Comments by "Simon" (@Simon-dm8zv) on "Pravda o vodíku" video.

  1. What exactly are you missing from current EV battery tech?
    10
  2.  @Zadow  So what, they last a very long time (much longer than the car itself) and recycling already exists.
    8
  3. You thought hydrogen is not created by the same electricity?!
    4
  4. Think about that second idea a little bit longer..
    4
  5. Aaand he is back 😂
    3
  6. Bro where does that electricity for hydrogen production come from 😂😂
    3
  7. Ezio R. Giordanelli Lopez Haha. The laws of physics always apply. No matter how ‘efficient hydrogen is’, the problem is that you need to create hydrogen first by electrolysis. The energy for the electrolysis comes from the combustion engine which has to work harder to turn the alternator. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
    3
  8. Milan Swoboda No end in sight yet
    3
  9.  @Apis4  Hydrogen has been around since the 70's. Nothing has really changed. A hydrogen car uses at least 3 times more energy than a BEV. You will not overcome this insane difference with some 'efficient extracting'.
    3
  10. ​ @Apis4  Of course you will not. Hydrogen extraction / production is only one part of many efficiency problems. After that there is storage, transport and eventually usage in a fuel cell - all of which are very inefficient. The whole hydrogen ecosystem will simply never get substantially more efficient - let alone more efficient than batteries. Time or development will not change simple laws of physics.
    3
  11. If you forgot to charge at night, a quick stop at a fast charger is the solution.
    3
  12. There is A LOT of lithium. Batteries are reused and eventually recycled. We won’t be running out of electrons either by the way..
    3
  13. D Reardon They didn’t factor in the impact of platinum mining (for the fuel cells) either.
    3
  14.  @TheMrReee  That is true. But hydrogen cars are so horribly inefficient that it probably won't change the total outcome much.
    3
  15.  @shake6321  Exactly sir.
    3
  16. It is not true. It is a scam.
    3
  17. 😂 If there is someone who didn’t do his homework it is mr. Meyer himself.
    3
  18. braunblender Distribution to businesses and homes is unnecessary because power distribution through high voltage power lines is much more efficient. And so are electrical appliances at home (heat pumps and induction cook tops).
    3
  19. Lol
    3
  20. lol. If something literally requires 3 times more energy in the first place it can never be a cheaper option.
    3
  21. Batteries may lose some capacity after lots of kilometers and years, but fuel cells are insanely inefficient from day 1.
    3
  22.  @diesel1able  Hydrogen cars ar over already. Toyota and BMW are also focussing on battery electric cars, hydrogen is just a little hobby on the side that will soon be pushed off the cliff. Tesla's battery technology already allows for better range than hydrogen.
    3
  23. It's a famous myth. "You convert water in your fuel tank to hydrogen" - so where do you get the energy from for that conversion?
    3
  24. 1. You can't store hydrogen when your tanks are full either. 2. Battery electric cars are perfect for grid stability and allow for variable charging power to accomodate peak shaving. 3. Burning HHO in an internal combustion engine is an insane waste of energy and dumb. Won't happen.
    3
  25. Volume would be the problem. Compressed air cars exist, but are also (just like hydrogen) very inefficient.
    3
  26. Wrong
    2
  27. Yeah sounds very efficient..
    2
  28.  @pukaman2000  Efficiency is what counts for next few decades.
    2
  29.  @pukaman2000  You forget that you would need three to four times the amount of wind turbines to make enough hydrogen for an equal amount of vehicles compared to EVs.
    2
  30. In vehicle hydrogen production would require unnecessary components (electrolyzer, compressor) and it would require a lot of time to produce some hydrogen. Much longer than charging a battery. Battery weight is not really a problem and BEVs are cheaper than FCEVs in general.
    2
  31. Universe2965 Mehh not really needed for cars. Just put a nice battery in it and charge it at a fast charger. Problem solved. For aircraft hydrogen could be a solution in the far future indeed.
    2
  32.  @ezio_g  1. It takes a lot of energy to isolate hydrogen 2. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. 3. Hydrogen can be used to store energy and as a chemical ingredient. Wide adoptation in road vehicles is unlikely due to low efficiency en complexity. 4. HHO generators in ICE cars have nothing to do with this and are a fraud.
    2
  33. Milan Swoboda And then the silence remains..
    2
  34. Because if many people start to believe the myth about hydrogen technology there is a lot more energy needed to keep our world moving so it will simply be more difficult to stop global warming.
    2
  35. Super duper inefficient plus it also emits NOx
    2
  36. Hydrogen will always remain insanely inefficient and way too complicated. Battery has already won 10 years ago.
    2
  37.  @Apis4  Lol
    2
  38. Samuel Boyle Two famous misconceptions. Battery production is not as bad as many people think. CO2 emissions are currently about 100 kg per kWh capacity produced. Cobalt content is going down and will soon be a thing of the past. Current batteries last hundreds of thousands of kilometers. Much longer than any fuel cell. You realise that fuel cell production also requires mining and causes emissions? And no, a Tesla battery does not ‘die’ after two weeks. It holds energy for many months.
    2
  39. Just because you think there is not enough lithium does not mean that there is not enough lithium. There is shit loads of it.
    2
  40. Capacitors have a high power density, but low energy density. It would be impossible to store the amount of energy of a large EV battery in a capacitor first.
    2
  41. lol. "from what I have read" there is your problem.
    2
  42. But still very scarce and should therefore not be wasted on hydrogen.
    2
  43. John Wu It won’t. Current batteries last very long.
    2
  44. Batteries losing some mentionable charge is not a matter of weeks but months. Other things mentioned don’t really make a difference. Hydrogen vs battery is not about the details but about the bigger picture of energy efficiency.
    2
  45. Who are you talking to?
    2
  46. It's just simple physics.
    2
  47.  @jrsixowfour8674  You answered your own question.
    2
  48. Just charge an EV with solar panels. Much more efficient.
    2
  49.  @ExplorerBen7  Not sure how many solar panels you would need to fill a hydrogen car quickly enough either, but at least a factor 3 to 4 times as many compared to charging an EV.
    2
  50.  @ExplorerBen7  Could be. But that doesn’t change the fact that an EV will gain more range in the the same amount of time while charging on that same output.
    2
  51. Like Milan already stated, people don't rapid charge on a daily basis, let alone at the same time. Also: going the hydrogen route would be a super complicated and inefficient way of fixing the problem of grid capacity.
    2
  52. Lithium availability is not the problem at all.
    2
  53. Yes, probably for seasonal storage. Not for day to day stabilisation.
    2
  54. By far not good enough. Only slightly better than gasoline emission wise.
    2
  55. You forget that fuel cells degrade as well. In many cases much faster than batteries.
    2
  56. Fuel cells degrade as well, often faster dan current battery technology. Also, hydrogen cars also have batteries.
    2
  57. CO2
    2
  58. Weight barely influences energy consumption. By the way, fuel cell vehicles are about as heavy.
    2
  59. It's not. Lithium mining is not invasive. Look up brine lakes.
    2
  60. hamobu And that is exactly what is happening. Increasing charge power fills up EV batteries faster and thus preventing them from needing to charge at a later moment. Energy is literally stored that otherwise would have been wasted.
    2
  61. hamobu It doesn’t matter. Energy gets stored.
    2
  62. Lithium mining is not invasive nor energy intense.
    2
  63. braunblender I honestly don’t think so. I do understand why using fire can be romantic or nostalgic, but I do not see the need to keep distributing this through an whole country for this purpose. My country (The Netherlands) is finally slowly moving away from the national NG network. Most new houses do not get a connection anymore and I think that is a good thing. Current NG networks can indeed be made suitable for hydrogen, but it does require quite a lot of adjustment to the systems and pipelines themselves.
    2
  64.  @MariaJose-oh5yh  There is no acid in lithium batteries.
    2
  65. Also regarding slavery: you are probably referring to cobalt. Yes, a minority of all the cobalt produced in the world is related to questionable practices like child labour and / or slavery. Cobalt is often a component in lithium ion batteries that are used in EVs but also in countless other electrical appliances that rely on these kind of batteries. Apart from that, the oil industry is still one of the biggest consumers of cobalt because this material is used in the desulphurisation process of petrol and diesel. Electric cars do use certain amounts of cobalt, but they are definitely not the sole consumer of this material nor are they directly relatable to slavery or child labour.
    2
  66. Lithium is not something to worry about. Battery production is currently at an average of 65 kg of CO2 per kWh. This will decline the coming years.
    2
  67.  @montana1636  "No one produces hydrogen by steam reforming anymore" source please
    2
  68. Yes it is a free market, but it is important to chose a solution that is as efficient as possible in order to lower emissions as best as we can. The difference in efficiency and emissions between gasoline an diesel is much smaller than the difference between BEV and HFCEV so that analogy does not make much sense. Also, there is a lot of public money involved in expensive developments like these so we need to make a sane decision. The inability for many people to charge overnight should not be solved by developing a highly complicated and cumbersome hydrogen ecosystem, but simply by installing chargers at car parkings.
    2
  69. NPAMike True, but it is definitely doable. The city I live in (and many other cities in Europe) are already heavily investing in along the street chargers. Don’t forget, selling kilowatthours is a profit making activity and the costs of these kind of slow chargers is not that high. Also, electrical infrastructure is often already there for lamp posts et cetera. If we would choose for hydrogen cars instead, countries would have to build three times the amount of power stations / solar panels / wind turbines to make up for the enormous amount of energy needed to create all that hydrogen.
    2
  70. Arthik Alexander For long term energy storage hydrogen will probably play a role. Efficiency is lower than pumped hydro so hydrogen should not be the first choice.
    2
  71. 1) Volumetric energy density is still very low 2) Doesn't change much regarding efficiency 3) Unproven technology
    2
  72.  @stonetoolcompany3649  The world already has 10 years of experience with mass produced EVs and in general they are holding up very well - yes even in EV world capital Norway.
    2
  73. Nope. They both start with electricity.
    1
  74. Because AC motors are much more efficient.
    1
  75. @Milan Swoboda I see, thanks. Very interesting subject.
    1
  76. Technically Difficulties And that current comes from...
    1
  77.  @technicallydifficulties7094  I don't see any advantage. The problem is compression. Lot's of compression. 500 - 700 Bar. Which has to happen in the car as well.
    1
  78.  @technicallydifficulties7094  Mehh. Sorry man, just put a nice battery in that same car and it will be much more efficient and simpel.
    1
  79. It is not acceptable when you realize that three times the amount of battery electric cars can be charged with the same amount of energy. Renewables are not free.
    1
  80. Hydrogen is not cheaper than gasoline. Current fast charging is not considerably slower than filling a hydrogen tank.
    1
  81. Exactly. So many people tend to forget this.
    1
  82. ‘Portable hydrogen refuel system’ elaborate please
    1
  83.  @nikhiljain9131  Doesn't make any sense. Far more complicated and less efficient. You would need three times the amount of solar panels on your roof to drive a similar distance as an EV.
    1
  84.  @nikhiljain9131  You are completely misinformed. The world is not moving towards hydrogen, especially not Germany. Volkswagen for example has recently said they quit developing any fuel cell models and so do many other car manufacturers. Driving on hydrogen was a short experiment. Hydrogen production, storage and usage will never become considerably more efficient due to simple laws of physics.
    1
  85. Those are some common misconceptions. 1. You can easily store energy in stationary batteries at chargers. These kind of fast chargers do already exist and are being used in Europe. The losses that occur in this extra charging / discharging step are far lower than with the hydrogen solution you described. 2. Cars won’t be charging every day at the same moment and at the same power. We are not all lining up at the gas station on a daily basis either, right? 3. Electric cars and smart chargers allow for peak shaving because they are able to supply variable charging speeds during the day according to the grid load. This already exists as well.
    1
  86. You forgot about emissions. Low efficiency = high CO2 emissions per mile.
    1
  87. Yeah and fuel cells grow on trees 😂
    1
  88. Modern batteries barely degrade.
    1
  89. What if you fill your car with hydrogen for five years straight. Lol look hmm how much your total hydrogen bill is.
    1
  90. No of course not. Where would you get the energy from for the electrolysis?
    1
  91. Yea because fuel cells, electrolysers, solar panels and wind mills come falling from the sky for nothing..
    1
  92.  @angus8223  I understand. But the thing is that we would need three times the amount of that same renewable energy to generate hydrogen in order to power the same amount of vehicles. So you would still need to 'tear the earth apart' to get the materials needed for three times the amount of solar panels and wind turbines.
    1
  93. Making hydrogen is far less efficient. Driving on electricity is always more efficient than using an internal combustion engine because power plants are more efficient than ICEs and distribution through the grid is more efficient than using ships and tanker trucks to transport petrolium products.
    1
  94. Hydrogen could indeed be a viable option for seasonal energy storage, but not for peak shaving. Electric cars and smart chargers are perfect for peak shaving because they can vary the charging power based on the grid load. It also enables for bi-directional charging where EVs return amounts of energy to the grid when needed.
    1
  95. By what?
    1
  96. The more EVs there are, the less surplus there will be. There is currently no considerable amount of surplus to produce hydrogen in a commercially viable manner.
    1
  97. wat bedoel je?
    1
  98. You forgot about the energy that is required to do the onboard electrolysis.
    1
  99. Ezio R. Giordanelli Lopez HHO is a fraud, period. It is simply not possible due to some simple laws of physics.
    1
  100. Lol you need electricity to make hydrogen. LOTS of electricity.
    1
  101. Hydrogen tanks tend to leak A LOT more than batteries lose their charge. Battery production may cause more emissions than fuel cell production, but are highly efficient the rest of their lives. Fuel cells remain super inefficient their entire lives.
    1
  102.  @hjjung98  Hydrogen gas is a very small molecule wich makes it hard store for longer periods of time. Batteries easily hold their charge for months. Cobalt content in Tesla batteries is already very low and will soon be a thing of the past. Fuel cell efficiency is only a small part of the story. You are forgetting about losses during electrolysis, compression, transport. Losses in electricity grid distribution and charging are way less than that: https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ Electric trucks already exist and Tesla will soon be joining this market. Even for trucks hydrogen seems to be losing it.
    1
  103. ​ @hjjung98  Alright, so lets leave the 'leakage' of energy out of the equation for both batteries and hydrogen storage tanks. This isn't a problem anyway because most people very rarely leave their vehicle parked continuously for longer periods of time.
    1
  104. "the battery is 30% of weight, so 30% of energy loss" Lol what kind of equation is that? EVs are 70 to 80% efficient, including all the aspects you mentioned.
    1
  105. It's not three hours...
    1
  106.  @madrabbit9007  At home. Read the text at 2:38
    1
  107. 'Fancy chargers' only require 20 minutes of charging before hitting the road for another 300 kilometers for a fraction of the cost. Hydrogen is over already.
    1
  108.  @nope1918  I know that. The funny thing is, you don't need to charge to 100% because with currently technology 80% already provides you with a few hundred kilometers of range. You need to take a break anyway (eat, pee, take a dump), so why not charge for 20 minutes at the same time. Charging at home often takes place while you sleep.
    1
  109.  @nope1918  How many miles do you drive per day? EVs are perfect for 90% of the people because of ther limited daily mileage and the existing infrastructure. Regarding current technology: the Tesla Model S Long Range has the same range as a Toyota Mirai. Teslas charge really fast so this would barely make any difference opposed to filling up hydrogen (which is not as fast as filling up gasoline). Investing in fuel cell tech and infrastructure now would be an insane waste of money and energy and is completely unnecessary.
    1
  110. nope You can easily do that in a Tesla. If you combine that home charging with Supercharging it is literally no problem. You are seeing obstacles that are not there. Again: current Teslas drive as far as a Mirai and Supercharging is not considerably slower than filling hydrogen. It’s 2020, not 2010. Also: cost per mile is much lower.
    1
  111. nope Then I would suggest to simply keep driving your ICE car. Superchargers and other fast chargers will be there within a few years. Hydrogen filling stations will not.
    1
  112. 1. Invalid argument. In this situation we are able to make a choice between something horribly inefficient and something very efficient. 2. I don't see your problem. So what? As soon as you have the car you are able to choose whatever source of electricty you like - and even generate your own. In case of hydrogen you will be tied to a few hydrogen filling stations and it's companies determining the price. 3. Weight does not have a great impact on efficiency. The Mirai is nog a lot lighter than an average EV. 4. Modern batteries do in fact last long and next gen Tesla batteries will last even longer. In case of battery failure only certain modules have to be replaced costing a few thousand dollars after many years of use. Probably a LOT cheaper than maintaining a FCEV and its fuel cell replacement. By the way, FCEV's also have battery packs.
    1
  113. What about all the issues with mining platinum for the fuel cells?
    1
  114. Depends on the country. Emissions are aways lower than hydrogen per km of course.
    1
  115. 1. FCEVs are about as heavy as an equal EV and consist of way more components. The fuel itself only weighs 5 to 6 kilograms. 2. Fast charging regularly takes less than half an hour. 3. Fuel cells don’t grow on trees either and wear out as well. FCEVs also contain (small) lithium batteries. 4. Efficiency is a key property when it comes to lowering emissions as fast as possible.
    1
  116.  @robi4387  But that is not relevant.
    1
  117. Sounds like simple physics!
    1
  118. Only certain plants grow well on N but others don’t. This causes decrease of biodiversity.
    1
  119. Wonderful argument 😂😂 So we will simply stick to super inefficient and polluting manual transmission combustion engine cars ONLY because this would improve ‘skill’. LOL
    1
  120. Vi B EV adoptation will soon be a matter of legislation, not a matter of choice. I have driven manual transmission cars all my life but I love automatics because you can concentrate 100% on the road.
    1
  121. Vi B But EVs brake heavily on the motor (regen) when you let go of the gas 😉
    1
  122. Hydrogen cars are barely lighter than BEVs. Weight is not a huge factor to energy consumption.
    1
  123. What is wrong with your space bar?
    1
  124. Patsy Hetzel Liquid hydrogen cryogenic storage is also very energy intense and does not improve efficiency at all. Hydrogen’s very low volumetric energy density is one of the biggest problems that waste so much energy along the way.
    1
  125.  @Apis4  You need to get your numbers straight. There is a factor 3 difference in efficiency caused by laws of physics. Reducing this to a factor 2 is barely possible. You don't need a 1000 mile range anywhere on earth. EVs are very versatile because electricity is practically everywhere you go. Installing rapid chargers is far more simple than developing a hydrogen ecosystem.
    1
  126.  @Apis4  Of course I am saying that. Nobody needs a range of 1000 miles in a passenger car, even in Australia. If it is not about the numbers or the efficiency, why not stick to petrol and diesel anyway? Hydrogen for passenger cars is dead and it will remain this way forever. Battery tech is already on par with HFC (Tesla Model S Long Range) and will soon be past that point. Hydrogen is simply a waaay to complicated way of storing energy and will soon have zero benefits because of battery development.
    1
  127. ​ @Apis4 ​I am only saying hydrogen fuel cell cars make no sense in 2020 en definitely not in the future because batteries are simply making HFC obsolete. It's simple as that.
    1
  128. Don’t think so. The tanks are heavy. Also, the one and only advantage of fuel cell cars is their refueling time. If you are already thinking about swappable energy containers why not go for batteries in the first place?
    1
  129. I don't get where you got that number. Hydrogen is currently about €10 ($11) per kg at refilling stations in Germany. Also: hydrogen will never become cheaper than electricity as you need the latter to produce the first.
    1
  130.  @milanswoboda5457  Exactly.
    1
  131. Samuel Boyle I looked it up. The price is $11 dollars at the pump.
    1
  132.  @samuelboyle8627  It's still speculation. Information from the H2V Energies website: "Supplies of the up to 99.8% pure compressed hydrogen will start in 2022 at prices of CAD 3.50 (USD 2.68/EUR 2.41) per kg. Taxes, deployment and delivery charges will be estimated on top of that price." So like Milan said, that price is without downstream costs and doesn't even exist currently - let alone in Germany.
    1
  133. Samuel Boyle It’s not really the price that concerns me but the low efficiency that makes hydrogen a very worrisome idea when applied to vehicles.
    1
  134. Samuel Boyle 1 KG of hydrogen is about 33 kWh. So a Mirai consumes twice the amount of energy while driving compared to a Tesla. The other problems are production, storage and transportation which are very inefficient as well. A battery electric car is therefore about 3 times as efficient. Also: you can’t make hydrogen from just water, you need energy. Lots of energy. Energy that could have been used to drive 3 times as much in a Tesla...
    1
  135. Samuel Boyle I am not interested in theoretical costs. The problem is lack of efficiency. A fuel cell electric vehicle consumes three times the amount of energy per driven distance. This will never improve significantly due to simple laws of physics. Driving on hydrogen is an utter waste of energy and should therefore not be encouraged. Just like the sales of incandescent light bulbs are banned in Europe.
    1
  136. Quick answer: nope
    1
  137. And you think that fuel cells simply come falling from the sky? Compressed air is hideously inefficient by the way. Even worse than hydrogen.
    1
  138.  @dogdooish  Pretty much everywhere. It is in salt.
    1
  139.  @dogdooish  All salt is sea salt. And I was not talking about seawater. Most lithium comes from brine lakes and solid rock.
    1
  140. Nobody is mentioning it because it is not true. You are misinformed. Electric driving is always the cleanest option.
    1
  141.  @ericdew2021  Good point, might be possible.
    1
  142. Production of fuel cells was not taken into consideration either.
    1
  143. Your theory does not solve the efficiency problem.
    1
  144. Exactly Claire
    1
  145.  @unionofconcernedpolarbears1006  Well there is an enormous amount of energy hitting our planet every second (practically infinite), but the usable availability is still very little due to the limited number of solar panels (which makes it scarce).
    1
  146.  @unionofconcernedpolarbears1006  Not at all. We are talking many decades here.
    1
  147.  @unionofconcernedpolarbears1006  Then what? All energy = renewable?
    1
  148. A generator generating what?
    1
  149.  @johnwu8764  The volumetric energy density of hydrogen is low. This can be solved by compression. Lots of compression. And this is exactly what makes it so inefficient.
    1
  150. Joe, you are a clever man.
    1
  151. The website is a joke
    1
  152. Nah battery tech already allows for electric trucks.
    1
  153. lucifaeris' life and stuff You forget that hydrogen also starts with electricity.
    1
  154.  @lucifaerislifeandstuff5181  The equation shown at 8:45 is correct. Current high end EVs (Tesla Model S) have a similar range as a Mirai or a Nexo. Filling up a hydrogen car takes 5 minutes. An average fast charge session 20 minutes. However, most EV drivers rarely fast charge because they charge during the night. So in fact you save a lot of time because you never have to drive to a fuel pump and wait for a tank to fill up.
    1
  155.  @lucifaerislifeandstuff5181  You are just searching for arguments in favour of hydrogen. Current batteries last a long time (hundreds of thousands of kilometers), fuel cells wear out much faster. Fuel cell cars will always remain highly inefficient compared to EVs and will therefore slow down the energy transition.
    1
  156.  @lucifaerislifeandstuff5181  A fuel cell degrades in a similar way and has a limited lifetime in hours and or kilometers. Tesla batteries are designed to last 300.000 miles or 480.000 kilometers.
    1
  157.  @lucifaerislifeandstuff5181  Energy density by weight of hydrogen is indeed very high, but density by volume is incredibly low. Therefore lots of compression is needed which leads to horrible efficiency. EV's range is already on par with that of fuel cell vehicles and a Model S doesn't weigh much more than a Mirai. And again, the horrific energy consumption of fuel cell vehicles per kilometer is just plain stupid from a climate change perspective.
    1
  158. Na not really. Batteries will be so much better by that time that hydrogen is not something to consider.
    1
  159. No it won't. Producing H2 on board requires electricity from the 12V battery. That battery is charged by the alternator which will increase fuel consumption. It's a fraud.
    1
  160. Nah that doesn't really lower emissions significantly.
    1
  161. Tess Stickles thank you
    1
  162. Ever heard of fast chargers? You can easily drive that in 2 days in a Tesla.
    1
  163. Zach Tangen I am talking about FAST chargers. That often takes about 20 minutes...
    1
  164. Hydrogen refilling is only a bit faster and when you consider the fact that BEVs charge at night, you actually spend much less time in total at a refueling station.
    1
  165. Reality is unfair sometimes.
    1
  166. NIO is working on this but I wouldn't expect much from it. Battery swapping infrastructure is a lot more expensive than fast chargers. And current fast charging tech is so fast that it really isn't an issue anymore.
    1
  167. Lithium is mined from brine lakes. Not really invasive at all. And yes, batteries can and will be reused and recycled.
    1
  168.  @ExplorerBen7  Impossble. An EV will always be faster to charge on an equal power output. Splitting water actually takes quite a lot of energy and then you also have to compress it in order to get into the car.
    1
  169.  @ExplorerBen7  All of the factors you mentioned (mass of the EV, volume of the hydrogen created, burn rate of the hydrogen) have nothing to do with the comparison of charging / refilling time. Fact is that charging a battery is about 95% efficient whereas making hydrogen and compressing it is about 40% efficient. And then burning it inside an internal combustion engine is obviously a lot less efficient than using the electric motor in the EV. The two methods are miles apart.
    1
  170.  @ExplorerBen7  Sorry, but it is simply impossible due to the aforementioned differences in efficiency.
    1
  171.  @ExplorerBen7  It’s just physics.
    1
  172.  @ExplorerBen7  I assume you are talking about in car hydrogen production and then adding that to the gasoline-air mixture in order to improve your gasoline fuel consumption. That is impossible simply because you need more gasoline to produce the hydrogen onboard than you are able to get back out of it again. If you are referring to external hydrogen production with grid power and then (partially) running a vehicle on that, yes that could work.
    1
  173.  @ExplorerBen7  No you cannot create energy out of hydrogen produced on demand from the alternator. It is just simple physics. That many people do it doesn’t prove anything. It’s a scam. Period.
    1
  174.  @ExplorerBen7  Every ampere hour that is pumped into that battery (and then used for electrolysis) is created by using EXTRA gasoline. People with these contraptions installed are getting better mileage because they think they are getting better mileage. It is just confirmation bias.
    1
  175.  @ExplorerBen7  You cannot create that gain out of thin air. Look up the first law of thermodynamics.
    1
  176.  @ExplorerBen7  Because that 2/3 of gasoline is wasted in heat.
    1
  177.  @ExplorerBen7  There is no energy created, only converted with losses. Gain = 0
    1
  178.  @ExplorerBen7  Sure, because you use grid power to make the hydrogen.
    1
  179.  @ExplorerBen7  I know these videos. They are an obvious scam.
    1
  180.  @ExplorerBen7  It’s just wishful thinking. Again, it is impossible. Not because I do not want it or because I don’t like it, it’s because of simple physics.
    1
  181. For industrial applications, probably yes. For cars, no.
    1
  182. Milan Swoboda SILENCE
    1
  183. Lol
    1
  184. Current batteries last hundres of thousands of kilometers. Lithium is not scarce and they can be reused and then recycled.
    1
  185. Combustion engines running on hydrogen are out of the question because this makes it even more inefficient.
    1
  186. There is not. Hydrogen is and will remain very inefficient simply because of a few simple laws of physics.
    1
  187.  @TheFanatic340  I did a lot of research because I once believed driving on hydrogen hydrogen would be a great idea. Even if it is possible to make hydrogen in a more efficient way in the future like you described, you still will lose massive amounts during compression, transport and storage. Production of hydrogen is only a small part of the efficiency problem.
    1
  188.  @TheFanatic340  " Transportation infrastructure is no different than our current model with gasoline, by tanker trucks. " -That's the whole problem.. "Even electric has huge power loss over great distances. " -Only a few per cent. Doesn't come close to the insanely low efficiency of distributing hydrogen. "hundreds of new powerplants that run on natural gas, coal, or nuclear." -You tell me where you want to get three times that amount electricity to supply that same amount of cars with hydrogen.
    1
  189.  @TheFanatic340  Hydrogen will never be nearly as efficient as batteries. Using solar panels to produce electricity and store this in batteries will at least remain twice as efficient (under current circumstances three times). Battery production is not as bad as many people think. Here is a recent article that reports only 61-106kgCO2-eq/kWh for production. This results in a turning point of about 50.000 kilometers (not miles!) when compared to an equal petrol powered vehicle. https://www.ivl.se/download/18.14d7b12e16e3c5c36271070/1574923989017/C444.pdf Lithium is not rare at all, this is another famous misconception. The industry might worry about the supply of cobalt and nickel, not lithium.
    1
  190. Nope
    1
  191. You mean an electrolyzer in the car? 😄
    1
  192. Piotr Dudała Totally agree. Hydrogen is mind-bogglingly stupid in general. Using it for seasonal storage in a few decades might be bv something. But I am not convinced either.
    1
  193. There is no hydrogen ecosystem here in The Netherlands at all. Just three small refilling stations. Barely any hydrogen cars. That’s it. And no, there is no such thing as free electricity.
    1
  194. Hyundai is selling lots of great EV’s in the meantime. Wasting energy is ridiculous when there are only small amounts of renewables. Refilling hydrogen is not as convenient as gas or diesel.
    1
  195. It's not because driving on hydrogen is plain stupid.
    1
  196. Nah fast charging is good enough already.
    1
  197. 'And nobody talks about that'. That's because it is mainly not true.
    1
  198.  @hadang7899  Batteries remain the cleanest option of all alternatives.
    1
  199. I suggest you to watch video again.
    1
  200. You forgot that you need electricity to make hydrogen and that this conversion will always remain far from 100% efficient.
    1
  201. anneeq008 I meant that even if you invest heavily in H2 infrastructure it still remains very inefficient.
    1
  202. anneeq008 ICE efficiency barely improved over the past decades if that is what you mean.
    1
  203. Nope
    1
  204. Yea and fuel cells grow on trees..
    1
  205. You would need three times the amount of wind and solar to make clean hydrogen in order to fuel an equal amount of FCEV's as EV's.
    1
  206. Not relevant
    1
  207. Hydrogen will never be considerably more efficient. That is not due to a lack of scale. It is simple physics.
    1
  208. What energy source would you use for splitting the water?
    1
  209. Emissions caused by battery production only happen once. Currently about 100 kg of CO2 per kWh. Driving on dirty electricity is still cleaner than driving on petrol or diesel. Making and using hydrogen is super ineffcient, so you need a lot more of that same dirty energy to drive a certain distance with a FCEV. Also, materials for fuel cells and electrolysers also have to be mined and they degradee rather fast. FCEV's also have lithium ion batteries.
    1
  210. Lol. Just wrong. Current battery tech lasts much longer. Fuel cells wear out much faster.
    1
  211. You can’t skip thermodynamics with money and research. EVs can be charged much more efficiently during low demand. The Tesla Model S already does more than 500 km. Extracting lithium is done by evaporation from brine lakes. Not very invasive at all.
    1
  212. Charging EVs for example...
    1
  213. busybody1 Ever heard of power lines?
    1
  214. busybody1 I actually do and hydrogen is stupid and a waste of energy.
    1
  215. 'hydrogen fuel cell' is not an energy source whatsoever.
    1
  216. Correct
    1
  217. Yup it is mind-boggling.
    1
  218. It’s not. You thought that materials needed for fuel cells grow on trees?
    1
  219. Lol what about CO2
    1
  220.  @jayecurry1369  You have a lot of catching up to do.
    1
  221. 1. Fast charging efficiencies are often well above 90%: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/evaluation-fast-charging-efficiency-under-extreme-temperatures 2. Battery electric vehicles mostly rely on slow charging for the biggest part, although trucks will probably use fast charging more often. Nevertheless, the trucks will probably also be charged during the night so maybe only half the charging will be done at fast chargers. 3. Hydrogen refilling is always very inefficient, every time you do it, no matter what. Charging a BEV is most of the time very efficient, and in some cases a bit less efficient.
    1
  222. Good to hear this. Thank you.
    1
  223. No you should not because hydrogen is made with the exact same electricity.
    1
  224.  @ShenZhouGaiacoin  You are mixing things up. You should not compare hydrogen to the batteries. Hydrogen is the medium, not the storage device. EVs can be charged with renewable electricity as well and that would only require 1/3rd of the amount of energy compared to a hydrogen car.
    1
  225. FCV will have to remain a niche because energy consumption is simply unacceptably high.
    1
  226. You have not follwed developments of EV's over the past 10 years?
    1
  227. It's not. Availability of lithium is not a problem. Batteries will be reused and eventually recycled.
    1
  228.  @Chopper153  Very unlikely. Even if there will ever be large amounts of renewables hydrogen remains a very inefficient and utterly complex system to store energy for vehicles. By that time batteries will be even better than now and a lot cheaper.
    1
  229. Preetam Mukherjee So you are concerned about availability of electricity in certain areas and then you start about fuel cell cars. They require three times the amount of that exact same electric energy...
    1
  230. Preetam Mukherjee So you are concerned about power peaks, not energy. This can easily be solved by smart chargers.
    1
  231. Preetam Mukherjee Nope it won’t. HFCVs will always remain less attractive both economical and energy efficiency wise. It is just simple physics. Also, every parking spot can be equipped with a slow charger. No problem for apartment buildings.
    1
  232. Preetam Mukherjee Sure, but it is ignorant to assume that in the future laws of physics will miraculously be broken. Because that is what you would need to make HFCVs more efficient than BEVs. Fuel cells require platinum that has to be mined by the way.
    1
  233. Milan Swoboda Fantastic explanation 👌🏻
    1
  234. Everything will be electric in the long run so we need capable grids anyway.
    1
  235. synthetic oils are still made from crude
    1
  236. Nope
    1
  237.  @milanswoboda5457  You sir are correct. Driving electric is always the cleanest option, even when using carbon heavy electricity.
    1
  238. You would need A LOT more solar and wind power drive a similar distance as a battery EV. Solar panels and wind turbines don't come falling from the sky for free.
    1
  239. They both start with electricity. So the losses of electricity production do not belong in the equation.
    1
  240. 10 kg is not much right? It is not worth the effort. By the way, petrol engines also produce H2O at the tail pipe.
    1
  241.  @Justan669  Hmmm, better just go with battery electric cars and use a small part of the loads of energy that are saved that way for water processing and infrastructure.
    1
  242. It is not a future fuel.
    1
  243.  @chigglywiggly  Too inefficient and still produces massive amounts of CO2. Nothing futuristic about that.
    1
  244.  @chigglywiggly  Read your own article. Methanol is produced from natural gas (methane) and therefore the CO2 is from fossil origin.
    1
  245.  @chigglywiggly  Even then it is a very inefficient way to propel a vehicle and also requires vast amounts of land that we actually need to feed the world.
    1
  246.  @chigglywiggly  But horribly inefficient 😂
    1
  247.  @chigglywiggly  Equally inefficient.
    1
  248. Building fast chargers is A LOT cheaper than hydrogen stations. "maybe some day we can use natural gas to power electric motor" Why on earth would we do that. It's not more efficient in any way.
    1
  249.  @orcofnbu  Hybrids were cool in the early 2000's. It's over now - we need to look for solutions that actually make sense emission wise. Hydrogen is three times less efficient than batteries and cannot be stored in existing petrol stations. Hydrogen refueling stations are very expensive to build as well. Expanding electric infrastructure is cheaper and easier.
    1
  250. orçun Battery production is not as bad as most people think. We are currently at about 100 kg of CO2 per kWh and this is declining every year. This means you already break even at about 50.000 km compared to a petrol car. Hydrogen is inefficient the car’s entire lifetime, battery production only once.
    1
  251. That would be the smallest problem.
    1
  252. Leon Exactly
    1
  253. Lol a hydrogen car is not producing anything
    1
  254.  @saleh.hashmi  Hydrogen cars refuel at hydrogen stations. A fuel cell converts hydrogen to water and electricity. The electricity runs the motor.
    1
  255.  @saleh.hashmi  Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is even less efficient. It's a dumb idea.
    1
  256.  @saleh.hashmi  Efficiency determines the price. Hydrogen gas is not abundant at all.
    1
  257. So you think fuel cells grow on trees?
    1
  258. Already a thousand other comments mention this... Battery production emissions are not relevant because fuel cell production emissions are not included either.
    1
  259. The Nothing Channel Nope. Most cobalt is fine and cobalt content in EV batteries is getting less and less every year.
    1
  260. You sir are correct.
    1
  261. MrCougar214 They don’t use explosions at brine lakes.
    1
  262. MrCougar214 Simply not true. The vast majority of lithium comes from brine lakes. No explosions there.
    1
  263. Exactly so there is nothing wrong with the comparison.
    1
  264. 1. There is always an average amount of cars charging at any given moment of the day. They are perfect for storing excess power (in a much more efficient way too). 2. DC high voltage distribution is MUCH more efficent than hydrogen gas transportation. 3. Again, DC high voltage lines.
    1
  265. hamobu 1. The chargers always work, just the charging power is adjusted. This already exists and works well. We are talking slow chargers here of course - for over night charging. 2. You don’t really need to go transatlantic to get near the equator. Here is a nice report: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2019/40/e3sconf_esr2019_02003.pdf You can skip right to the conlusion where you will find DC power distribution is way more efficient up until 6000 km. That will be more than enough in most cases.
    1
  266. hamobu This exists where I live: https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/news--press-releases/pressreleases/2019/largest-smart-electric-vehicle-charging-network-optimizes-use-of-renewable-energy-in-amsterdam I can imagine that you can come up with a few business cases for shipping energy around the world but it still doesn’t sound efficient at all to me compared to building a great DC grid once and then being able to lean back and enjoy these electrons coming in by themselves.
    1
  267.  @hamobu  "Flexpower Amsterdam is a smart network of charging stations that enables faster charging of electric cars when the sun is shining"
    1
  268.  @hamobu  Exactly. And charging will be faster when there is more renewable supply. That is storage.
    1
  269.  @hamobu  It does both. It is focused on using as much local solar as possible. If not, then it will charge at high speed using mainly fossil / general grid energy. "The Flexpower charging stations are adjusted in such a way that they can be steered based on the daily forecast of solar energy and grid loads."
    1
  270.  @hamobu  You don't have to wait longer because they simply switch to grid power when there is not enough solar. This happens every night. The point is that it will give priority to solar when there is a lot of it available. This prevents the solar from having to enter the grid. It gets stored in the EV batteries instead. You can do exact the same thing with stationary batteries in homes (i.e. Powerwalls). No hydrogen needed.
    1
  271. hamobu Storing means you can use it later. Apart from that, bidirectional charging also already exists.
    1
  272. hamobu It’s not speculative. It exists already.
    1
  273. Rapid chargers with built-in battery packs already exist and thus provide a much more efficient solution. Apart from that: there is always an average number of cars (slow) charging from the grid at a random moment. Smart charging technology allows for variable power output depending on grid load at that time. EVs will contribute to grid stability, hydrogen would simply be an unnecesary and inefficient solution to this problem.
    1
  274. Super unnecessary, too complicated, efficiency would be horribly low.
    1
  275.  @arefin727tech  And your country is?
    1
  276. Most 2013 Tesla Model S cars are still doing fine on their original battery.
    1
  277. Huge hydrogen energy storage for seasonal purposes - yea probably. Transporting the hydrogen? Nah way too inefficient and why would you?
    1
  278. Hydrogen cars do have batteries.
    1
  279.  @sigma_kappa  Yes and buffering in order to provide a higher power output at acceleration.
    1
  280. Meh weight does not influence range a lot.
    1
  281. Lol that’s impossible, and even then it would still be horribly inefficient.
    1
  282. Electricity already is, depending on where you live, heavily taxed.
    1
  283.  @AHR_James  That is not very high indeed. Here in the Netherlands tax on electricity is about 50%.
    1
  284. A bit better than ICE but much worse than battery.
    1
  285. This is about the 'fuel', not about the construction of the vehicle.
    1
  286. This was already tried in the past (look up Better Place on wikipedia). Didn't work out because battery swapping stations are expensive to build and maintain. It was not competitive with fast charging already years ago. We are past that point.
    1
  287. Those DC-AC conversion losses are absolutely nothing compared to the losses in hydrogen production, storage, transportation and fuel cell conversion.
    1
  288. The point is that renewable electricity is A LOT better than the fossil alternative. Everything we do always causes some CO2 emissions. The goal is to lower them as much as possible.
    1
  289. Adam.75au It’s the average emissions per kWh that counts.
    1
  290. Even then it would be much less complicated to use that same natural gas to fire a power station, capture that CO2 and then charge EVs with that energy.
    1
  291. Even more inefficient 😂
    1
  292. You forget about the energy needed for electrolysis.
    1
  293. Yup
    1
  294. DUH if fool cells were a great ideaTeslas would have them from day one lol.
    1
  295. gimlin101 Lol of course that was an option in 2008.
    1
  296. No. Hydrogen is made from water AND electricity. The comparison is correct.
    1
  297. Not when you realise that actually using that hydrogen is super inefficient. Electric cars are batteries on wheels. Perfect for grid storage.
    1
  298. You forgot about emissions.
    1
  299. It's not relevant. Solar panels have a carbon payback time of about 1,5 years and they last at least 25 years.
    1
  300.  @darrenpat182  Waste is not the same as emissions.
    1
  301. Pat Rick Again, it is not relevant. Total emissions go down so that is what counts.
    1
  302. Pat Rick Well nuclear is another story with it’s own disadvantages. Will definitely play a role indeed. The point is, we need current energy (that could be carbon intense) to build low carbon solutions. There is no way around that. Building hundreds of nuclear power stations is also very carbon intense.
    1
  303. Lol. Nope
    1
  304. It's not.
    1
  305. In a world in which CO2 emissions have to be lowered as fast as possible efficiency is top priority.
    1
  306. That’s about 0,4 kWh per m2 per day. So 11 kWh per day for the whole surface hour. This equals to about 3 km of range when converted to hydrogen.
    1
  307. CUBETechie Not worth it in my opinion.
    1
  308. Sure but not for vehicles.
    1
  309. "The electrical grid in the U.S., WHICH CANNOT BE REPLACED BY WIND OR SOLAR, run by BURNING COAL" so which electricity do you plan to use for hydrogen production? lol
    1
  310. No Bozos But you would need al least four times the amount of nuclear power stations for hydrogen cars.
    1
  311. ​ @no-bozos  You would still only need a third of that same nuclear energy to power BEVs.
    1
  312. No Bozos I am not saying I am completely against nuclear. I am saying Hydrogen cars are dumb. Building a nuclear power plant is insanely expensive and takes many years. I repeat: if we all went over to hydrogen cars we would need to build at least three times the amount of nuclear power stations. Battery electric vehicles are the fastest and most efficient way of getting away from fossil fuels.
    1
  313.  @no-bozos  Not really. Electrolysis is only one of the several steps in the hydrogen ecosystem that cause major losses of energy. There is compression, transport and conversion in the fuel cell as well. It will therefore not get anywhere near the efficiency of a battery.
    1
  314.  @no-bozos  The video is accurate. You don't need to include the losses of burning the fuel that is used for electricity production because hydrogen also starts with electricity.
    1
  315.  @no-bozos  What is so hard about my last sentence?
    1
  316.  @no-bozos  Why do you start about nuclear again? It is not relevant. The discussion is about hydrogen vs. battery. They both start with electricity.
    1
  317. Miguel lopez Exactly
    1
  318. what do you mean?
    1
  319.  @Haseebdoeseverything  Because it is impossible.
    1
  320. No because electrolysis uses that same electricity.
    1
  321.  @3d1e00  He did it correct. They both start with electricity, so you can leave that out. The hydrogen route has this extra step: generation or electrolysis.
    1
  322.  @3d1e00  He includes 6% grid loss at 8:40.
    1
  323. Edward Scrase Again, if you want to include electricity generation for the battery situation, then you have to do this for the fuel cell as wel. It’s simple as that.
    1
  324. Edward Scrase It makes no sense. He does include electricity generation for neither fcev nor battery. Net difference = 0.
    1
  325. Edward Scrase Take a look at this: https://images.app.goo.gl/b6poh2w4A5w7keFN6 Now you cover the solar panels with your hand and see what is left.
    1
  326. @Milan Swoboda haha exactly
    1
  327. Not really. The battery is full when you leave so you only meed to charge for about 100 miles theoretically. Regarding even longer trips: you need breaks anyway so why not charge at the same time? Fast charging often only takes half an hour.
    1
  328. Pollution of battery production is quickly compensated by the low emissions EV's cause when they drive. Heating a car is about 1 kW of power. Imagine you have only 10 kWh left in your battery, you can still heat it for many ours and then drive to the nearest charger. No difference to an ICE.
    1
  329. You can’t see CO2.
    1
  330. Never heard of DC fast charging?
    1
  331. Lithium is not rare at all. Hydrogen takes loads of energy to get.
    1
  332.  @NathamelCamel  It has literally not: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/13/coup-morales-bolivia-lithium-isnt-new-oil/ “There’s a lot of misunderstanding, there’s this idea that lithium is rare and critical. It is critical. It is not rare by any stretch of the imagination,”
    1
  333. Probably not because hydrogen will always remain a factor 2 to 3 less efficient.
    1
  334.  @Zappy4001  If you don't like the power of big oil and auto, you shouldn't be looking at hydrogen. Battery electric will always remain the cheapest, most efficient and most versatile way of transportation that enables you to fill up your car at home with an electricity source of your choice.
    1
  335. Zappy 4001 What about platinum for fuel cells?
    1
  336. Zappy 4001 WTF are you talking about
    1
  337. Zappy 4001 No problem. Because EVs are much more efficient than any alternative.
    1
  338. Electric cars are always cleaner, no matter where the energy comes from. Lithium has nothing to do with child labor.
    1
  339. Yes you are
    1
  340. BEVs are always the winner regarding efficiency in the long run. BEVs last a long time so it is worth building them.
    1
  341. c info I did that countless times. Conclusion remains: BEV is the only proper way forward.
    1
  342. c info I did not publish anything. There is plenty of proper research to be found. For a start: https://www.ivl.se/download/18.14d7b12e16e3c5c36271070/1574923989017/C444.pdf
    1
  343.  @cinfo2800  That's correct. The paper is about battery production emissions which make up the biggest part of the car's production emissions. The rest of the car is relatively equal to ICE production. Current batteries will last longer than the car itself, will then be used in other applications and then be recycled. There is not much data on battery recycling emissions because there is currently no large scale recycling in operation as there is no large supply of worn out batteries yet. Here is a paper by Auke Hoekstra (University of Eindhoven) about EV / ICE comparison: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435119302715
    1
  344. Yeah let’s ignore science instead 😂
    1
  345. Giorgi Sanikidze And where does the dynamo (alternator) get it’s energy from?
    1
  346.  @Giogio-wc2pn  Exactly. So the alternator is turned by the combustion engine so the energy comes from petrol. Why would you do this?
    1
  347.  @Giogio-wc2pn  That changes nothing. Still powered by the engine.
    1
  348.  @Giogio-wc2pn  Why don't you carefully read Milan's excellent explanation. It is just simple physics. The YouTube video you are referring to doesn't proof anything, it's simply a petrol engine running partly on hydrogen but it will not improve the fuel consumption at all. It uses extra energy instead.
    1
  349. Giorgi Sanikidze It would not work. It’s called physics. Look it up, buy a book, enjoy 😀
    1
  350. Less efficient.
    1
  351. 1. Weight doesn't change too much about efficiency. 2. Regarding mining, you thought that fuel cells come falling from the sky for free? 3. Most fuel cells degrade faster than current batteries. Current Tesla batteries last many hundreds of thousands of kilometers.
    1
  352.  @martinlacey8110  Dude. Once again. First you need energy to make the hydrogen on board. Then you feed it into the combustion engine. So where does THAT energy come from. Basic physics.
    1
  353. Martin Lacey Martin please, do yourself a favor and buy yourself a nice book about thermodynamics / physics in general.
    1
  354. Totally wrong. Musk doesn't care about hydrogen because it simply is an inferior and stupid technology for cars. The petroleum industry loves hydrogen because they dream of being able to continue production and handling of gaseous fuels.
    1
  355.  @nicksofialakis1448  You have no clue: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies/hydrogen.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/reimagining-energy/bp-joins-hydrogen-council.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/big-oil-s-long-bet-on-hydrogen-offers-a-climate-lifeline
    1
  356. ...30 years ago
    1
  357.  @hEXordo  Problem is that hydrogen's low efficiency problem is not just a matter of more research and development (which was the case with batteries). Laws of physics (thermodynamics) prevent hydrogen vehicles from becoming considerably more efficient.
    1
  358. You sir, just described a perfect example of a perpetuum mobile.
    1
  359. Yes but the point is that a BEV only requires 1/3 of the amount of electric energy. This makes driving electric the cleanest option of them all because it is so damn efficient, no matter how dirty the electricity is.
    1
  360. Matthew Digiacomo Not really. Efficiency didn’t increase a lot over the years. Even their first car was already very efficient. That’s not because of Tesla, but because of the fact that battery electric cars are efficient by nature. It is impossible to improve hydrogen’s efficiency significantly due to laws of physics.
    1
  361.  @matthewdigiacomo2580  Ok, but you should realise that fuel cells also require "rare" earth materials like platinum. Fuel cells also wear out after a while and have to be replaced. FCEVs also contain (smaller) lithium ion batteries for buffering and these tend to wear out rather quickly due to high cycling. And then there a many other components in the car (FCEVs are very complex) and along the infrastructure that need to be manufactured and replaced regularly.
    1
  362. Why would you?
    1
  363.  @arthikalexander316  Why would you make hydrogen from electricity and then make electricity from hydrogen?
    1
  364. Even on carbon heavy electricity EVs are much better than diesel or petrol cars.
    1
  365. Ever heard of fast charging?
    1
  366. Doesn’t change the outcome much.
    1
  367. Yes, partially. But that is not relevant because it is cleaner anyway.
    1
  368. Oh and fuel cells grow on trees of course...
    1
  369. Lol hydrogen causes three times the amount of CO2 emissions.
    1
  370.  @Peterblack12  You forgot about production.
    1
  371.  @Peterblack12  The vast amounts of electricity required for that do.
    1
  372.  @Peterblack12  Nope. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are very inefficient their entire lifetime. EVs are super efficient their entire lifetime and it only takes about 2 to 3 years to compensate for their production emissions on average grid power.
    1
  373. ... because IT is not RELEVANT
    1
  374. ​ @BarbaraA.MertzRN-CCRN  IT'S NOT. you are making a mistake in your comparison. The battery should be compared to the hydrogen fuel tank and the fuel cell. The electrons in the battery should be compared to the hydrogen itself. So think about it gain and you realise why your first comment makes no sense. Don't embarrass yourself again.
    1
  375.  @BarbaraA.MertzRN-CCRN  Lol I never said it is free. It is just the least carbon intensive way. Battery production is already below 100 kg of CO2 per kWh. Yes, that is low.
    1
  376. Solar and Wind are not free. We would literally need to build three times the amount of those things if we all drove on hydrogen. Electrolysis under pressure? You thought that there is not extra energy required for that?
    1
  377. You forgot something lol 😂😂
    1
  378. Where do you get the energy from for electrolysis?
    1
  379.  @edricrodriguez5483  I repeat my question: Where do you get the energy from for separating the hydrogen.
    1
  380. nice one hahaha
    1
  381. You don't get it. If hydrogen would have been a bright idea, Tesla's would be running on hydrogen. But it obviously is not. That's why Tesla's use battery tech.
    1
  382. Even if you use 100% of fossil electricity to charge your EV it is still cleaner than any ICE.
    1
  383. But fuel cells grow on trees?
    1
  384.  @mattmatthews5414  That’s a different reason.
    1
  385. Getting the energy from?!
    1
  386.  @AY-dw4om  Lithium is not scarce. Driving on hydrogen will always remain about three times as expensive per kilometer due to its horrible efficiency. Green hydrogen is made from electricity so why not use it directly.
    1
  387.  @AY-dw4om  1. You do not read do you? I repeat. lithium is not scarce. Lithium is made from brine lakes and extraction is not difficult nor invasive. 2. You are mixing up energy efficiency and production efficiency. Lithium batteries are a carrier of energy and yes they require some considerable amount of energy to make. But only once. After that they are super efficient. Making a hydrogen fuel cell costs less energy to make but is very inefficient to operate because making, compressing, transporting and refueling hydrogen results in only one third of the efficiency of an EV.
    1
  388. Maybe, but using it in cars would be an utter waste.
    1
  389. Nope. Stanley Meyer is not the father of the hydrogen car. He was a scammer that tried to let people believe that a gasoline car could produce it's own HHO on board to get better mileage. This obviously did not work because a certain system would clearly be conflicting with the first and second law of thermodynamics.
    1
  390. Nope, it is the other way around. Hydrogen is not the future despite the fact that oil companies would love this.
    1
  391. Lol. If fuel cells were a great idea, Teslas would have them from day 1.
    1
  392.  @maxmagnus777  Because it was fake news. Lithium mining is not very invasive. Lithium is found in brine lakes and is extracted by evaporation.
    1
  393. So what?
    1
  394. Erik Johnson That is a common misconception. Electric cars are always the least polluting option - even if you use electricity produced from coal. Catalytic converters do not filter CO2.
    1
  395.  @Erewhon2024  The comparison you describe has been demonstrated and calculated many times. It's no rocket science. The losses in petroleum product production, refinery, transport en combustion are very high. This results in 3.1 kg of CO2 per liter of gasoline or 3.3 kg of CO2 per liter of diesel: https://innovationorigins.com/producing-gasoline-and-diesel-emits-more-co2-than-we-thought/ Really coal heavy electricity production causes in extreme conditions about 1 kg of CO2 per kWh. Losses in distribution and charging are about 25%. You can drive 5 kilometers on 1 kWh, so this results in 250 grams of CO2 per kilometer (in this extreme example). An average gasoline family car does about 12 km per liter, so this results in 258 grams of CO2 per km. So that is exactly the same. But don't forget, the average emissions per kWh is what counts and this is much lower. In the USA this is in the region of 500 g/kWh, as well as many countries in Europe and most countries are at an even lower level. At 500 g/kWh the difference between an EV and a gasoline car is 150 grams per kilometer. This way battery production is compensated for rather quickly. Battery production is currently at about 100 kg of CO2 per kWh (Tesla is at 77 kg of CO2). So to conclude, a battery electric vehicle with a relatively small battery is the best option.
    1
  396. Both hydrogen and batteries start with electricity. So you can leave efficiency of electricity out.
    1
  397. Aditya P Battery electric is always cleaner than an internal combustion engine.
    1
  398. Aditya P Still better than oil extraction, transport, refining and combustion. 1 liter of diesel causes about 3,3 kg of CO2 (production and combustion). Even in coal heavy countries like Poland electric driving is cleaner than anything.
    1
  399. Aditya P Thanks for helping me out. Lets take peat emissions: 380 grams per kWh, divided by 5 = 76 grams per km. With losses in distribution and charging of 20% makes roughly 90 grams per kilometer. Diesel: 3300 grams divided by 15 makes a whopping 220 gram per km.
    1
  400.  @adityap138  ​Alright then: 380*1,34*1,20 = 611 grams per kWh. Dividend by 5 kilometers = 122 gram per kilometer in the worst case, carbon heavy, situation. Diesel remains 220 gram per kilometer.
    1
  401. Aditya P No: 1000 * 1,2 = 1200. So that makes 240 grams of CO2 per km in a very extreme scenario. A big thirsty V8 probably only does 10 km per liter. So: 3300 / 10 = 330 grams per km in EVERY scenario for the rest of the car’s life.
    1
  402. Aditya P It’s not. As mentioned before, battery production emissions get compensated after a while. 1000 grams per kWh is EXTREMELY high and actually rarely occurs anywhere around the world, except for India and a few others. Here in the Netherlands (where only a few percent of the electricity is renewable) emissions are 450 grams per kWh (a combination of natural gas and coal, and bit of renewables). USA: also 450 grams, Germany: 560 grams, China: 860 grams. See? This makes driving electric always cleaner. Source: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electricity-emissions-around-the-world
    1
  403. Aditya P CO2 per kWh is what counts. And even 600 grams is still fine and decreases every year. Renewables will indeed grow slowly, but even without that driving electric remains the least polluting solution.
    1
  404.  @davidavandebogart7131  And the energy needed for that on board hydrogen generator comes from?
    1
  405. You are mixing things up in the comparison. Lithium should be compared to the hydrogen tank and electrons should be compared to the hydrogen.
    1
  406. So tell me what you want to make these electrolysers, fuel cells an A LOT of wind turbines and solar panels from.
    1
  407. So you think that fuel cells and electrolysers grow on trees?
    1
  408.  @selske23  Both batteries and fuel cells can be recycled. Fuel cells don't require lithium, but metals like platinum instead. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with lithium specifically. Yes you can run a combustion engine on hydrogen, but this comes with even worse efficiency compared to fuel cells.
    1
  409. Not at all. Pretty much all vehicles will be battery powered eventually.
    1
  410. Electricity demand will be higher as more EVs hit the road which will be charging during the night. Hydrogen production is a waste of renewable energy.
    1
  411. This video is not about ICE’s.
    1
  412. The video is correct.
    1
  413. Not relevant in this comparison.
    1