Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. actually the range for FCEV's is not very much further than a BEV. additionally, what do you think Hydrogen cars are made of? cardboard? Hydrogen vehicles on average weigh as much and often more than their BEV counter parts. I suppose that extra mass of mined materials just appears out of thin air? I would be careful not to insinuate that Hydrogen vehicles have any less emissions for production than a BEV without any evidence for it. As for refueling times. This is actually a drawback for hydrogen. not an advantage. Most BEV's have rages between 200-400 miles. Whist the average daily commute is only 70 miles. Electricity is also supplied to the home whilst hydrogen is not. This means that you can charge your EV from home. You dont have to detour for a charge 364 days of the year because you have enough juice to do your daily activities for 3-4 days then just charge up at home when you're asleep and wake up to a full charge again. And you can do this every single evening. Not just when the power is getting low. By comparison you will have to top up your fuel cell car about once per week or more. For the average person this would waste 16-17 hours of their life per year getting hydrogen whilst BEV's waste 0 hours per year. As for the long trips over 200-400 miles, during the 1 day a year an average person might statistically do so. You only have to stop for around 20 minutes to get a charge. In fact over a 1,000 mile road trip you only have to be stopped for 30 minutes to 1 hour extra time to recharge. Once you subtract the fuel you would have inevitably have to stop to get and the toilet breaks which would be a biological necessity plus you'd likely want to eat somewhere in there. So one extra hour per year or less, vs 16-17 hours per year. doesnt seem like a close call to me.
    1
  15. 1
  16. So for the extra 75 miles I get from going for a FCEV like the Mirai over the BEV like the Model 3. I get significantly worse performance, I get excessively more expensive operating costs, I have to take it to a fuel station once a week, I have a boot so small its nearly un-usable, and the cabin space is so tight that I cant even fold the rear seats to try to extend the boot space and ontop of that, the survivability in a crash is alot lower thanks to the significantly smaller boot reducing the rear crumple zone and have not front boot to extend the crumple zone there either. These arent things that are going to be engineered out. All of them aside front cost and performance is due to the fact that Hydrogen, whilst is light, takes up alot of the space. the Mirai for example, only carries 5.1kg of hydrogen. But it takes up a tank volume of 141L. That a bigger tank capacity in your little mid-sized sedan, than you get in a massive Ford F150. Thats alot of space. Additionally you also have to fit an exhaust system, Lithium Batteries and a fuel cell into it. So there really isnt any space. The performance will always be limited because of the fuel cell. The limitation is the surface are of the catalytic element in the fuel cell (the very extremely toxic platinum to be precise). The fuel cell takes up the entire engine bay but produces electricity at such a slow rate than you only have enough for cruising. And not enough for acceleration. So the Mirai needs Lithium Batteries to store the excess energy so that it can actually accelerate the car. But because there is so little space they could only fit a 1.6kWh battery which is so small that the power output from that isnt really anything to blush at either, only providing enough power to accelerate the car from 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. A full 6 seconds slower than the Tesla.
    1
  17. 1