course is impossible, and frankly is stupid. Therefore you don't add up the efficiency; the only other option is to multiply them together; QED.
Hydrogen system total efficiency lower, but not nearly as dramatically as it is shown in the video.
you're assuming hydrogen extraction technology does not improve.
Did you calculate the lithium mining process for batteries?
to separate those molecules you need a specific amount of energy, you can round off some edges but basically you're bounded to that.
Lithium is okay as they are using less and less of that, 96% of a battery is Aluminum and Nickel
Valiant Vision not to mention that most electric production in the US isn’t carbon free. Shifting emissions from the road to the power plant.
dallatorretdu Okay. Thank you.
And also the disposing cost of worn out batteries both in the actual monetary cost and the cost to the environment.
Two different things, one add to the cost of the car (lithium), the other one add to the energy cost ,refuelling cost ( hydrogen) .
The last time I looked at this topic, it agreed with electric being more efficient, but the internal combustion vehicles still win out overall when you consider the resourcing and production start to finish theory..
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
My biggest concern with fully electric. Is that we would pull the grid inside out. So that would also need addressing. And probably also newly made for higher demand.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
I was ready to laugh at hydrogen as a fuel, but now I'm not so sure, it could be the best low emissions option for international shipping.
Edit: Some people don't seem to know that international shipping means big cargo ships, they are a major source of pollution currently and use a fuel that is second only in coal to dirtiness.
or you could just ship some battery powered cars with some solar panels to go with ^_^ govt. incentives anyone?
FCEVs are EVs and will have plug in versions too. And this mostly anti H2 propaganda post left out so much like"Toyota facility to produce electricity, hydrogen from bio-waste" for 1 example but whocares its just utube :)
biomassmagazine.com/articles/14886/toyota-facility-to-produce-electricity-hydrogen-from-bio-waste
Circle Breaker I heard of LNG (liquid gas based fuel) to be most likely the next “fuel” for ships. Much greener. As always, infrastructure is missing.
Honestly even diesel would be a step up from the bunker oil they use now, but I meant zero emissions instead of low emissions. LNG will definitely be good in the medium term.
Circle, did you know that military operations world wide are responsible for 10% of all greenhouse gas.
the funny thing is: fuel cells need a battery as well because they cant deliver the high power bursts needed by the motor. so every fuel cell car uses a battery anyway. (and has the same inefficiencies as a battery powered vehicle to start with)
Sebastian Uhl small batteries for six power, they actually use capacities to power the motors.
the mirai (fuel cell car) uses a Ni-Cd battery to power the motor. and only uses the fuel cell to charge the battery.
I guarantee it isn't Ni-Cd as the memory effect makes it unsuitable for this application. Did you mean NiMH?
Yeah you are totally right. Its Ni-Mh, not Ni-Cd. My mistake, mixed it up.
Comparing a battery for 10 seconds of acceleration with a battery pack that needs to power a car for 500 miles is rather silly.
So this video was almost three years ago, so I'm wondering what if any new developments have been made. I've seen a couple more recent videos that suggest hydrogen powered vehicle technology has advanced over the last couple years. Very interesting video you've made, well explained and put together.
Not really no. Nothing significant
considering the demand of a closer range you can fill your cell on a much lower preassure, for example 50% or 25%
surely max capacity can be important for covering long ranges once in a while but most of the times an average user could possibly make his weekly use with 25% or 50% considering a larger tank is provided
batteries as mentioned are massive but smaller in volume
new car designs might allow much larger volume fuel tanks which will end up requiring a much lower preassure for hydrogen storage+much lower mass compared to an all electric car (which results in a smaller power need and smaller motors)
The manufacturing of the batt is not included in the energy loss and pollution or mining the rear minerals
As was the cost of manufacturing the FUEL CELLS, which use mostly PGM's
The production of the hydrogen tank and fuel cell is also not included so whats the point? Do you think those grow on trees?
What rare minerals? If I understand my chemistry right, there's only one, Cobalt, and everyone is engineering that element out of their lithium batteries. Maybe you're thinking of Alkaline batteries that use to use mercury. Or are you talking about the volatile chemicals used in the manufacturing process--something you'll be happy to know Tesla is getting rid of with the use of Maxwell's dry-cell technology they recently acquired. In any case, making batteries is far less polluting than drilling/fracking/mining for oil, shale and coal, transporting that to petroleum plants and turning it into diesel and gasoline to transport to filling stations just so you can make a bunch more pollution burning it in engines. Now which part of making batteries is making more pollution than that? Just a normal day of the leaking and spilling of petroleum pipelines are creating environmental catastrophes that far outweigh anything mining for lithium battery material will ever do in a lifetime. Get a clue.
@Eric Bryant Not as rare as you'd think, and unlike fossil fuels that are destroyed when used, lithium is completely recyclable. So the point is still moot.
@Tied Noose If all the lithium in the world was being mined it still would pale in comparison to the pollution that fossil fuels create in any given year. So it's a great thing that 2% of cars sold are electric and growing. The fossil fuel industry has killed 10s of millions and that number has been increasing at a staggering rate. It's about time something is being done about it.
I like the way he says "cares" while referring to "cars". Do not change a thing....
I think he's danish or Icelandic
@@VincentKarabouladCoaching ah maybe you're right, I thought of danish because a friend of mine has a similar accent.
@@VincentKarabouladCoaching Irish, jeez
@@smoothie9931 clearly Irish ☘️
@@smoothie9931 I’m Scottish Irish, this host is Scottish.
Good start, look forward to more videos looking at whole of life economies for renewable technologies.
the real truth is that if you honestly do caluculations on the the costs, its still cheaper than digging up oil , transporting it, refining it into gasoline. then retransporting it to fuel stations.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
Would be helpful to incorporate consideration of toxicity in mining and recycling/disposal, and availability of materials.
They move mountains to extract the needed minerals, I travel to the mines in my country, copper gold silver coal moly ect
@@joeblow1186 lithium mining is has a large carbon footprint, and it also needs some other rare earth materials like cobalt, which are horrendously polluting(they use fracking like technology), further more, the throughput of these batteries decrease each year, and most of these batteries don't get recycled because it's very expensive.
Solar cells, have a horrendous problem of recycling. So often, they just get put into the landfill.
Not a major problem now, but as more and more meet the end of life, it is going to *OVERWHELM* municipalities.
Your talking all the science and thats not what electric fans do
Humans can't even consider the toxicity of Mac&Cheese, and you want what?
Thank you very much indeed for your explanation. I just have one suggestion: to take into consideration the production costs and the life cycle of the batteries and the power and another resources, consumed in it, and the cost of further utilization of them.
100% agree. If we take in count the battery production and life cycle the numbers of battery efficiency would not be great at all. Not mentioning the harm to nature while the battery being produced.
And also the fact that you need 2 wind turbines for hydrogen for every 1 used for battery. And fuel cells have a shorter life than modern lithium batteries managed properly.
Peter Korobov. Also what ive not heard mentioned is that batteries can lose up to 40% of their range in cold weather.
Up
What about hydrogen? You gotta extract it. Pressure it. Ship it. transport it like gasoline. Store it to the final destination. All this steps are incredibly inefficient and expensive. And if you think battery pollute you dont wanna know how much all the previous steps do. Ah and thats if you extract it. Hydrogen is not aboundand on earth. You would need to make it to meet the requirememnts of energy consumption of today
You suggested that the "best" way to store hydrogen is by compression--that just isn't the case. Hydrogen is much more easily stored as a hydride. This also eliminates the potential danger of a compression release in the event of an accident. Compression takes immense energy (which you mentioned) but converting from a gas to a hydride and back to a gas can be done extremely efficiently. I'd suggest an iron hydride maybe laced with magnesium. Missing the hydride potential means that you've missed the best means to store and transport the hydrogen, making your analysis . . . well, meaningless.
Great video as always! I do agree, however.. Imagine this, 30 years ago our battery tech was not nearly as good. Now imagine a world in 30 years where a very large percent of the population made hydrogen onsite. Yes it still may not have as high percent efficiently but the loss is not necessarily comparable if it comes from sun or wind. Batteries require many other materials that need to be mined and processed and packaged and shipped. Our efficiency in compressing the hydrogen has the potential to become much easier as well. The benefits I see in hydrogen are that we can do it without needing to destroy large areas of land, it can easily be made on-site the more things evolve, it can be made from renewables and stored, quickly filled back up after depletion. I think the best idea is obviously a mix of both battery tech for some things like cars, bikes, ect, and hydrogen for other things like planes, houses, ect. This reminds me of an old debate for DC vs AC between Edison (govt) and Tesla. Only this time it is Hydrogen vs Batteries with Govt (I guess) and Tesla. In the future we will use both on a daily basis the same way we still use both DC and AC so lets continue to see the benefits in each. I do agree that batteries currently are cheaper and more efficient, although I would argue that between both in their best form, hydrogen has the potential to be more green. Thanks again for a great video!
Today I found many brillant people in the comment section of this video. Nice comparison with AC vs DC 👍
Hydrogen tech will be way better in 30 years. But battery tech will ALSO be way better in 30 years. Once we have batteries that degrade 10x to 100x less fast than lithium ion, and do not use lithium or other rare earth minerals, they will become much greener than they are now. Hydrogen is a great idea for planes and ships with regular inspections and maintenance but having a highly compressed, highly combustible hydrogen tank under every civilian house sounds really dangerous. Electricity is safer.
@@prodevusbiofuels for plane and ships
@@prodevusseaweed bio fuel we have large sea serface world only 1% seaserface area can full fill whole aviation fuel need no fress water need no crop land used don't effect in food price
You are forgetting the cost and lifetime of batteries and fuelcells.
The fact that batteries still largely use lithium which wont last forever much more then the fossil fuels and the fact that lithium mining is quite toxic
@@TakedaShiroe Weird how environmentalist are not pushing for the more environmental friendly solution. It's almost like they're gullible.
While browsing for hydrogen production technology I came across a very interesting new science discovery by a NZ Lab named H2IL . It looks to have the potential of solving the hydrogen supply chain stalling FCEV mobility. I was intrigued by the proof of extremely high volume production for such a low power demand and yet scientifically logical. What do others think of it? Has anyone investigated it’s potential?
@@scienceeducatorge8597 hydrogen production only really makes sense as fuel alternative for cars because of the inefficiencies listed in this video. Maybe it could be a back up energy and storage system for homes for solar installations (which can solve the "lose it or use it" issue with solar), but that's about it. Even at 100% efficiency on H2 production from water it's still very inefficient as a way to store energy on a large scale.
Tesla claimed that they gonna eliminate cobalt usage in making batteries. Next year 2020, power train investors day might be it.
Cars are not just transportation. I mean it's not like we are talking about simply moving us about and nothing else. We also demand plenty of other power using applications such as heating, air conditioning, heated seats, demisting windows and mirrors, music and other in car entertainment, electric windows, mirrors and seats, phone and accessories charging points etc.
All this will detract massively in some cases from the battery supply and overall range but it is never spoken about.
I would really like to see some figures taking these into account particularly if the vehicle is used in more extreme weather conditions etc.
Why noone talks about biofuel from fermented fruits alcohol and simple water. its a very simple combo and works as good as gazoline.
A possible method for hydrogen would have to be centralised production facilities (for cheaper production per volume) and instead of road/rail/gasline transportation large volumes could be efficiently transported by airship thru using the H2 as upthruster and either cargo or water as ballast, when destination is reached offload hydrogen (whilst retaining some to enable flight), cargo / ballast for return journey.
Very informative article, if hydrogen is separated then oxygen is also produced if high voltage electricity is is possible to produce o2, ozone it will be very useful to produce ozone layer in atmosphere
BOTH technologies must be persued and improved on! there is no reason to choose only one.
Hybrid might be an option to a battery with a fuel cell range extender?
Give Car buyers the option of ALL Fuels According to their usage & needs.
Most Multicar households would have 2 or 3 Very different Cars with Different Fuels for each.
How Many cars do we see driving around with 4 or 5 adults on board ?
A very rare sight.
How many NEVER use the rear seats ?
How many come to sell a car & Have NEVER used the folding rear Seats to carry a load.
How many have NEVER filled the Boot / Trunk ? except with shopping.
How many have a 4 X 4 & NEVER used 4 W-drive or low box or diff lock etc , NEVER driven on any Grass ever in 100,000 miles ?
apart from once when they 1st bought it.
I find that most people Buy Far more car than they actually need or will ever use.
there is always the option to HIRE a Car when needed or Van or 4 X 4.
Both ARE being pursued .. of course.
Mr. Freiheit: "Petroleum is the best most efficient".. LOL .. converting sunlight into fuel by hawing dinosaurs eat plants and be buried under the ground for eons is not very efficient. :P
IF you want to build a race car to win races with the technology we have right now - sure petroleum is the way to go. But if you want to have long term efficiency to results vs scarcity in long term hydrogen, stupidity or TIE fighters are the obvious choice.. :P starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TIE/LN_starfighter
I know It is not the main point of this video, but what about ecological conerns of the batteries? Producing them is expensive and requires relatievely rare and harmful components (i.e. Lithium). How do these technologies compare on this front?
Marz
Lithium is very common and not rare, but you have a point that you should also watch the batteries production and also the recycling of them.
Marz batteries can be recycled, lithium is extracted from Mostly Salt Flats which don't have much of an ecological impact like a strip mine, batteries can also developed to the point where they use less rare metals.
Well my poin't is that it's rare-er and expensiv-er than steel and aluminium, which probably are the main componets of a hydrogen tank
I would be interested in this as a separate video. By the end of this one, I was thinking that the future may well be a mix of both hydrogen and battery, since hydrogen is better suited to long distance transport but battery has the edge in something like city driving
Li-ion > hydrogen
That might be the best video i've seen on the subject, it explains the whole problem much better than any other. However is still have a question in mind : would it be possible to combine both ways to power the car but using the battery at first and then hydrogen when the battery comes out of energy ? If it is, why not make modular cars that would allow to add a temporary tank for those who needs to do an extra miles once in a while and when they just have to do the daily trips they remove the modular hydrogen tank and get back to battery only ?
The green hydrogen will make more sense in places where electricity doesn't make sense. These include applications like gas powered furnaces as well as the aviation market. Additionally, it will also make sense for commercial transportation where the down time will lead to major losses.
this is stupid way of comparing hydrogen with ev charging cost , you have to include battery cost with electricity cost battery cost is $20000 assuming 200000 miles for battery life you have to add 20 cents to the battery charging cost which is higher than hydrogen filling cost
@humbleindian6303
1. For commercial transport, they are ready to pay higher upfront cost, if it is resulting in a lower downtime. If you see the electric truck market, more than 90 percent of the market is of less than 5 tonnes trucks as these trucks are used for shorter distances where range issued are nect to non-existent. I have worked in the logistics sector, and I have seen that the majority of the companies completely electrify their short distance trucks while they still rely on ICE for longer distances.
2. While smaller cars and even smaller trucks won't be able to work on hydrogen based ICE engines, the longer distance heavy trucks can run on ICE powered hydrogen trucks as the additional safety measures required for these types of trucks won't cause major uptivj in the costs of heavy trucks on a percentage basis.
@@hrushikeshavachat900 electric can never compete with hydrogen , hydrogen energy density is 39000wh/kg , it is used in rockets , it will be used in aeroplanes , and it will be used in cars and trucks if not now then tomorrow for sure , only thing that can beat hydrogen is nuclear if govt allows it to be incorporated
@@humbleindian6303 And how will you carry the one KG hydrogen? This is the reason why hydrogen powered rockets are cryogenic in nature. The issue with Hydrogen is the fact that it is very hard to be stored in liquid form and will consume a large area if stored in gaseous form. This is why they won't make major sense for smaller cars and trucks unless we find a way to reduce the cost of on-site hydrogen production.
@@hrushikeshavachat900 toyota mirai is operational since 2014 , and it still running without any battery replacement or fuel cell replacement. storing hydrogen is similar to storing LNG, you can transport it through pipes like natural gas , you need to increase the strength of the pipes , airbus and boeing are both developing hydrogen powered aeroplanes , you just need to find greener ways of producing hydrogen, people are developing electrolysers to convert water to hydrogen using renewable energy , you can also produce ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen both of which are abundant in nature , for battery you need Li, Ni, Co all are expensive and rare
4:55 should be conductance (inverse of resistance), not conductivity, which is a material property.
The transition to skill share was so smooth it surprised me
Awesome vid, dont totally agree with the charging prices of a ev, the fast charger prices are no where near the 10 to 12 cents but more like 33 to 36 cents per kwh, this means with a 75 kwh (model 3) battery youre still paying a good 20 to 25 euro per full charge.
Excellent discussions and analysis on Hydrogen. HYSR / SunHydrogen has been working on the commercial version of the laboratory version from the university of Santa Barbara and University Iowa! This is going to be revolutionary when that happens.
Remain elusive but possible. Regards.
Hydrogen cars can be 'refueled' faster, yes, but who needs that, anyway? Current electric cars have a long enough range and short enough charging times for their owners not to notice any range anxiety. Most people don't travel 500 km (300 miles) or more every day, so charging overnight is all you need. If you do need to travel more than 500 km, 30 minutes of charging time is hardly an issue. If the car doesn't need the break after such distance, I do. I like hydrogen, but I don't see a point in investing a significant amount of time and money to develop a technology that would solve a problem that is almost non-existent already. Hydrogen might've been the fuel of the future had it come 30 years earlier, but by now there are better alternatives.
What about busses, trucks, mining/construction equipment, trains (where tracks aren't eletric), ...
If we want to transition to an oil-less society we need a hydrogen infrastructure anyway.
Battery electric buses are already running in cities all over the world, and given the specs of Tesla Semi, battery electric semi-trucks should be just around the corner. Mining battery equipment is also already being used and there are, indeed, battery electric trains, too. Sure, many of these could use a bit of improvement in range and charging but nothing that shouldn't be possible with another 10 years of battery development.
Hydrogen "kearths"
There are electric buses in Oslo, and other cities. They have a really fast charging at the "end" stop where they have made the stop there maybe 10 min or something longer than it would have been. Like, fast charging that can charge faster than Tesla superchargers. Worth noting that they arent used in the bus trips that is really long, just short-medium trips. like the ones that isnt going out from the city. At least in Oslo, their range is actually quite a bit less than a Tesla car, but they dont need it because the fast charging. Also at the night they do slow charging.
Grooohm there will be some hydrogen infrastructure probably. But why would you want a hydrogen car if a battery car has the range you need.
Hydrogen will be the last step that will convert the last carbon burning vehicles that are left for who range is still a problem by the time most of the vehicles are allready running on batteries.
Like fleet cars, taxi's, police cars, trucks etc.
Hydrogen simply is inconvenient, needs loads of infrastucture and storage and transport etc. Only vehicles that can not be run on batteries will eventually be converted to hydrogen.
Well, I finally figured out what I want to go to school for. I've always wanted a career dedicated solely to the betterment of the human race and the state of our world.
I was aware that hydrogen was used as a fuel source for vehicles and other things, but I didn't think it'd end up being that useful outside of fusion.
This is literally, in-your-face, the solution to cutting the climate crisis short before the impacts are guaranteed to be savagely devastating. I feel like every generation has their responsibility. Developing all aspects of this technology to become sustainable and successful in replacing fossil fuels is my responsibility. It can be done, and in more ways than one, each within the realm of possibility given current technology.
Thanks for this video, you just helped solve a years-long struggle to understand my place in the world.
I don't understand how you're so comfortable being open with your purpose here where trolls or some potential competitors/opposition may see it. Isn't it better to keep dreams and purpose hidden so no one could oppose it, find a weakness, or stamp on it before it starts? I have felt the same thing** you did, I bet others do too but only now I see it being worded out so openly.
I'm just rambling here. But reading your comment gave me a sense of hope that maybe there's good to be found in the world though, which I wouldn't have found if you didn't let your thoughts be known. Kinda inspiring. Now I'm wondering what you do for a living.
** only it was when I found out about Dr. Masaru Emoto's and Dr. Hans Jenny's works that I felt such inspiration. Water formations/memory and cymatics is their focus, if you're interested. There's a couple of videos here that inspired me too but they didn't go as in depth as the books I came across.
Good Luck , Blake!
only education and science can get us out of this. Keep going Blake. Let me know by PM if you want me to link you up to some next step in your career path. Working with global university echange programs a lot. 2 steps further I can link you up on any degree level. People are very accessible via remote during Covid-19 slow down of things.
No it isn't. Now go find out why!
@@weneedmoreconsideratepeopl4006 The opposition and trolls are a decent part of my driving purpose. Who else is going to save them besides the people that see the problems, solutions, and ways forward? There won't be any one "save all" solution. But people like us that see the potential solutions ARE the "save all." So don't you fucking dare stop trying to save the world.
Hi, great video. Any chance you still have the references you used on the efficiencies calculations? TYIA!
It would be a great idea to produce a video on the air powered car. I started reading about it close to 20 years ago in Australia from a gentleman who invented the motor, to reduce pollution in use with forklifts. And is now producing automobiles. But yet nobody wants to talk about that. If you give a damn about the environment this should be a conversation we're having yet nobody does. Thanks I'll look forward to seeing it soon.
Air powered vehicles had been around a very long time especially in mining.
So what does the efficiency of producing compressed air look like?
I like how you slid that sponsor into the video, but overall great video. thank you
how much energy does it take to produce a battery though?
and don't forget rare minerals used in producing electrical devices, of which there is but limited supplies available AND which are often mined in ghastly social conditions.
That's conveniently missing from this video with the fact that betteries age and have to be replaced.
@@Izual001 internal combustion engines don't age. They remain as efficient as they were when new.... oh no they don't! Would you rather replace a battery that have halved in price in the last 10 years, or an internal combustion engine?? We should do it and see which is easier and faster.
@@andrepoon So much snark with so little substance. Hydrogen powered cars don't use internal combustion engine. Besides, ICU's are repairable and reusable, what about lithium ion batteries?
@@Izual001 Don't listen to me. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is, since you are so much about substance. Invest in hydrogen tech - see where that gets you.
This was a really excellent analysis of H2 FCEV vs BEV efficiencies, and I tweet it regularly to inform others on the issue. My only comment now would be that battery performance has improved significantly since mid-2018, particularly in regard to charging times. Any chance of an update in the next 3-6 months?
I’d love to see it extended to consider the energy cost of water as well.
Hydrogen energy storage seems like it might be advantageous for Australia, especially if there’s the potential for desalination as a side benefit.
@@enterthekraken dùng hidro để sưởi ấm, thay cho mua khí tốt từ nước ngoài
I remember hearing about the 'hydrogen economy' as an alternative to fossil fuels decades but it seems to be one of those things like fusion power that is perpetually just out of reach.
I am convinced the technology around hydrogen is easily sorted. The obvious politics around the resource must be the issue.
@@idenhlm buried patents, endless propaganda campaigns like this video against hydrogen... the problem is, if we replace oil on a global scale the USD will collapse.
The efficiency to weight ratio chart of H2 is mind blowing. The author repetively slams H2 after using an ElonMusk quote as his primary critic; yet, the Japanese are going full bore forward. The naturally degrading efficiency of Lithium batteries and disposal is not even mentioned. I've enjoyed the author's other videos, but maybe his bias wasn't as apparent. I'm guessing he's looking for a free Tesla which is fine by me. Good luck!
Geoff Geoff your ignorance is mind blowing. Only Toyota in Japan is promoting hydrogen fuel cell cars - to keep you wedded to the pump. All other vehicle manufacturers are either producing, or demonstrating EVs. The Toyota fuel cell car is actually a battery powered ev with the fuel cell charging the battery. All this complexity comes at a cost - reliability and packaging. The biggest elephant in the room is that burning hydrogen in a fuel cell car wastes energy as heat from the fuel cells tail pipe, and at an efficiency of only 50%. This energy lost through the tail pipe has to be inputted in to the system somewhere. Put your brain into gear mate.
@@nordic5490 Maybe you should take into account that heat is not always a problem. Driving cars in a cold climate for instance, require additional heating. In an ICE or H2 powered vehicle, that heat comes as a "cost free" by-product. In an EV, you'd have to produce the heat specifically, using up electricity that could otherwise be used for propulsion.
Further, production of H2 is also very location dependant. Ask the Icelanders if they have an issue with producing H2 :).
Regardless; re-charge/re-fuelling time will always be a deal-breaker to me. I value my time a lot, and idling for some three hours while waiting for the battery pack to charge up, is totally out of the question! I'm annoyed with the three minutes it takes to fill my 60-litre diesel tank already...
@@marcin.ronndahl Then you need to hope, that nobody was using the H2 station right before you, as it needs approx. 10 minutes to build up the pressure again. H2 stations can only service approx. 6-7 cars per hour.
And you don't need to wait 3 hours with a BEV: at a fast charging station, the Model 3 can easily charge 200+ km of range in about 15 minutes. And that is only if you are taking long trips that exceed your max, range (for the M3 that would be 400+ km). Normally you charge while yor car is parked anyway (at home, at work, while shopping, etc.)
@@wermagst so many interesting comments! I don't have time to read them all. There are a lot of arguments for and against electric vehicles, and the same for H2 based vehicles
@@David199701 FYI: H2 fuel cell vehicles are also electric and they need to have a battery as well (it's just smaller). The fuel cell has a constant power output and cannot cope with the spike in power requirement when accelerating. You also want to have a battery for recuperation when slowing down.
The fuel cell is comparable to a range extender like on the BMW i3 or Chevy Volt.
There are many errors in this presentation. Comparing current battery electric vehicle (BEV) costs per km with current hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) is not fair because they are at different places in their development. Instead, you must compare them at projected comparable stages of development. I do not disagree with your implied cost of $17/kg delivered H2, but projected costs for larger stations with higher utilization are much lower. Most of the costs of delivered H2 occur at the refueling station from equipment located there, especially compressors. Work is being done to avoid this cost, e.g., searching for low-pressure storage methods that do not require refrigeration. I mention this to illustrate that me saying you must compare projected costs is not an empty, theoretical statement. You are correct, though, that understanding the transition is important.
In considering battery electric vehicles, you must consider what a scaled up system looks like, one in which so many vehicles are being charged that it disrupts the grid architecture, especially near the ends of the power network. For example, if a single vehicle requires 25 kW when charging, a street with 40 homes could require an additional megawatt of capacity since it isn't unreasonable to think people come home and plug in at comparable times. Also, as you move upstream in the distribution network, these loads aggregate. While current over capacity handles existing electric vehicle charging, future scenarios must consider significant changes in the power grid and this should be factored into the cost assessment.
This leads to another point regarding analysis, which is that at all times when making comparisons, one must take great care to ensure that the two things being considered have comparable system boundaries. The example of not factoring in grid upgrade costs is an example. Not using comparable maturity levels is another.
Finally, it is critical to optimize with respect to the right parameter. You have focused on energy efficiency, which does seem right, but is it? Is energy the limiting factor? If our goal is energy security while achieving GHG emissions constraints, we must move to renewable primary energy sources, which are huge compared to our net demand. Energy isn't the limiting factor, _capital_ is. It is important to realize that the broad problem being analyzed is electrification of not just transportation (which is about 1/3 of our emissions), but electrification of industry and heating. Achieving this with renewables faces challenges with energy storage. When you consider hydrogen in this context, it may offer grid services that facilitate the build out of high levels of renewable power and the cost of those services (voltage regulation, for example, as well as storage) should be compared in a hydrogen scenario vs. a battery scenario. This is a second example of system boundary: You may not be comparing whole-system costs your two scenarios and, additionally, you may not be focusing on the right optimization variable.
The quintessential error of poor engineering is thinking optimized _parts_ make an optimized _system._ It is important to consider the problem as a whole so that you end up with a system of balanced parts that, jointly, achieve performance specifications optimized against the proper metric. Optimizing individual components, unconstrained by system integration, is a good way to vector yourself to failure. If you are starting to feel like, "How can we ever possibly analyze all this, the system is big," then you are going in the right direction.
I make these points not to harass you, but to illustrate for others what ought to go into good engineering.
Disclaimer: I do analysis for my living. I analyze hydrogen systems. I am monitored by my employer to make sure I am free of apparent conflicts of interest between my work and any financial (or other) interests I or my spouse/family hold.
indeed.
@Allen Loser If someone is making a buying decision, I agree completely, but I heard the presentation to be an evaluation of the potential of the technologies and and an argument for which technology to develop further. That was the basis of my comment. Otherwise, he didn't need all the details he gave: Just give us total cost of ownership and we're done. You're exactly right.
If we going into the future slightly for comparison reasons, then we should think of the effect of wide spread "Vehicle To Grid". This would probably mean that those investments in power-grid would be less then dramatic. I would have my car selling energy at 15:00-21:00 every evening, and I assume the AI would do the same for everyone enable it. There will be more local energy sources too. Having said this I'm not against hydrogen, but at the moment it looks like it's best used for big stuff, like ships, trains and trucks.
@Allen Loser You are aware that the problems of hydrogen loss in pressure tanks is considered solved?
That is called a comparison, to claim you should compare two technologies where one is based on reality and one is based on future projections is just ignorance. It "might" cheaper in the future but is vastly more expensive right now. I think that you are right to mention projections, but keep them in the clouds where they belong. Until we see hydrogen stations and how the hydrogen is produced and delivered, we cannot make any real guarantees. Not every station is going to be a larger station and we have no real numbers for mass rollouts on this yet. How many will be larger versus smaller and how plentiful they will be. The projections you talk might not arrive for decades. It is important to keep that into perspective.
There is no mention of ammonia (liquid anhydrous ammonia) as a storage and transport solution for hydrogen gas. It can be produced at the fuel site from a chemical plant that requires only electrical energy. It may also be practical to store ammonia on the vehicle itself for larger applications, i.e. semi-trucks, buses, ships, etc. I would really like to see a video about that.
unfortunately ammonia is a type of hydrogen carrier. in that its a way of storing hydrogen us. But it takes energy separate the hydrogen from the ammonia. More energy than you'd get out of the hydrogen through a fuel cell or combustion. So you cant carry it in a car. And if you did you would need even more equipment on board to separate it meaning you're taking up more space in the vehicle not less. And adding it as a storage vector for hydrogen prior to the pump means more capital cost equipment and more electrical energy required to both store it as ammonia and then separate it for use. In this sense, carriers are not really efficient unless you're transporting it on a large ship going form one port to another.
About 15 yrs ago I explored buying a cng powered Chevy since I'd had a propane powered car but found that since the pressures of the cng tanks were ten times that of propane the tanks in the car were extraordinarily more expensive and legally were required to be replaced periodically and since the energy in hydrogen is even less dense than cng it will never be cost effective.
Your economic analysis is flawed. Here in the Pacific Northwest, there is a large overcapacity of hydroelectric power plants, the dams on the Columbia, Snake and other rivers. At any given time the BPA orders the dam operators to spill over the dams rather than spin turbines. Even if you electrolyzed water and compressed the hydrogen, the cost are the same as spilling water over the dams. Essentially, the huge over capacity of electrical generation makes the economics a moot point.
Yes, in some places electrolisis of hydrogen may make sense. But that doesn't means it makes sense to use that hydrogen to power cars. If you need to use that hydrogen non-locally, ships are much more suited for fuel cell technology, while it will always be a bad fit for cars.
Rene, correct.
+René
Virtually any place with significant solar energy production will make sense for electrolysis, which would be most places. Solar energy over produces at noon which causes problems for other conventional powerplants (see duck's curve).
Having a way to use that excess energy without causing problems is a great advantage, which hydrogen fuel stations deliver. In addition, hydrogen could also be used as grid storage. Also wind and other green energy still over produce when electricity demand is low, meaning this is an advantage anywhere there is green energy.
Batteries in your car don't help with the overproduction of green energy if you aren't charging at that time. Meanwhile the hydrogen electrolysis will.
Also hydrogen is far better for heavier transport vehicles like trucks, where range and weight are big factors.
Joseph, you are wrong on nearly all counts. lets start with:
- weight of the vehicle. The Toyota fuel cell car is within 5kgs of the Tesla Model3 with the long range battery. Please stop spreading the fantasy of fc cars being lighter than evs.
- maintenance. A fc car has a battery that powers the engine, and the fuel cell charges this battery. This battery is continuously deep cycled and gets hammered. I expect the fc car battery will need to be replaced at less than 100k miles when the fuel cell is replaced. A Tesla just had its first battery replaced under warranty @ 400k kms, and wasn't dead, just down some, and this vehicle fast charged every time, which leads to shorter battery life.
- handling. 1/2 a Teslas mass is in the battery which is under the floor that makes for very low cog, hence great handling and ride.
- packaging. as above, the Teslas battery is under the floor and out of the way leaving maximum cargo space.
- fuel availability. An ev can be charged anywhere, or do it @ home for the ultimate in convenience. fc cars can be fuelled where ?
- efficiency of the system. The video is correct. fc cars waste heat energy to the system.
The real question is, why cling to hydrogen ? Is it because going to the pump is familiar, and we are afraid of change ?
For solar energy, the overproduction cycle is mainly a daily thing, and the peak consumption is in the hours right after sun set. Batteries and load balancing (programming electric cars to charge autonomously when the energy is cheaper, industrial processes that can be load balanced, etc) are the best answer to shift the excess energy produced 12-17h to 18-24h. Hydrogen electrolisis and fuel cells are much less efficient and more expensive per KW (power unit, not capacity).
For the seasonal cycle, where more solar energy is produced in the summer than winter, and between different years and even between different weeks, electrolisis for hydrogen load balancing is possibly the best answer. But again, no need to build an infrastructure to be used by vehicles. That hydrogen can be used locally in the winter.
Yes, the longer range the vehicle the more advantage hydrogen has over batteries, but I disagree it is far better. I still think batteries will win over hydrogen even for long range trucks. The key will be the balance between recharging time and price of energy/hydrogen (time is money, as they say), and infrastructure of course. The weight limit also helps hydrogen a little, but batteries are still manageable and will get better before hydrogen gets a firm foothold on the market.
really thoroughly quality video, keep it up! Although,
I would suggets having an outor so people get the tome to like the video, as i believe this increases the likelyhood of being the next suggested video
@1:30 What about specific energy density: Wh/L? That's conspicuously absent from the discussion.
What about including all the equipment required to store and extract energy from it? There's no fuel cell or high pressure storage tank in there for Wh/kg.
What about Power density? kW/kg.
Good video, assumption about Battery charging vs creating Hydrogen from electricity: Assuming that the electricity required for electrolysis for example has to come from somewhere, there is an efficiency loss in creating that electricity, which is a constant. Its the same for battery or electrolysis. (unless of course you have your own windmill or solar system that is off the grid and produces DV violtage! Hydrogen provides a greater value in that you get range and speed of fueling. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles generate stored energy from the hydrogen, but they are still a good technology. Nice to have the costs and efficiency explained so well.
Great video! It would have been really interesting to consider also emissions and costs related to battery/hydrogen cells manufacturing and disposing, as they should be taken into account when assessing the sustainability of these products!
Watch the video where this dude made a hydrogen producer for under $5 and then blew up a bottle rocket then ignore the last part and pay attention to the first part.
Sorry, Vincenzo, but this guy is not informed about the technical things he is reading off a piece of paper. I would go into detail, but it would take all day. Just understand that his assertions - at least several of them are b.s. He wouldn't know what an efficiency is if it came up and bit him in the butt.
@@beauxguidry5373 yes it's easy to make but you gotta take into question the power consumption, and also the fact that you can't just slap hydrogen into any car without major modifications
Some point this channel very conveniently missed .The truth about hydrogen is that
1. Every country has excess to unlimited hydrogen, therefore countries don't need to depend on other countries for raw materials like lithium.
2. Because of above reason, large no of countries like Japan, Australia and India have laid down path and even started investing in green hydrogen as their future fuel, NOT LITHIUM BUT HYDROGEN. This is going doing to bring economy of scale and by all estimates we will see a drastic drop hydrogen cost.
So why don't you keep going lithium way while rest of the world goes towards Hydrogen. Also just because Elon musk backs lithium doesn't mean he is right. Such big countries backing hydrogen (only) is a clear indication that elon and real engineering are wrong about Hydrogen.
@@rishabh2264 agreed. If the resource is abundant and cheap then it has little worth for business so rubbish it. Comodities need monetary value so Capitalists can subjugate the masses and reep rewards. This is why Australian governments don't fully support solar energy. They're trying to create mechanisms, a chain of production stages to put a false value on it to control it and prevent the masses from having cheap energy, as it is with food. I suppose if everything was cheap, how much bigger would the mess that the world is in be?
Use hydrogen to power cargo ships... currently the world's biggest polluters. It would make sense for ports with access to cheap solar power.
Nope. Per kilo of cargo per mile, ships are NOT the biggest polluters. Cars are (after heavy industry, office buildings, trucks, airplanes, and homes).
The 16 largest Cargo ships in the world(of the 90 that exist) produce more pollution than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Ships are absolutely the biggest polluters. Also, everyone forgets the possibility of running the hydrogen through our existing ICE engines. We keep our cars, ditch the emissions and can all drive V12s again if we feel like. #longlivesound
yea but they're biggest NOx and SOx polluters. In terms of CO2 pollution, they're most effective method of transportation. Because of various regulations, ships propulsion is moving to LNG which has almost no NOx and SOx emissions and about 25-30% less CO2 emission. It's also cheaper.
www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars
They do this in the Orkney islands.. excess electricity isused to make hydrogen for fuel cells. www.surfnturf.org.uk/
@Brenton "The 16 largest Cargo ships in the world(of the 90 that exist) produce more pollution than all the cars and trucks in the world combined."
A quick calculation says these 16 ships must then each burn 18,000,000,000 liters of fuel per nautical mile. Somehow that comes across as... preposterous.
I think it would also be necessary to talk about production of the vehicles, recycling and maintenance to have a proper view of the topic, because if hydrogen is less efficient, but the cells last longer and are easier and less polluting to produce and recycle, might be still worth...
Real Engineering: Really applaud your change in tune regarding Hydrogen (c.f. your last video on this). It takes a lot of self confidence to change your opinion, and its a sign you are defined by the facts rather than your own biases. Well done.
He omits the important information about how mining for the rare ores and the co2 amount for delivery of the rare ores to make the batteries
He really needs to stop being so biased towards Musk. And do a lot more research beforer doing a video, this video is a good example of Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@cringlez1096 How much C02 is emitted by mining for oil? Its all very well pointing it out for lithium, but it has to be relative to oil - which is the status quo
@@SwuuschifyMe Who do you thing Paid for this?
The very fundamental limitation of fuel cells is the second law of thermodynamics which states that any energy conversion involves irreversible thermal losses (entropy). A fuel cell (FC) is indeed a "flameless" electric generator which "burns" (oxydize) hydrogen thus converting chemical energy into an other form of energy: electricity, with water as a by-product. Thus, a fuel cell vehicle (FCV) is in fact (sort of) an hybrid vehicle with an onboard electric generator (Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell) somewhat similar, in basic architecture, to the GM's Volt (which uses a gazoline onboard generator). As a matter of fact, a practical FCV needs a sizeable battery to work since fuel cells are a bit too slow to respond during vehicle acceleration. Furthermore, since these FCs are not designed to be reversible, they also need an energy reservoir for regenerative braking.
This fundamental limitation is exactly the same as for internal combustion engines (ICE) where chemical energy is first converted into heat (hydrocarbon fuel is oxidized) and then converted into mechanical energy. Thus, it is thermodynamics which severly limit ICE to 20-30% efficiency...
Bottom line: since the "hydrogen economy" always involves 2 successive energy conversions: conversion, by electrolysis, from grid electricity to hydrogen (with irreversible losses), and then, by fuel cell, from hydrogen to electricity (with irreversible losses) there is simply no way it could compete with "electron economy", that is from simple economics... Who needs such an inefficient economy?
Comparing hydrogen energy density to lithium battery energy density is irrelevant, what is really at stake is the end result: does it make any economic sense given the respective Energy Return Over Investment (EROI)? On that single fundamental aspect the BEV "wins" hands down over the FCV and, sorry, all the trillions (dollars) in the world will never be able to overcome the laws of thermodynamics...
Lithium cell technology improves year-over-year about 5% (whithout any technology breakthought) and right now 3 multi-billion industries uses them extensively: information (phones, computers, etc), grid energy ("peaker" power plant, PV, etc) and transportation (BEV). Economy of scale ( with gigafactories) is thus now fully working and the quest for the 100USD/kWhr goal is soon to be reached (Tesla, now producing 1 billion cells per year, is at 110USD, at cell level). Lithium batteries in EVs are still costly and heavy but they do work, from technical performance point of view and within 1-2 years from economy point of view (for overall cost of ownership).
"Thus, it is thermodynamics which severly limit ICE to 20-30% efficiency..."
That's the "absolute best" efficiency. under ideal loads.
Actual real world vehicle efficiencies are more like 1-10% thanks to throttling(petrol) and pumping(diesel) losses when at partial loads (and tossing energy overboard as heat when braking, and sitting stationary in stop-start traffic which brings efficiency to 0%)
Electric vehicles are about 30% efficient fuel-to-wheel, but that efficiency changes very little with vehicle loading, which is why they end up so cheap to run compared to most cars.
I would be very interested in the cost/benefit analysis of hydrogen locomotives if you have the time. It's possible that they could have the production method on board and only need water to be loaded, is this a good idea?
iI takes more energy to split the water to get the Hydrogen than the energy that is in the Hydrogen made with it thus bad idea and you are better off using the electricity directly to drive the locomotive.
Steam engines more effective lol!
Great video 👍.
After the talking about the energy efficiency I was expecting an review of how the energy stored in each type of vehicle would related to its mileage.
If battery's have a higher energy efficiency and was able to give a great mileage per Kilowatt then batteries would be the clear winner.
In the event hydrogen gave a higher mileage per Kilowatt due to the reduction in the vehicles weight then the argument for hydrogen vehicles could be made.
The only "real" negatives from batteries then:
1) Production is hampered by supply of lithium.
2) Batteries tend to loose efficiency over time and needs replacement, current lithium lasts longest if never fully discharged, but even then it is still a finite time. Unsure if FEV membranes would need replacement as well? If so it's an equal negative, else that might be what makes H2 more feasible.
3) Time for recharging. Especially due to the weight to distance ratios of batteries, this means trips need to be planned in advance and only really useful for short distances with long standing times in between (perhaps ideal for daily commutes).
Some of these might be overcome-able. E.g. the recharge issue would be no more if batteries can be made as a standardised replaceable unit. Effectively you'd drive up to a "uel" station and swapp a flat battery for a recharged one. The station can have a bank of these being charged. If only vehicle manufacturers could agree on some "standard" - not sure if this is possible, I feel it might be a pipe dream, but one can hope!
Of course anything might happen to adjust those. New sources of lithium may be found, or easier / less costly / less polluting methods of refining. Or even some other form of battery with easier raw resources and hopefully longer lifespans. But if going that route one can just as well say anything can happen to make H2 more efficient as well. Or even something entirely different, perhaps something like alcohol fuel cells might be a direction for research, stuff like DEFC has already been shown to be "possible".
We need something ... that is sure ... our current stuff is simply not good enough. Some are coming close (like batteries) and might improve. But even things which look at first to be "dumb ideas" can turn out as the "saviour" of the future energy storage. IMO research into all possibilities is not a wasted effort, even just to find out that some idea is not useful is still a good result.
There is definitely a solution coming for the first problem you identified - the limited supply of lithium. It turns out that the chemistry used in "lithium ion" batteries works equally well with sodium or potassium, producing a similar voltage and with similar cell capacities. The energy density of sodium-ion batteries is actually not too far behind lithium, mainly because lithium ion cells cannot be discharged below 30% of their capacity without damage. The same is not true for sodium cells, which therefore have a higher effective capacity, especially over the long term.
There is a minor weight penalty since sodium is heavier, but this is not a problem for fixed grid storage. So if lithium were reserved only for use in electric vehicles, while sodium (and/or potassium) cells were used in static applications (like the Tesla Power-Wall), then the limited supply of lithium is less of a problem. Sodium is also far cheaper, mainly because of its huge abundance on earth compared to lithium.
news.cnrs.fr/articles/a-battery-revolution-in-motion
There is no shortage of Lithium and never will be. It you like to worry about shortages of some elements try copper or platinum.
@@dogphlap6749 Plenty of lithium in the world, the problem in the next 5 years is getting it out of the ground fast enough, that is where the bottleneck is occuring
An israeli company tried standardizing battery modules in order to be able to just swap your empty batteries for new charged ones at a gas station, but it went bankrupt. The idea was not bad, but replacing hundreds of kilos of batteries squeezed in many different parts of the car can be challenging imo.
3:58 Everyone knows hydrogen is stored in the balls
Exactly
just fuck the car and its ready to go
Speaking of efficiency, put the Skillshare ads about a couple minutes into the video, not at the end. It will encourage complete video watching and also viewers will stay engaged as we're curious about the remaining 80% of the video. Then end your videos abruptly without fanfare.
Just 2 cents ❤
I know they aren't being produced yet, but what are your thoughts on nanodiamond batteries for use in hydrogen-powered vehicles?
There won't be any cheap "off peak" night time electricity if everyone are charging their cars !!
What about the tax governments presently receive from petrol sales in Australia it is 60 cents in the dollar .How are they to recover this huge tax from electric vehicles and hydrogen and batteries>>
I guess they will tax these new energy sources to the same level, if so then electricity will be unafordable !
@@helimark6161 a new fee with so and so many cents per driven km or mile as replacement. GPS-tracking of every car and a bill every month. The fee can of course be made different for each type of car if governments want to stimulate use of "greener" cars.
@@Alidade1 I think we will have to pay the vehicle excise based on km driven, during Rego. Just compare the odometer reading from the previous year. The public won't like getting slugged $1000's in one hit though.
@@Alidade1 A government tracking our cars. What could go wrong?
Isn't the production of Lithium batteries a very polluting process?
Terra - agreed.
Lithium batteries also have a limited lifespan so when calculating the cost per mile you need to include the cost of replacing the batteries after, say, 5 years or so. I understand this cost can be many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
Then there's the problem of disposing of / recycling used batteries. There's a financial and energy cost to this process yet this video fails to mention what this is.
Replacement / new car engine technology should be as "pollution neutral" as possible. One of the reasons why we're in such an environmental mess is because of past attitudes to the consumption of fuels. It seems people are only interested in the price at the pump but this seldom reflects the true cost which should include any environmental impact. For example, burning fossil fuels releases nitrogen oxides and sulphur into the air causing rain to be more acidic. This can adversely affect areas with a high concentration of limestone (e.g. Florida) because limestone dissolves in acid. Simply put, burning fossil fuels increases the probability of sinkholes......however I don't suppose this cost is included in the price of a gallon!
It would be disastrous (and stupid) to repeat the mistakes of the past and to replace fossil fuels with something that creates problems for future generations......
Turns out electrolysis production of hydrogen is the efficient and none polluting way to store energy you don't need, even though there is 30% to 20%~ loss of energy due to the conversion, however this loss is expected to become even much less then 10% in the next decade due to technological improvements from research. There is almost near zero degradation of the fuel cell compared to batteries. Even if solid state or quantum batteries were developed, the process is still heavily polluting with a limited life cycle! Hydrogen certainly makes sense for shipping, trucking and air-flight alone simply from a weight standpoint and it will make sense in the long term for average consumer mobility.
There are currently over 1.2 billion motor vehicles (cars, trucks and buses) in the world (source Wikipedia) used by a population of over 7 billion. It's reasonable to assume that this number is going to increase as population grows and as poorer countries become wealthier.
What's needed is for impartial experts to undertake an environmental impact assessment based on the assumption that the majority of these vehicles will one day be powered by either lithium batteries or hydrogen. Any Decision on how vehicles are powered should be based primarily on whether the environment is capable of supporting billions of vehicles of a particular type rather than pandering to the interests of companies whose only interest is their profitability.
There's not enough of lithium in the World to power all our needs
And has massive geopolitical implications as well. China is a big player.
Another key aspect appears to be energy independence. The recourses for Lithium ion batteries is not something resourced without serious geopolitical risk, back to oil issues but far worse. These problems don’t seem to exist with hydrogen and just as R&D investment has brought down costs for electric vehicles, could we not expect the same for hydrogen?
From an LCA perspective, we should account for the production process, durability, and disposal of lithium batteries and H2 fuel cells. How much energy, water, and minerals (environmental footprint, ecosystem affectation, etc.) does each type of battery demand? For how long can they be used before becoming waste?, How polluting that waste is? what can be done once the battery has reached its lifespan? Not to mention social aspects regarding mining activities for batteries.
Cost to produce batteries? Longevity of batteries? Pollution in creating batteries? You left out a lot of stuff.
Exactly. What will happens to old electric cars once they are out of circulation?
For example Tesla claims to 100% recycle all their battery. What pollution do you mean in creating batteries?
We have both, it's not just implemented in scale.
Batteries are good for small electronic devices that don't weigh much, as soon as the weight increases batteries just don't do so well.
Probably for airplanes weight/capacity is not good, but for EV cars it is working very well.