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

  1. Battery materials are absolutely not completely depleted, additionally you can recycle 96% of an EV battery, including all the lithium.
    13
  2. I wouldn’t count on that. A little thing called physics gets in the way of hydrogen.
    3
  3. You are so far off the mark it isn’t funny
    3
  4. Yet alone run them at twice the price per mile for fuel compared to ICE yet alone BEV
    3
  5. it also costs at minimum 4 times as much as an EV to produce..... so theres that.
    3
  6. Hydrogen isn’t a practical fuel. Batteries are just more efficient and more practical. Sadly hydrogen will always has limits in physics that makes them completely impractical
    2
  7. Because combustion engines are no where near as efficient as a fuel cell.
    2
  8.  user-ky7iz6up1v  comic books? That’s the maths. A Toyota Mirai fuel tanks operate at 700 bar. Refueling pressure is 880 bar in order to pump it in. Steel bottles containing cooking gas have a max pressure of 15 bar. The energy required is the energy required. You can’t skirt that. I can break down the maths for you if you’d like but you won’t create much hydrogen at all with a car battery.
    2
  9. That implies EV’s are bad tho
    2
  10.  @markwamsley6879  Also, your statement about patients for "lesser minds" not the mark of a great person. Be careful about advertising that.
    2
  11. Actually no. Worse. As it turns out
    2
  12.  @701983  I think the numbers are closer than that, even using your values. My understanding is that whilst 10kg cO2/kg H is correct for the actual process of the steam reformation. It doesn’t include the methane burnt in the boiler. At least 33% of the methane used in SMR is utilised for heating, not the reactions. From what I can tell this adds another 3.2kg of cO2 per kg of hydrogen. Additionally, whilst you could say it was electricity used for compression would be generated with gas, it’s most likely being compressed using grid electricity. And if the grid is 100% coal, and badly inefficient coal at that, that would add another 2 kg, so your total now would be 17kg. Or 15kg if the SMR has its own fancy generator and isn’t connected to the we’re basing this comparison off of. As for BEV’s, not sure how you’re getting 36% grid and charging losses. Seems like ALOT for more than a 3rd of electricity to be wasted. But here’s my breakdown. Mirai is rated at 402 miles per 5.6kg H, so it range on 1kg H is 72 miles. My Tesla model 3 over 4 years averaged 209Wh/mi. So for the same distance it will use 15kWh. (Pretty close to your 16kWh). But average charging efficiencies are around 98% from plug to battery. US transmission losses vary depending on location but from what I can read, at worst it’s around 15% and by average >5%. So if we take 5%, then we have a total loss of 8%. Making the total generated power 16kWh. But you’re also right in that there isn’t really a pure coal grid on the planet. Also worth noting that the figures for hydrogen don’t include transportation losses, to get the hydrogen to the fuel stations. But my numbers put them on par with one another excluding transportation losses of hydrogen.
    2
  13.  @o00scorpion00o  Australian government isn’t much different if I’m being honest
    2
  14.  @thetruthyes oooohhhh, so that’s why every car maker was resisting with every fibre of their being from going electric until Tesla started taking huge chunks of their sales, so they tried to smear Tesla and have now ended up resigning to the fact that they’re going to have to go battery as well at great cost to the companies profit margins…. Because they WANT to go electric… makes sense.
    2
  15. Let’s do some corrections shall we? -hydrogen source: water, but for large output, electrolysis won’t keep up with demand. You’d need to get hydrogen from hydro carbons. Aka fossil fuels. -carbon footprint: larger than BEV’s this is because to get hydrogen you either have to pump more energy into water than you get out, or you get it from fossil fuels. Either way, you’re producing at best 4 times as much emissions as a BEV because you’re using 4 times as much electricity per mile to make the hydrogen. -additional environmental impacts: high actually. Fuels cells don’t last as long as batteries and contain rare and highly toxic metals inside them. -EV batteries are actually around 96% recyclable, including all the metals and lithium which can be re-used near infinitely. - the model 3 has one of the lowest 5 year depreciations ever recorded. It’s re-sale is fine. Dealers don’t want them because they aren’t yet equipped to service them. And need less maintenance so they get less commission from servicing compared to ICE. - “EV’s still require power from gas, crude oil or nuclear to recharge” yes but where do you think the 4 times higher electrical load per mile of producing Hydrogen comes from? The very same grid. So while yes. You do need to use a dirty grid to charge. bEV, you need 4 times the energy per mile from the Same grid for hydrogen. Without the possibility of charging from home solar. -you won’t be filling your car with water. Sorry to burst that bubble. Hydrogen releases energy when its combined with oxygen to create water. So think about it for a second. You are taking water, using energy to split it into hydrogen and oxygen, recombining the hydrogen and oxygen into water to create water, and taking the energy from that to split more water AND run a vehicle? No. Sorry. You are starting with water and ending with water. And you expect excess energy from that process? That’s like plugging a power board into itself and expecting unlimited electricity. Doesn’t work. Think about it, if it did, why not just re-use that water over and over again. A glass of water to produce all the energy needed for the whole world from here until the end of time. Split the water, combine the water, wash rinse repeat. You really expect energy to just appear from nowhere, made up out of thin air? Get real. “Failure of EV green hype” what failure? EV’s are some of the best selling cars in the world at the moment. It’s also the fastest growing sector in the car market. What failure? None of this even addressing the utter impracticality of hydrogen in vehicles.
    1
  16. doubtful
    1
  17. He didn’t
    1
  18. they dont run on water, they produce water out of the exhaust.
    1
  19. That’s because capturing the hydrogen as a by-product is extremely difficult and requires very costly processes and equipment. It doesn’t just appear in pressurised containers ready to be shipped to fuel stations.
    1
  20. They want to stay relevant without having to do the actual work
    1
  21. Not likely
    1
  22. Unless Japanese have different laws of physics than everyone else. I doubt it
    1
  23. California. That’s about it
    1
  24. No. You can’t power your car on a jar of water. Sorry. There’s a little thing called the laws of physics. I can get into it in more detail if you’d like. And no. Steam cars were not zero emission. And there aren’t any modern steam engine cars. And for good reason. Again, happy to explain more detail if you’d like.
    1
  25.  @JamesW225  just because Toyotas is putting their money on it doesn’t mean it’s a good investment. Just look at GM’s hydrogen truck deal with “Nikola motors”. They gave them $2 billion for only 11% steak. For a literal scam. Their add about the “hydrogen truck of the future” had to be rolled down a hill to make it look like it was being driven. Or look at the billions invested into Theranos almost a billion dollars of investments. For litterally nothing but a scam.
    1
  26.  @JamesW225  and what do you say about the legacy auto makers that pulled out of hydrogen? They certainly don’t want to put their money there anymore and have gone to battery instead. Or even Toyota themselves. They have, what? Only 1 hydrogen car on sale? The Mirai? And it’s only been the one hydrogen model since 2014, no other models hitting the market, barely any advancement made in the technology. Meanwhile, Toyota, the very same company, announced 10 new battery electric models to hit the market before 2026! That’s literally 10 times as many battery electric cars models invested, than hydrogen cars invested in, a 10 times shorter timespan. Sure, they’re definately putting their money where their mouth is. ‘rolls eyes’
    1
  27.  @JamesW225  except they aren’t, like I said, they’ve announced 10 new models of BEV to start rolling out on the next 3 years, but hasn’t released a single other hydrogen model since the Mirai 10 years ago. and hasn’t made any meaningful advancements since in the hydrogen technology.
    1
  28.  @JamesW225  so less steering away from batteries and more steering INTO them and away from hydrogen.
    1
  29.  @JamesW225  actions speak louder than words don’t they. Did he say they’ve made a massive technological breakthrough with hydrogen and that they’ll be announcing 40 new hydrogen car models to hit the market in the next 2 years? Or is it still going to be just the mirai with the same technology since 2014, while they pump out new car after new car of Battery electric cars?
    1
  30.  @JamesW225  and has the company done anything in line with that statement as yet? Nooo. Have the released even a concept car showcasing the supposed improvements? Nooo. So what might that tell you? It SHOULD tell you it’s just like every other announcement they’ve made about hydrogen since they released the Mirai in 2014.
    1
  31.  @JamesW225  not offended. Just realistic.
    1
  32. And you’ll be saying that years from now and nothing will change. Just like the mirai hasn’t changed since 2014.
    1
  33. The oil companies are the ones pushing hydrogen.
    1
  34. It probably won’t because that’s not even hydrogens biggest problem
    1
  35. Well actually you only gotta look to Tesla for this. Their vehicles are very hard to steal. Statics show you are 90% less likely to have your car stolen if it’s a Tesla. That’s because of several features. First is that your phone is the key. There is no fob (in newer version) and no keys. (You can opt for an RFID card). So no locks to pick. Second is a that the car constantly records 360 around itself when parked. It can do this constantly because of its large battery. If anyone gets too close the car will flash its lights to indicate it’s recording you and save the footage. Meaning they’re the only cars in the market at allow you to get footage of people door dinging your car with their license plate meaning you can get those dings repaired without paying excess or increasing your premiums. Then there is the car alarm. The second the car alarm goes off it sends a message to your phone letting you know it’s been triggered. Presumably the owner is never too far away as that would be their mode of transport. Next is that the car can be monitored and controlled by your phone. When your phone is set up as a key, you can see it’s location, speed, status, see if any doors or windows are open etc all from your phone anywhere in the world. If your Tesla is stolen, you’ll know exactly where it is. And not only that but you can also start flashing the lights, honking the horn and you can slow the car down to 10km/h. Lastly, if all that fails and your car is broken into, you can set a “pin to drive” where you have to enter a 4-10 digit pin of your choosing else it locks the car out. Tesla’s are some of the most theft proof cars on the market.
    1
  36. Actually probably won’t. They’ll retrofit existing fuel stations. So you just keep the existing attendants longer.
    1
  37. Because they wouldn’t work
    1
  38. Nope
    1
  39. Now factor in that you have to replace a Tesla battery only approximately every 300k-500k miles. And a fuel cell every 150k miles.
    1
  40. Oh and the fuel tanks every 4 years too.
    1
  41. in what way is a hydrogen car better than an battery car exactly.
    1
  42.  @josedearimateiayjesus2178  Actually there is no naturally occurring hydrogen in its pure form on earth. it takes an extraordinarily large amount of energy to free it from water or fossil fuels. This makes it very expensive. It takes around 3.5 times more energy per miles worth of hydrogen than 1 miles worth of electricity for a BEV.
    1
  43. You’re not getting a nuclear car. Give it up
    1
  44. You wouldnt
    1
  45. Why do so many people think you can fill a car up with water and drive it. You can’t. You never will. It’s impossible
    1
  46. how is it narrow minded?
    1
  47. Hydrogen cars already come with batteries. But not for more mileage, but because without them the Fuel Cell cant provide enough power to adequately accelerate the vehicle. In addition, due to the laws of thermodynamics, we already know there is little room for improvement to hydrogen efficiency, maybe 5% or 10% over the full cycle optimistically. Additionally, Hydrogen is light but it takes up a lot of volume. Lets compare the pair. The Toyota Mirai and the similarly sized Tesla Model 3. Tesla Model 3 has 0-60mph acceleration of 3.2s. The Mirai does this in 9.2 seconds. The Tesla Model 3 has an extraordinarily large trunk, with an additional trunk in the front. The Mirai has no front trunk and a trunk so small, that a Toyota Yaris which is less than half its size has a whopping 100L more than the Mirai, due to the fact that the Mirai carries 141L of tanks to travel its 400 mile range. Thats a larger fuel capacity than a ford F150! The Model 3 has class leading cabin space, which means there is more than enough space to fold the rear seats to extend the boot. The Toyota Mirai has so little cabin space that you cant fold the rear seats down. The Model 3 has a range of 325 miles, the Mirai has a range of 400 miles, only 75 miles more range. So for an unusable boot space, Pathetic acceleration, cramped cabin and fuel costs putting it around 20x more expensive per miles than the Tesla, you only get an additional 75 miles. Thats including the fact that the Mirai HAS lithium Ion Batteries on board to store electricity.
    1
  48. I wouldn’t count on that. Hydrogen cars are incredibly impractical and inefficient compared to BEV’s. And they’re also not failing. They’re now some of the most popular cars in the world at current and the fastest growing sector of the auto industry globally. And I love to see your “maths and science” which says otherwise.
    1
  49. Except you’d need and industrial size compressor to compress it to 42x the maximum pressure of a steel barbecue gas bottle, so that you could get it into your fuel tank in the first place. And a car battery would only be able to produce 0.007kg of hydrogen. You need 5kg to fill a typical hydrogen car. So you’d need 677 fully charged 12v car batteries to produce 1 full tank of hydrogen. And more energy again to compress said hydrogen. And around 45L of water to produce enough for that 5kg tank of hydrogen. Turns out it ain’t so simple or easy…. Or cheap.
    1
  50.  user-ky7iz6up1v but by all means. Make your own. I’m sure it won’t take you long to expend 677 car batteries worth of energy to creat 1 full tank of hydrogen. Definitely won’t take you several weeks to complete.
    1
  51.  user-ky7iz6up1v  would you like me to break down the maths for you? I’d be happy to explain it. Give you the opportunity to correct me.
    1
  52. Oil company’s pump hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying FOR hydrogen cars every year. And pump hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying against battery electric. That’s because the only real way to mass produce hydrogen is from fossil fuels. And they only way to distribute it is via fuel stations which they also own a monopoly on. If the world keeps leaning towards batteries, their whole business model collapses. Hydrogen is the alternative that keeps them in business.
    1
  53. Only for the tanks. And only assuming they don’t have any molecular leaks. Let’s remember they need to be replaced every 4 years.
    1
  54.  @johnlow4064  then why do mirais come with expiration dates on the fuel cap that state you can’t refuel 5 years after manufacture?
    1
  55.  @johnlow4064  I would assume that was for the fuel cells. Since they tend to last a little longer but are still notoriously short lived. The problem with the tanks is the cyclic fatigue load. As they’re pressurised to 700 bar and depressurised over and over, whilst holding a gas that starts poking molecular sized holes in the tank over its entire lifespan weakening it further.
    1
  56.  @johnlow4064  last I checked fuel cells in vehicles only last around 150k miles.
    1
  57. How so
    1
  58. It is silly
    1
  59. On the contrary. Fossil fuels contribute to far more ecological damage that batteries ever will.
    1
  60. I wouldn’t be counting your fingers just yet. A lot of this video doesn’t cover
    1
  61.  @paul1x1  really. Explain to me why batteries are just has bad a hydrogen. Considering the only way to mass produce hydrogen is with fossil fuels. And that even green hydrogen needs 3-4 times more energy per mile from the same grid that charges EV’s than EV’s need per mile. Or that the fuel cells with rare toxic metals needs to be replaced over 150k miles or so. Or that the fuel tanks need to be replaced every 4 years. Meanwhile EV’s require no servicing to go at least twice as long. And have the opportunity to be charged at home by solar? What about the practicality. We all know hydrogen is lighter but the cars weigh almost the same as EV’s. But look at the space. The front seat of the Mirai looks like they built a wall between the driver and passenger (to fit a fuel tank there). The middle rear seat is useless, the rear seat has so little space that you can’t physically fold the rear seats down. Which is a big deal since there is a fuel tank taking up most of the boot, so whilst you have a car the size of a Camry you have a boot capacity smaller than a Yaris. Not very practical at all. Then there is the cost of fuel. More expensive than either ICE or EV if you can find a fuel station that carry’s it, with the cost of conversion being around $1.2 million for a single station. Meanwhile I can charge off my wall outlet, or a bank of 4 super chargers costs $0.2 million to install.
    1
  62.  @paul1x1  I’m not trying to be facetious, I honestly don’t know what the drawback of EV’s are compared to hydrogen. Not as green. Not as practical, not as safe, not as fast, not as cheap and don’t last as long. Even if you had enough places to fill it up. But if you have any facts to the contrary I’d love to hear them.
    1
  63.  @paul1x1  I don’t think you understood. There are two ways to produce hydrogen. Either with fossil fuels (brown/grey hydrogen) or from water (green hydrogen). Green hydrogen is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen by running a powerful electric current through it. Unfortunately to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen, it requires 4 times as much electricity as an EV needs to travel 1 mile. And that electricity isn’t supplied out of thin air, it comes from the same energy grid that charges an EV. And you could say you could use renewables to produce hydrogen. But you’d need 75% less renewables infrastructure to charge the same number of EV’s doing the same commutes. That means AT BEST hydrogen is 4 times worse in emissions and infrastructure than EV’s are. And the impact you think is unacceptable from EV’s would be 4 times greater at least with hydrogen. But then there is that infrastructure issue. We don’t have the energy grid to make an entire economy from green hydrogen. So we have to turn to our brown/grey hydrogen which is produced from hydrocarbons. (Aka fossil fuels). Where they take the hydrogen and release the carbon. This is far worse again for the environment and still requires big oil. But it’s the only way to produce enough hydrogen to run hydrogen cars as a main mode of personal transportation. Then you also are worried about the batteries. Unfortunately hydrogen fuel cells produce very low output, as such to accelerate even at the snails pace most hydrogen cars do, they need batteries too. But not just that, the fuel cells require some very rare and very toxic metals in order to be built. And they only last around 150k miles before needing to be replaced. Meanwhile EV’s with their undeniably larger initial carbon footprint, don’t require any servicing for up to 500k miles. And at which time the batteries of needing to be replaced can be repurposed as home or industrial energy storage, as the energy density requirements aren’t as strict when bolted to a brick or concrete wall. And that’s where they’ll typically spend the next 20 years until they’re retired and recycled. And a quick google search shows you that recycling an EV battery not only releases no toxic chemicals or fumes but the battery itself is around 96% recyclable. Including all the lithium, cobalt and nickel which can then be re-used in new batteries.
    1
  64.  @paul1x1  as for hydrogen cars. The impact of running on hydrogen fuel which is a best producing 4 times more emissions per mile and at worse upwards of 20 times, coupled with the fact you would need 2-3 whole hydrogen cars to cover the lifespan of 1 EV. Which do you think would have a larger impact. The making and running and disposing of 3 whole hydrogen cars, with their at best 4 times higher impact running cost, or the creation, recycling and 4 times less impact per mile, only 1 BEV? That’s right, hydrogen would have the larger impact. No matter which way you look at it.
    1
  65.  @paul1x1  I never said that the cars produce any emissions. Neither do EV’s. What I am saying is that creating the hydrogen to use in the first place is incredibly dirty compared to battery EV’s.
    1
  66. cost mostly
    1
  67. You won’t be producing it at home. Too dangerous, too expensive, takes too much space and uses too much energy and will do it too slowly.
    1
  68. 2014 saw the first mass produced hydrogen car. The Toyota Mirai. And it’s made no advancements in the technology since.
    1
  69. I wouldn’t call hydrogen the logical choice
    1
  70. How are EV’s more of a scam than hydrogen?
    1
  71. It’s not massively available. Hydrogen in pure gas form doesn’t occur naturally on earth. You have to get it from one of two places. Fossil fuels, aka, HYDRO carbons. And splitting hydrogen from carbon, which releases the carbon. Not good. That’s the easiest way to mass produce hydrogen. The second way is through electrolysis of water, which just releases oxygen. But it takes a MASSIVE amount of energy to separate the hydrogen from the water. Electricity usually from a power plant, the same fossil fuel power plants that charges BEV’s. And after it’s been separate, collected and compressed you’ve used around 4 x as much electricity for 1 miles worth of hydrogen than charging 1 miles worth of battery charge run a BEV. You can’t run power plants from hydrogen because you need power plants to create the hydrogen in the first place. Batteries continue to become more energy dense and efficient, and getting better range, unfortunately every spare millimeter of space in a hydrogen car is taken up by fuel tanks to approximate driving ranges of EV’s from 2019. You can’t fit more fuel in them. The fuel cells also wear out much faster than batteries do. They are slower at producing energy meaning the cars are generally slower and because hydrogen has to be processed so much with so much energy and then transported to specialty fuel stations, the cost of hydrogen is astronomical. When an EV can be charged at home, even from solar. For example my long range Tesla model Y costs me $1.6 AUD to charge each night. A mirai cost nearly $100 to do the same. My model Y has as much range, and breath takingly better space for cargo and passengers compared to the mirai and has better acceleration and handling and I can charge it anywhere, as where I live, there is only 1 hydrogen fuel station. So you can’t go further than 150 miles from that fuel station. They’re impractical and not environmentally friendly, and not good for cars.
    1
  72.  @chamagical  go on. Prove me wrong.
    1
  73. And not a good one at that
    1
  74. I would say less nay sayers and more people who passed high school physics
    1
  75. not strictly accurate. The batteries in EV's in todays generation of EV's are designed to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles (twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine). This is due to the fact that the size of the battery is considerably larger than a mobile phone, the charge cycles are rarely 100%-0% unlike mobile phones, and they have battery management systems monitoring charging and discharging and keeping the batteries inside a dedicated coolant system designed to keep the batteries within optimal temperatures when its hot or too cold.
    1
  76. modern EV batteries are designed to last well up to or exceeding 500,000 miles before they're deemed to need replacing (which is at 70% of your original range remaining which is still plenty). However due to the nature of hydrogen and its cycling from 700 bar to 0 bar through fueling cycles, means that hydrogen vehicles actually come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them, limiting their life to only 10 years. meanwhile EV batteries typically of warrantees of at least 8.
    1
  77. Firstly, the mirai has been out since 2014, nearly 10 years. Hasn’t many any improvement what so Ever. So unlikely they will change. Second, hydrogen is much worse to produce than batteries. That’s because while batteries have high upfront costs, hydrogen has high ongoing costs. For starters you have the replace not only the fuel tank every 4 years but the fuel cell every 100 miles or so. Including all the rare toxic metals inside. The next problem is that it takes 4 times more energy to produce 1 miles worth of “green” hydrogen than it does to charge an EV for 1 mile of range. And guess what, they both get their electricity from the same dirty grid, just hydrogen requires 4 times as much electricity from said grid. What’s worse is that it’s impossible to supply ENOUGH green hydrogen to fuel a hydrogen based economy. On account of needing 4 times more than even BEV’s do and people are worried about not being able to support an EV economy. So that means the only way to mass produce hydrogen at current is to split it from HYDROcarbons, I.e FOSSIL FUELS. In which the carbon is unfortunately released and no, carbon capture can’t help nearly as much as people thing. Nearly not at all. So hydrogen SOUNDS green but is actually TERRIBLE.
    1
  78. Because it takes more electricity from the same grid to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen. The cheapest way to make hydrogen is from fossil fuels creating more emissions than if you had just used that as ICE fuel in the first place, and even then hydrogen is around twice the price per mile than fossil fuels, yet alone batteries which are 10x cheaper again. and because hydrogen vehicles are less safe, slower, and less practical in terms of cabin and storage space than EV's and all you get for that compromise is more expensive travel and 75 extra miles of range over an EV. They're not worth it for domestic passenger vehicles.
    1
  79. This video completely ignores the fact that hydrogen is either made from fossil fuels, releasing huge amounts of carbon or takes 4 times as much electricity to produce 1 miles worth of green hydrogen than a BEV does, taken from the same damn energy grid. No way known is hydrogen cleaner than battery electric. What a scam.
    1
  80. It’s far more efficient to run hydrogen through a fuel cell (60%) than it is to run it through a combustion engine (>20%)
    1
  81. …… actually it is. You’re thinking of Helium.
    1
  82. It’s also about performance, cost, efficiency and safety. Hydrogen vehicles have worse performance, higher weight, worse handing, cost 8x more per miles to operate and are less safe than battery electrics all for only marginal increase in mileage. The mirai only as 75 more miles per tank than a model 3 (same size as the mirai) has for a charge. The mirai is also a full 6 seconds slower to 60 than the model 3, has worse handling as it has a higher centre of gravity, has less internal cabin space than the model 3, only has one boot where the model 3 has 2 (one in front one in back) which also means it has a larger crumple zone and lower risk of rolling making the model 3 safer.
    1
  83. Anyone with an understand of numbers and basic physics can work that out if they decide they want to dig deeper into both sides instead of satiating themselves with things they like about what they want to be successful.
    1
  84. What you’re not getting is that hydrogen requires 3 times the same grid electricity per mile worth of hydrogen, than a BEV. so if you have a dirty grid, you will be polluting 3 times more from the same grid running on hydrogen than with a BEV. Additionally, at current electrolysis, the method of creating green hydrogen, isn’t scalable to provide an entire infrastructure for hydrogen. The cheapest and fastest way to produce hydrogen is through cracking methane, coal or oil. I.e. fossil fuels. This releases all their carbon while at the same time require huge energy investments. So much so it’s actually more emissions friendly to just use that fuel in a combustion car than in hydrogen. Hydrogen isn’t as green as you think it is.
    1
  85. Really not very likely at all
    1
  86.  @Feetonthesand  actually no. EV batteries are around 96% recyclable. They last somewhere between 400-500k miles before 30% degradation. Meaning they do last longer than combustion cars. And they are extremely difficult to damage. Since they are inside and make up the chassis of the car the whole under side of EV’s is a thick titanium plate to protect them. Very difficult indeed.
    1
  87.  @Feetonthesand  meanwhile fuel cells have extremely short lives by comparison as they become less and less effective over time and thanks to the rare and toxic metals used in them, they are equally as expensive to replace. And aren’t recycled. The fuel tanks also wear out quickly, even faster (around 4 years before replacement). due to fatigue stress of compressing and decompressing over and over again. But because they are specially designed tanks to withstand extreme pressures (42 times more pressure than a steel gas bottle). They also can’t be recycled and are extremely expensive to replace and take a lot of man hours to replace and comprehensively check for leaks.
    1
  88.  @Feetonthesand  anything else you want to be corrected on?
    1
  89.  @Feetonthesand  there is a very big difference between a 12V lead acid battery and a lithium battery. In a lithium battery, the lithium, nickel and cobalt are all recyclable. And a quick cursory google search will tell you it’s 96% recyclable. And pray tell, how exactly are you suspecting the battery to be damaged? Last I check Tesla has very very few battery problems. They even warranty them for 8-10 years. Which might give you a hint as to their reliability.
    1
  90.  @Feetonthesand  Tesla recycles batteries, envirostream Australia recycles EV batteries, a whole swoth of other companies recycle EV batteries. Because they’re 96% recyclable, a quick google search shows you that.
    1
  91.  @Feetonthesand  the materials are recycled and sold. Lithium recycled and sold as lithium. Cobalt recycled and sold as cobalt. Etc etc. they might end up in EV batteries they might not. But they aren’t used to make budget EV’s. The price of these materials is the market price. Because they’re elements. Like gold. Or platinum. Unlike plastics. And unlike plastics, they don’t have thermal degradation. Recycled plastics aren’t as strong or resilient or have the same properties as virgin plastic. This isn’t the case for periodic elements.
    1
  92.  @Feetonthesand  and I’ve owned a blue Tesla SR+ model 3 in Melbourne Australia since 2019 until last month when I traded it in for a white Tesla LR model Y so we have room to start a family. So yes. I’ve owned an EV. Not only that, the EV is our only car. No ICE backup.
    1
  93. Exactly. The only true way to make enough hydrogen at scale is with fossil fuels the big oil produce. And the only way to fill your car with hydrogen is at a fuel station. Which big oil owns a monopoly on. EV’s take both of those away. They dismantle all of big oil. You think a trillion dollar industry will take that lying down? The only reason we’re talking about hydrogen is because big oil wants us to. Because while we’re talking about it, we’re not buying EV’s.
    1
  94.  user-ky7iz6up1v it isn’t cheap, or easy make. Just FYI. And hydrogen has a far higher explosive potential than diesel or petrol. Although the system used in cars is incredibly safe from explosion. Just at the expense of the occupants survivability in a crash.
    1
  95. You’ll be waiting a long time. That would be physically impossible to run a car that way.
    1
  96. That and the cars… and the carbon footprint.
    1
  97. They won’t use salt or waste water though.
    1
  98.  @vetsai8199  batteries don’t combust in warm weather. They combust when exposed to oxygen. Also most cobalt come fro the DRC, Indonesia and Australia. Infact China isn’t even in the top 10 countries producing cobalt..
    1
  99. Actually Hydrogen cars are heavier than their EV equivalents which is probably worth pointing out.
    1
  100. Also in terms of EV's added weight doesn't actually reduce the efficiency very much.
    1
  101. You could. But the thing to consider is that for every miles worth of hydrogen you produce you could have used that water through the generator and the electricity to make the hydrogen to charge 4-5 miles worth of electricity to a BEV.
    1
  102. ships.... maybe. not trucks busses or cars.
    1
  103. It already hasn’t
    1
  104. that hugely inefficient power generation grid, is what supplied the electricity to create hydrogen. Except Hydrogen needs 3-4 times as much of that hugely inefficient grid electricity per miles worth than a BEV does. As for mining, Hydrogen cars dont last very long. You need 3-4 Hydrogen cars to cover a single BEV lifespan. So what would be the cost of mining machining and manufacturing 3-4 whole cars vs one EV battery do you think?
    1
  105. Physically impossible. As in, the physics to do what you’re suggesting is impossible. On its most fundamental level. Look at it this way: If you’re putting water in it. Then car is using its energy to split that water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then burning it again to make water again, and you expect it to not only release more energy than it took to separate the water but have excess left over to run the car? According to conservation of mass, you’d be creating the same amount of water as you’d split. If that actually worked. Just capture the water afterwards, just keeps splitting and burning and capturing the same water creating excess energy from here until the end of time. Unlimited, free energy out of thin air!!! If only for the conservation of energy law! But no. Splitting water to combine into water again won’t give you excess energy. You’re starting with water and ending with the same amount of water. It would be like plugging a power board into itself and believing that would give you unlimited energy. It doesn’t. I never will.
    1
  106. no. hydrogen production efficiency is only half of the problem. The only way to make them competitive if you exclude the problem once the hydrogen is IN the car, is by making hydrogen production greater than 98% efficient. But that still doesnt help as you need to compress and transport hydrogen which have their own losses, then it has to be used in a hydrogen fuel cell in the car which loses another 40% ontop of that. And the biggest issue is that fuel cells dont output alot of energy. making hydrogen vehicles extraordinarily slow, hydrogen also doesn't compress down very much in terms of volume meaning there is little to no space for luggage and cabin space. and for all that they will always be more expensive to operate per mile (due to the aforementioned inefficiencies) and for really not very much additional range.
    1
  107. They use pressure instead of a pump. And you won’t be using wind and solar. If you had that much wind and solar you’d be better off using it in batteries than in hydrogen.
    1
  108.  @1969nitsuga  hmm. Wrong on both fronts. Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally on earth in its pure gaseous state. You have to create it. Green hydrogen is made by passing a current through water then compressing the gas to 700 bar. Green hydrogen requires up to 4 times as much electricity per miles worth of hydrogen than an EV needs to go travel per mile. And they will inevitably get that energy from the same dirty or partially dirty grid as EV’s charge from. Making even green hydrogen, at best, 4 times dirtier than EV’s. And true, hydrogen is energy dense… gravimetrically. (KWh/kg) but not volumetrically. (KWh/L or kWh/gal). Hydrogen requires substantial space to be stored. The mirai has 5.6kg of hydrogen but needs over 200L of fuel tanks to store it. The result is an unusable back seat and a boot smaller than a yaris (even though the mirai is larger than a Camry). Meanwhile, EV’s have industry leading passenger AND cargo space. Because they are VERY volumetrically energy dense. Just not very gravimetrically energy dense.
    1
  109.  @eskieman3948  actually a lot worse. Even though hydrogen doesn’t lose as much range in cold weather (although modern EV’s lose significantly less than you’d expect now that heat pumps are standard). BEV’s have two major advantages for winter driving. 1.) they can provide enough power to have at least two motors to give their cars an AWD system. Hydrogen car notoriously have lower power outputs and need batteries for short “bursts” of performance. Meaning the fuel cells simply cannot provide enough energy for a full time AWD system which is a massive advantage in winter driving. 2.) hydrogen fuel stations tend to freeze. Because you’re not pouring fuel into a tank, rather, you are re-pressuring your fuel tank with hydrogen gas, it causes an interesting physics phenomena called Joule-Thompson effect. Gas that is going from high pressure to low pressure with substantially cool in temperature. Since the only way to pressurise a gas tank is by allowing higher pressure gas to flow into a lower pressure tank. It results in regular freeze overs of the fuel hose, which restricts flow and the drive must wait for it to thaw before they can continue. Which is terribly hard to do when it’s below freezing outside. BEV’s by comparison use heat pumps and internal resistance to keep their batteries at temperature while driving so any charging that happens next is relatively quick and efficient. There were initial problems when using resistance heaters to heat the battery but thanks to efficient heat pumps that problem is mostly a thing of the past. Although some newer brand EV’s such as the Kia EV6 doesn’t know to pre-heat the battery for fast charging which might cause some delay, other brands like Teslas know to start preheating the battery when it’s navigation is set to a fast charging station.
    1
  110. Just a few corrections. The cost of hydrogen vehicles is higher than EV’s. Their fuel is even more expensive per mile than ICE yet alone EV’s. The fuel cells and fuel tanks don’t last as long as BEV batteries, infact, ironically, the longest lasting part of the car are the batteries. Hydrogen production requires 4x the electricity from the same grid that charges BEV’s for green hydrogen or is needed to be extracted from fossil fuels releasing ALOT of carbon. So either way hydrogen produces significantly more emissions. As for weight. Turns out hydrogen cars are similar in weight to BEV’s because of their reinforced tanks and chassis to protect them. Since they store gas at such a high pressure that even if it wasn’t the most explosive gas known to man, it would release the energy of a hand grenade if it were to burst. The fuel cells in hydrogen cars use extraordinary amounts of precious metals, most far more toxic than anything found in a battery, meanwhile batteries are moving away from cobalt, Tesla even making the switch to LFP batteries. Hence no child mining. Additionally most battery companies like Tesla have signed contracts stipulating ethically sourced cobalt only. So again, no child mining. If only the same could be said for fuel refineries which use the most cobalt on the planet by mass (as in, in compounds, or chemicals with cobalt, not pure cobalt metal). Which have absolutely never had any pressure from the public to move towards ethical cobalt. So ironically again, people driving ICE vehicles are doing far more to support child mining in the Congo than any BEV is.
    1
  111.  @sethi100  no, EV’s are very practical these days, and while upfront costs are higher the running costs are significantly lower. I live in Melbourne Australia and I drive roughly 150,000km every 4 years. After 4 years of ownership I’ve saved nearly $25,000 in fuel alone, not including the massive savings from not having any servicing requirements or costs. Over the next five years if fuel prices decided not to go any higher, which they will continue to go higher as they’ve done since the 1970’s, I’ll save almost $36,000 on fuel alone. All not including the offset from my solar panels.
    1
  112.  @sethi100  all in $AUD of course. But for a car that costs $80k ish AUD for the long range model Y. All the comfort, space, safety, features and performance it gives you. After 5 years it would cost the same as buying a car for $44k based on fuel savings alone. Minus service costs. (Assuming a regular 10k service for $250 and a 100km major service for $1,400, it comes to roughly $55k.) making the luxury performance SUV dramatically cheaper to own over 5 years than a normal combustion car since Tesla has zero regular servicing requirements. Happy to show you the breakdown of fuel prices and my energy prices and my energy usage if you’re interested.
    1
  113. It’s not progressing. Havn’t progressed for over a decade. It’s not suitable for cars
    1
  114. The comparison has the same starting point. Power from a power station. Any inefficiency from the power station would be shared by both hydrogen and battery and Therefore make no difference to the outcome and only waste your time. Just have a think.
    1
  115. There is no evidence that climate change is a result of anything extra-terrestrial, additionally he didnt look at power plant efficiencies because you would also have to look at that for hydrogen cars. Why do people not get this? the analysis begins at the same point. Power from the grid. In one case its used to charge and EV, in another its used to create hydrogen. 100kWh from the grid is 100kWh from the grid, no matter how you use it. Comparing power plant efficiencies would have no change on the outcome what so ever because it applies to both cases. complaining that its unfair that EV's didnt have powerplant efficiencies assessed is like complaining that in a drag race, both cars had to start at the some starting line.
    1
  116.  @markwamsley6879  its not wrong. the limitations to hydrogen creation exist as a matter of thermodynamics. You can make hydrogen production more efficient. But you will never get it 100% efficient. A such it will always require more energy to create hydrogen than it does to put that energy directly into a battery. And even if it could, you still lose 40% through the fuel cell in the car.
    1
  117.  @markwamsley6879  Mechanical Electrical and Refrigeration services? Specialising in geothermal, refrigeration, heating, air-conditioning and plumbing? I'm doubtful at best that you've overcome the fundamental laws of physics
    1
  118.  @markwamsley6879  in summary, it still takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than if you had just put that energy into a BEV. Meaning it will still be more expensive to operate a hydrogen vehicle than a BEV per mile.
    1
  119.  @markwamsley6879  that’s the thing with Engineers. Famously not soo good with the spelling. However using that to dismiss some is also considered a logical fallacy.
    1
  120.  @markwamsley6879  it’s ok to be proven wrong. You don’t have to take it so hard.
    1
  121.  @markwamsley6879  I’ve done that, your product only produces hydrogen with around 70% efficiency. And to the point of your original post, that means it would still cost more per mile for hydrogen vehicles in energy alone.
    1
  122. unfortunately in this instance, "safely" does not equate to "efficiently"
    1
  123.  @701983  well yes, arguments are made against lithium mining. But a hydride battery still isn’t very practical. As it is with a pure gas, you only get about 30% of the invested energy used to make the hydrogen, back out at the wheels. Incredibly inefficient. But adding a storage medium like hydrides reduces that efficiency further as you need to do work to the hydride in order to get it to release the pure hydrogen gas. So less efficient again. And whilst volumetrically they are quite dense compared to gas, (although not as dense as lithium batteries) (kWh/m3). They are incredibly heavy (kWh/kg). They’re not very practical at all.
    1
  124.  @701983  can I also just say I love our back and forths. Very few people are willing to look at things from both sides and get emotionally invested in a particular outcome. And I always enjoy engaging conversations where someone’s taking “the Devils advocate”. Me and my brother do it all the time. We need more people like this in the conversation we as a society need to have about future technologies and their implications.
    1
  125.  @701983  yes, they are far closer than I initially gave them credit for. It also seems like grey hydrogen is perhaps more green than… green hydrogen. Which was a surprising revelation as well. I don’t think we have any bullet proof options, but I think we have to deal with the best tools we have available and it’s looking more like BEV’s. Which will also benefit from becoming greener as the grids of the world inevitably drive closer to zero emissions. Although it’s easier said in Australia with an abundance of renewable energy resources. Regions like Europe might need some serious international co-operation in order to achieve such a thing, given how small the size of some of the countries and the geographical limitations within those territories.
    1
  126.  @701983  well given the numbers you provided for SMR hydrogen, it was on-par with BEV (all be it on a 100% coal based grid). But if you had green hydrogen being made from the same coal based grid, it would be far dirtier than BEV’s as they need around 4 times more energy per miles worth of hydrogen than a BEV requires per mile. And another contributor to our lack of renewables grid is fear mongering by certain politicians and the media (looking at you channel 9, Angus Taylor, Scomo and Tony Abbott). Scomos comments on the hornsdale big battery were enough for me to realise he’s willing to blatantly lie to the public about the purpose and capacity of the battery farm. There is no way the documents he would have been provided would have given him the impression, much less that mathematical breakdown, that the battery was intended to only be a blackout backup for Adelaide. Instead of what it’s actually used for, renewables capacitation and grid frequency stabilisation.
    1
  127.  @701983  sorry, I’m a little sore about how the SA grid has been treated by media and politicians. And I’m from Victoria so that’s saying something.
    1
  128.  @701983  you should see scomos comments on the battery farm before he was PM. Said "I mean, honestly, by all means have the world's biggest battery, have the world's biggest banana, have the world's biggest prawn like we have on the roadside around the country, but that is not solving the problem.” He also said it’s useless because it only has enough storage to supply Adelaide for half an hour in a blackout. Disregarding the fact that, that’s not what it’s used for, and at its maximum output it would be Able to run for 1.5 hours. But not at the load Adelaide needs. It’s used for grid stability and to increase wind power utilisation. It succeeded beyond wildest estimates at both. It was never ever meant to be a “backup” incase of a blackout.
    1
  129.  @701983  that’s a very good video. Would have been good to touch on the 2018 storm where the renewables grid responded to stabilise the grid fast enough to prevent a blackout like NSW, Victoria and QLD faced. I believe it might have been covered by RealEngineering or someone similar.
    1
  130.  @701983  I found something you might be interested in, relating to our conversations regarding the battery capacity requirements of hydrogen. Whilst the fuel cells have a high rated peak output on paper they can’t sustain that output for very long. From what I can find the new mirais fuel cell can provide 31.5kW of power for a maximum of 10 seconds. Which would be its 0-100 acceleration maximum. Which is not enough to supply full power to its 130kW electric motor.
    1
  131. They didn’t and it didn’t work anyway
    1
  132. I wonder who raised and educated that generation........
    1
  133. Hydrogen cars also use batteries, and the fuel cell itself contains platinum in an extremely toxic form. Additionally due to hydrogen embrittlement of metal, not only do hydrogen cars have short lived expiration dates before they have to be scrapped for safety, they also can’t be recycled as easily.
    1
  134. And yet
    1
  135. That would be a terrible idea
    1
  136. too bad hydrogen cars require large batteries then.
    1
  137.  @701983  larger than a 12V. But the point remains.
    1
  138.  @701983  I wouldn’t say small. Buffer but depends on how much performance and how heavy the car is. Unfortunately fuel cells also require rare and toxic metals for the actual fuel cell. Which last no where near as long as a battery on an EV.
    1
  139.  @701983  all to add that I don’t think EV batteries aren’t that problematic anyway. They are 96% recyclable and there are many companies out there which recycle EV batteries. Tesla included.
    1
  140.  @701983  ultra capacitors with a couple of hundred Wh, won’t do the job. You’d need a lot of them. The advantage is that they can discharge and recharge very very quickly. Unlike normal batteries. For larger charge and discharge with normal batteries you need larger batteries for higher outputs.
    1
  141.  @701983  you need around 0.26g of platinum per kW output for a fuel cell. The mirai, from what I can tell has around 30 grams. But still has a very short lifespans. You’d need 2-3 fuel cells to last the rated lifespan of a EV battery. So over the same mileage it’s closer to 90 grams. Which doesn’t sound like a lot but the environmental impact of disposal and collecting of platinum is on par or greater than that of a EV battery. From what I can gather at least. I don’t pretend to be the arbiter of all Knowledge and I’m happy to be wrong.
    1
  142.  @701983  oh I agree. And I love playing devils advocate too. Sometimes. Hydrogen isn’t as bad as people make it out to be but i think thats contrast to how good other people try to make it out to be.
    1
  143.  @701983  the kinetic energy of said mas would be. But the rolling resistance and air resistance aren’t negligible. You’d be hard pressed to find a 4 door with a lower drag coefficient than a Tesla model 3. But at 60mph, it’s pushing so much air, it’s needing the equivalent force of towing another 1.5 model 3’s up a vertical wall. Plus rolling resistance. The energy required to get to 60mph would be substantially more than the kinetic energy of the vehicle once it attains that speed.
    1
  144.  @701983  I would be happy to do the calculus to work out the energy required if we assume reasonable drag coefficients and rolling resistance values.
    1
  145.  @701983  fuel cell stacks have reduced their response time but there is still a significant gap. Or substantial gap. Or at least substantial enough that it would be noticeable. And it would also be 128kW, minus the duty load that runs all the electronics and air conditioning etc.
    1
  146.  @701983  perhaps on a physics quiz. But the difference between actual consumption to 60mph, and the kinetic energy alone would make a substantial difference.
    1
  147.  @701983  here’s another way to look at it. At 60mph, the model 3 typically uses 360wh/mi. Taking 60 miles within 1 hour means in one hour it will use 21.6kWh. So it’s using 21.6kW. So it will need substantially more than 200Wh to reach 60 mph.
    1
  148.  @701983  but it isn’t to build kinetic energy, it’s 21.6kW to MAINTAIN that 200Wh of kinetic energy. So you’d be adding it on extra. Additionally. You’d also have rolling resistance.
    1
  149.  @701983  be well until you return
    1
  150.  @701983  I don’t think they need big buffer batteries either. But they do need a buffer and I think they do need more than a few hundred Wh. And my point wasn’t for it to dive at constant speed on the battery but more that at the point it reaches 60mph, that’s the load on the car. And the energy required to overcome it. And it gradually increases as you accelerate the car to that point.
    1
  151.  @701983  i guess one just has to crunch the numbers and find out
    1
  152. I wouldn’t count on that
    1
  153. It might have something to do with increased traffic due to growing populations but no additional road infrastructure to handle it. So a trip that used to take me 30 minutes now takes me 1.5 hours. And what’s super frustrating is that if I make that trip on the weekend and not for work. It’s 35 minutes again.
    1
  154. Hydrogen is worse for the environment because of how it’s made. And EV’s aren’t lead acid batteries you know that right? They’re lithium. No acid. Although I suspect you’ve taken some.
    1
  155. That would actually reduce the efficiency. Its more efficient for the air to pass around the car than it absorb it mechanically and convert it to electrical energy. nice idea though.
    1
  156. I think you dropped your foil hat.
    1
  157.  @joetoe9947  have fun with the space lazers.
    1
  158. No they’re not.
    1
  159. No you don’t
    1
  160. pink mist
    1
  161. Not likely. Hydrogens a scam
    1
  162. Lol they won’t use cryogenically liquified hydrogen. They’ll use gas hydrogen at 700 bar. So it can explode from ignition more readily, and even if it doesn’t, if one of the 3 fuel tanks bursts, it will do so with the energy of approximately 1.6 NATO standard hand grenades. Possibly bursting the other two releasing a grand total energy of 4.8 hand grenades. And a lot lot more if the gas actually find an ignition source during that event. (Highly likely).
    1
  163. I wouldnt be holding my breath. Hydrogen is extremely impractical as a fuel in pretty much every conceivable way.
    1
  164.  @davidkeenan5642  dont forget for less space. The mirai is in the same size class as the Tesla Model 3, but it has a boot space a whopping 100L less than even a Toyota Yaris half its size. Not to mention so little cabin space that you cant physically fold the rear seats down. all for an additional 75 miles of range. Also lifespan of the mirai is limited to 10 years. So you'll be paying more to operate a slower car with less boot and cabin space than a tiny Yaris and doing so at around 1/4th the lifespan. Bargain.
    1
  165. Neither of which were any good
    1
  166. That must be why no advancements in hydrogen has been made in a decade, why even Toyota is throwing more effort into BEV’s than hydrogen, why other car makers have pulled out of the hydrogen market to focus on BEV’s, why most automakers are now scrambling to put out competitive EV’s and why Battery electric vehicles are the fastest growing segment in the auto industry. It all making sense now. Thankyou.
    1
  167. Yea no. That doesn’t work. It’s physically impossible.
    1
  168. That will never happen. It defies the laws of physics.
    1
  169. Thank god
    1
  170. Unfortunately you need ALOT of electrify to produce hydrogen. As it doesn’t occur naturally in its gas form on earth. As a result, it won’t be powering power plants. Power plants will be powering hydrogen. At a rate of 4 times more electricity per miles worth of hydrogen, compared to charging 1 miles worth of a Battery electric car. Then there are the impracticalities of hydrogen. Although weight wise hydrogen is extremely dense, it’s volumetric density is catastrophically bad. Take the mirai for example. The two front seats are nearly their own compartments because they need space for the fuel. The rear seats are unusable by adults because they need space for fuel and despite it being a camry sized car, it has a boot smaller than a yaris has because they need the space for fuel and if you needed more than a carry on luggage size boot, you can’t fold the rear seats because it needs the space for fuel. All while the fuel you’re desperately needing all your practical space for is more expensive per mile than ICE yet alone battery electric. The are other problems such as lacklustre power output from fuel cells causing poor acceleration, fuel cell lifespans are typically very short. The fuel tank life spans are typically very short, the need to protect the fuel tank overriding the need to protect the occupants making them relatively dangerous vehicles in an accident. The list goes on. They’re less green, not as powerful, more expensive, less safe, not as practical and less reliable than battery electrics. Or ICE for that matter.
    1
  171. That. And it isn’t good
    1