Comments by "Zrips" (@Zripas) on "Donut"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noniespam
There is so called "hydrogen embrittlement" which well, makes materials brittle over time. This is why hydrogen tanks are usually coated in ceramics to minimize that issue, but even then you will have literal expiration date printed on those tanks, which is around 7 years. Engines itself suffers from this on top of issue with actually containing hydrogen due to how small it is. Infrastructure is non existing, you only have something going on in California, single state in entire country, but even then its barely getting new stations and quite few are closing at same time, like shell recently pulled out all its hydrogen stations entirely.
Toyota might be doing something with hydrogen fuel cell technology, which is better than combustion engines, still suffers from same issues, its just more efficient and cheaper to maintain.
While hydrogen has more energy, its loses when you check its energy density per volume, this is why most hydrogen cars have 3 huge hydrogen tanks to get around 400 mile range.
As sad as it is, hydrogen only sounds cool on paper, all those news paper titles "car runs on water" was nice clickbait for its time, but due to enormous list of complications it will not work out.
BEV's are not perfect, but at the moment those are the best option we have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christiantaylor7901
There aren't that many to be recycled, that's the interesting part, batteries held way better than expected so there isn't that many dedicated recycling facilities built yet, its just starting, but those are being built which will recycle all of those batteries.
And you once more mentioned your magical Nickel Metal Hydride. What are those? Which facilities recycle them? At what cost? At what rate? How does that even compare to actual batteries?
And for material sourcing, what you are complaining here is about COUNTRIES exploiting people, not that technology itself is bad. And there are more than one battery technology and more to come out with different chemistries. So maybe instead of complaining about batteries requiring rare materials, maybe complain about countries exploiting people?
If companies are secretive about this magical Nickel Metal Hydride, then how the f**k do you know that its the holy grail? How many companies do you recall saying that they have magical technology in the works which never came out as one? Its the point of the company to say that they have ground breaking thing on their hands, that's how they will get investments... But if they can't present any actual verifiable numbers than its just a random magical claim. Its like the people who claims to have engines running on pure water... Atleast in that case we know that they are full of shit due to basic physics, in your case with Nickel Metal Hydride we have no idea what that is and how to eat it. Yet you think that its a really good thing, while at same time you admit to know jack shit about it because they are not sharing any actual information about it... Do you see tiny issue here?
You know how you can store hydrogen? By bonding it to... Oxygen... You know, in that for its really safe and stable we usually refer to as water... Why arent we doing that? Maybe there is a good reason why this is the case?... Even if they bonded hydrogen to some element and got some good density, doesn't mean that its actually viable option. Basic questions remain, like "How much energy do you need to separate it from that bond?" or "How quickly it can do it?" or "How much weight will that entire thing be?" or "How much will it cost to produce?" You know, basic questions which are the corner stone of every single technology. If you need same amount of energy or close to it just to separate hydrogen from one magical Nickel Metal Hydride, then what's the point? How much energy will you get from that entire tank? Will you be able to drive 10 miles with it? As you will use separated hydrogen to produce electricity to use that to separate more hydrogen... So how much is left after all this process?
Its like having can of water and saying that this stores hydrogen perfectly and in perfectly safe form. Well, yes. But you will need MORE energy to extract hydrogen from that water than you will get back from using it. Do you see potential issue now with your magical Nickel Metal Hydride?
Och to add to all this, there is actual holy grail of batteries, graphene based, those are extremely good, safe and clean and easy to recycle. Issue is that at this moment in time we don't know how to actually mass produce them, basically we know how to make those, but we don't know how to scale production up due to complexity involving. This is the actual technology which is worth someone's time, not some weird wapor ware as Nickel Metal Hydride you know nothing about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AmanNama-wv5dt
"well for starters u can make hydrogen straight up with just connectin a solar panel to water"
Well yes, just like you could make your own petroleum from crude oil... How many are actually doing that? Equipment and work required to do this on private scale is way higher than you will get back, this is why you don't have private petroleum factories in everyone's garages or even near cities. Its just economically not viable.
" has all the benefits of a convectional car"
? Like what? Hydrogen cars require bunch of space for their tanks, this is not conventional... Hydrogen cars are basically electrical ones, most of them have batteries to equalize delivered power and to have source of power on actual instantaneous demand.
"fast charging"
By how much? 5-10 minutes? How much more will you be paying in comparison to BEV's? 150+ bucks for full "tank"? Do you make 150 in 5-10 minutes for this to be worth your saved time? By the way, you can charge BEV at your house over night, so charging times are non existing and every day you have full "tank"
"ability to carry fuel in a container so ur not a grid addict"
No, just no... This is definitely a false information. Hydrogen in these cars gets up to 10000 PSI, yes, this high. You can't just have a tank of hydrogen you can carry around in a meaningful way... It would be way easier to carry a battery...
"and u dont need to make billions of batteries and pollute the environment in the process"
How do you think hydrogen is being made currently? Natural gas... Do you think that this actually is cleaner than BEV's? No, no its not. Calculations have been done on BEV and hydrogen fuel cell cars, while both are really close on overall pollution, BEV still wins, not by much, but still wins.
"just imagine how much stress it' gonna cause to fucken rebuild the electric grid in the whole world to handle EV charging"
And this is why you should spend more than 5 minutes on this topic before you start claiming that one is better than the other. Did you know that producing hydrogen will require 60% MORE electricity to drive you same distance as it would with pure BEV? So your argument about the grid works against hydrogen cars. Even tho its non issue, grid expands based on demand, just like it did for its entire existence.
"its impossible they just selling bullshit"
But it is possible, car manufacturers have specific goals governments sets for them, companies are required to start shifting towards cleaner solutions, so they want it or not, they simply have to make something, it can be complete rubbish, but they still need to make it just to tick that "I make green stuff" check box.
"we talking here insane amounts of energy and the resources we need just to make it all lmao"
And we will need way more for hydrogen cars, so you are debunking your own argument here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@icholi88
First of all, BEV should be charged up to 80% for daily driving and only for long trips you can go to 100%. Tho its side thing, but clearly you didn't know that.
2022 Kia EV6 Wind AWD charge time from 5 to 100% is 44 minutes. So you are factually incorrect on that. I mean, I can't even find a BEV which takes longer than 90 minutes to fully charge. So again, you are using data from 90's as it seems.
And if i recall correctly some company like 1-2 months ago did a fast charging test where they recharged car fully in like 10-15 minutes.
So not only you failed to realize that BEV's don't need 2+ hours to charge, you failed to understand that there are quite few technologies in development which can cut that charging time basically to the same ones you will spend at hydrogen station.
"You are either a corporate plant or intentionally ignorant. "
This is so ironic from someone who thinks that you need 2+ hours to charge BEV... C'mon...
"Range and charge time remains a problem for most electric vehicles compared to fossil"
Aaaaand? BEV's now usually have 300miles, some have 500. How often do you need to travel that far in one go? And charge times are nonexistent issue if you simply charge your car at home over night while you sleep, isn't it? There are bunch of people who use their solar panels to charge their cars which makes their travel at lowest cost possible and always have full "tank" before leaving to work.
"Hydrogen resolves the largest issues of both"
By asking 200 bucks for 400 mile range? Yea, no... There is reason why some companies gives 15k for the fuel when you buy hydrogen car, even then people struggle to refuel due to lack of infrastructure due to how bonkers and demanding it is.
"It just requires a completely different infrastructure to support it while electric already is taken care of because of the existing grid."
yes, and this will not change. To build single hydrogen refueling station you need to invest around one million bucks, while BEV charging station can be like 50k or even less. This doesn't even takes into consideration how much more maintenance you need for hydrogen stations and how often they break due to their complexity. And not even taking into consideration that any wall socket can be used for charging your BEV.
Hydrogen cars are non starter, those ONLY sound cool on paper but doesn't work in reality. Too many issues with its fundamental technology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bpeng2000
I mean, yea, hydrogen can work for buses, trains and similar heavy equipment, will not work for regular passenger cars. And for energy storage, well, there are hot salt ones, hot sand, some water ones where you have one pond lower than the other and so on. Hydrogen simply introduces quite a bit of complexity and maintenance costs to be viable for any excess energy storage. Using that excess to make hydrogen which you will then use in trains, planes or what not, kind of works, but you would still need to produce that hydrogen on site and it would be split across all those separate sectors... Hard to say how viable that would be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1