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

  1. unfortunately not in any great numbers. Trian stations in california have received alot of complaints. They only make enough hydrogen to fill just over 2 tanks of hydrogen. if someone's gone and filled up too soon before you get there, there isnt enough pressure and you can only fill to maybe 20-60% of your tank.
    2
  2. Fuel refining also takes a lot of rare materials such as cobalt. Infact the largest consumer of cobalt in the world are fuel refineries in a process to remove sulphur which leaves the cobalt economically unrecoverable. Meanwhile EV’s use lithium, of which there isn’t a short supply and even then, one EV battery can be in service in one form or another for around a generation, and at the end of that time, the lithium and trace amounts of cobalt and nickel in the batteries are entirely recoverable and able to be re-used in new batteries. Infact modern EV batteries around between 95-98% recyclable.
    2
  3.  @dylanbiggs6958  The issue is power flow rate and rate of compression. you can only compress so much hydrogen so fast. In addition you can only create so much so fast. it depends on the size of the station. Normal gas station sized facilities dont provide enough to meet the demand if everyone had to drive a hydrogen car.
    1
  4. not really
    1
  5. what do you think happens to the CO2 levels in the air when you increase how many emissions you are producing, whilst simultaneously deforesting the planet.
    1
  6. What creates electricity to create hydrogen? Doesn’t hydrogen also use lithium batteries? As well as the extremely toxic platinum?
    1
  7. If it’s anything like the Porsche taycan. They can keep it
    1
  8. a 500kw thermal reactor would be both way too big for the system requirements and physically too big to fit into a car. For example the Mars Curiosity Rover which is about the size of a SUV, has most of its size taken up by a thermal nuclear powerplant. Which provides a whopping 110 watts. For comparison the model X consumes 215 watt hours per km. whilst traveling and average speed of 80km/h, meaning you would need at least 2 of these reactors just to run a vehicle only just big enough to hold ONE of those reactors.
    1
  9. @UCK5GYvr-cjL9PVE83_QktRA I was gonna say, you need at least around 50kg of enriched plutonium to reach a required reaction level to run a steam turbine type reactor. You would also have to fit the turbine and reservoir inside the car. And turbines have a power output limit proportional to their diameter and length and physical material constraints come into play. Which you would never get into a car. I didnt realise you were joking though. Alot of people on the internet arent joking when they make similar comments.
    1
  10. its not as straight forward. Hydrolysis takes a long time and uses alot of energy. A fuel station sized solar plant and hydrogen storage facility can only produce enough hydrogen to fill up 2.5 hydrogen cars per day.
    1
  11. Judging from what Porsche, Audi and Jaguar, could do with their Goliath budgets, I very much doubt it.
    1
  12. theyre not
    1
  13. So in short. That’s untrue. EV batteries are vastly better for the earth and environment
    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. Just on the ranges, I'll put in some specs for differences between the FCEV Toyota Mirai and the similarly sized Tesla model 3. Both Midsized sedans both similar sizes with the mirai being 1 inch taller, 1 inch wider and 11 inches longer and the mirai weight a few hundred kg more than the model 3. Range: model 3 - 325 miles Mirai - 400 miles (a difference of only 75 miles. But look below what you have to trade off for the extra 75 miles) Performance (0-60): Model 3 - 3.2 seconds Mirai - 9.2 seconds Safety: Model 3 - higher survivability due to increased crumple zones in the front and back Mirai - Comparitively lower safety due to small rear boot and no frunk giving reduced crumple zones Cost of operation: Model 3 - As cheap as 0.02 cents per mile. Mirai - Can cost more than 45 cents per mile. Cargo Space: Model 3 - Has front trunk and rear trunk plus extra rear cavity where fuel tank would go giving it near industry leading cargo space for its size class. Mirai - Has no front trunk and the rear trunk is smaller than a vehicle less than half its size. In fact its 100L smaller than the boot of a Toyota Yarris. Cabin Space: Model 3 - has gratuitous cabin space. far exceeding the bare minimum required to fold the rear seats to extend the boot. Mirai - Has so little cabin space that you cant even fold the rear seats despite it being larger and longer than the model 3.
    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. the cheapest methods are made from fossil fuel. the most expensive are made with water.
    1