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

  1. 52
  2. 15
  3. 9
  4.  @andyryan6285  it’s not based on speculation, the warrantees are 8 years. Which means the manufacturer is confident it will last much longer than 8 years. In addition simulated testing of EV batteries get 1,500 cycles to 80% of its remaining capacity. At 352 miles to a cycle that’s well over 500,000 miles before you’ve lost only 20% of your original range. Model 3’s on road today show an average of 2% degradation at 100,000 miles. As for the comment regarding the Prius. If you’re a keen eyed reader you might have already noticed why that was a very ignorant analogy however allow me to spell it out to you. Even if a Prius battery got 1,500 cycles to a charge, assuming the largest type it could maybe only drive about 25 miles to a charge/cycle. Meaning that you’d have 1,500 x 25 = 37,500 miles before needing it loses 20% of its capacity But the Prius doesn’t have something full scale EV’s do. Large, sophisticated battery management systems (BMS). BEV have the most advanced BMS in the world. The batteries are literally swimming in a bed of coolant that keeps them not only warm but cold. Discharge and charge are constantly monitored to with less than 1 micro amp to optimise charge and discharge rates and the potential across any one of the thousands of battery cells in an EV is balanced to within 0.01 of a MilliVolt. Non of which a Prius does or has space for. The result is the Prius has a 500 cycle life. Meaning to get to 80% of your battery health remaining you only need to travel 12,500 miles on battery. So yes, Prius batteries do have to get replaced more often. But not prius batteries are not analogous to full scale EV batteries
    9
  5. 8
  6. 8
  7. 7
  8. 7
  9. 6
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12.  @EldeNice  1 lithium mining is bad. And would be worse than gas if we had to fill up on lithium like you have to fill up on gas. But we don’t. Batteries are apart of the car. Not a fuel. They last the lifetime of the vehicle and are almost 100% recyclable. (Around 95%-97%) (also ties into 2.) 3.) incredibley false. According to statistics, the American NHTSA, Australian AANCAP safety board, the European NCAP safety board and many others. Compared to ICE vehicles EV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and are generally regarded as safer when they do since EV fires typically take hours to take hold of the vehicle, often just showing smoke for 30-60 minutes before visible flames whilst combustion cars typically are engulfed in less than a minute. If I had to guess it would be something to do with the combustion engine being fed a highly combustible fuel, being lubricated by a reservoir of highly combustible oil, while operating at temperatures above their ignition temperatures, but maybe that’s me… As for it being green, it’s more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a cheap portable generator than it is to use that same fuel in even a modern, conventional combustion car. So yup. DEFINATELY more green the ICE. As for hydrogen, hydrogen cars, using GREEN hydrogen needs 4 times more electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen than a BEV needs for 1 miles worth of charge. Since both would get their energy from the grid, which isn’t fully green itself, EV’s are 4 times greener than green hydrogen with the added bonus of being able to use home solar. If we talk about any other kind of hydrogen, then hydrogen cars are less green than even ICE cars. Couple that with the fact that hydrogen cars only last at best around 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV meaning you have to both make and decommission 3 whole hydrogen cars to match the lifespan of 1 BEV all whilst using dirtier fuels than the EV. So yeah. They are greener. Do they run on marshmallows and butterflies. Nope. But they’re the best we got right now.
    5
  13. 5
  14.  @northDSX  hydrogen fuel. or lithium batteries... well hydrogen cars already use lithium batteries plus palladium and other toxic rare earth metals in their fuel cells. In terms of sustainable though, Hydrogen vehicles struggle to live past 100,000 - 200,000 miles whilst modern BEV's are designed to and are showing that they will last up to or exceeding 500,000 miles. What isnt sustainable is building 3 whole ass cars to supply the lifespan of a single BEV with all the emissions and mining required to make a whole car. compared to batteries which are <96% recyclable inclusive of all the lithium nickel and cobalt (not that new gen batteries use cobalt at all). What also isnt sustainable is need the grid to supply 3-4 times more electricity per mile driven just to produce enough green hydrogen. And unless thats from an entirely renewables grid, you're creating 3-4 times more emissions per mile just from electricity generation with green hydrogen. If it is from a 100% reneables grid you will need your energy grid to be 3-4 times larger than that BEV's require and all the emissions and mining that go along with building those 3-4 times more renewables power plants and maintaining them.. As an example if you had 1 wind farm to supply the needs of 1,000 people with BEV vehicles, you would need to mine for and build 3-4 wind farms to supply the needs of those same 1,000 people if they had hydrogen cars for them to use green hydrogen. If they dont use green hydrogen than they're getting their hydrogen made from fossil fuels. Steam reformation or gasification of coal or oil. In a process that creates more emissions than just burning it as fuel in the first place. For example it produces less emissions to run you car on LPG than it is to use that LPG to create grey or blue hydrogen. plus your car will last longer, be faster, safter and have better boot and cabin space and cost way less to fuel per mile..... soo..... why get a hydrogen car thats worse in every way just to use a fuel that's worse for the environment? doesnt make sense. So if you are using hydrogen cars, you're using green hydrogen... which is categorically worse than BEV's for the environment in a car thats worse than BEV's in almost every single way.
    4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20.  @EldeNice  Batteries like phone batteries or AA toy batteries arent recycled. However EV batteries buy in large ARE recycled. EV makers such as Tesla even boast on their website that they recycle the batteries from all their own cars in-house for use in new cars. Mostly due to the fact that if you do it in house, its a cheaper way of getting materials, as opposed to a third party recycler with a profit market attached. And the fact that they put these garuntees on their websites means that if they dont follow through with those statements they are open to be suit for tens of millions of dollars. Not something these companies take lightly. So no, they dont end up in land fills. Even EV's before modern recycling didnt send their batteries to landfills. They were sent to storage warehouses to be recycled in the future. So again. wrong. As for the car fire statement. Categorically FALSE! According to statistics in the US, Australia and the EU, as well as the American NHTSA, the Australian AANCAP safety board, the European NCAP safety board and others, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles and are 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to ICE vehicle. Mostly due to the fact that unlike ICE vehicle, EV's dont have their engines lubricated by a reservoir of highly flammable oil whilst being fed highly flammable fuel, all through an engine operating well above the ignition temperatures of either substance. It is also worth noting that many of these safety boards also stated that even when there is a fire, EV"s are still significantly safer for the occupants because thermal runaway is typically a very slow process. Often it takes 30 minutes to 3 hours to see visible flames. It just smokes and smolders. Meanwhile the typical time it takes for an ICE Vehicle to be fully engulfed in flames is rough 90 seconds on average (ya know, due to all the flammable oils and fuels throughout the whole car...). Which do you think is more survivable? artificial fuels are not green. Even ethanol is a poor idea due to the requirement to use land previously used to produce food, to produce fuel, and all the emissions that go into growing and harvesting and processing the crop. Artifical fuels made from captured carbon arent green either. Require ENOURMOUS amounts of energy to both capture the carbon, and then re-constitute it into fuel. Energy which has an emissions footprint. The same amount of energy it takes to produce 1km worth of artificial fuel from a typical non 100% green grid, is the same amount of energy an EV would need to go around 50km.... wow. such green.... Hydrogen isnt any better. Whilst you can produce green hydrogen, it suffers from the same problem. You have to MAKE it. Meaning you need 4 times more energy from the same electricity grid that charges an EV per mile. Meaning that even green hydrogen produces 4 times more emissions per mile than BEV's do. However, Electrolysis is VERY SLOW and because you need far more grid capacity per mile for it, you cant produce the worlds demand for hydrogen through green hydrogen alone. The vast majority has to come from grey hydrogen. I.e. using FOSSIL FUELS. which are HYDRO-carbons. In a process which produces more emissions than if you had just burnt that fuel in a ICE in the first place. WOW.... SUCH GREEN further to that hydrogen vehicles also use lithium batteries because fuel cells cannot produce enough power to adequately accelerate the car. and whilst they are smaller batteries. There is a critial thing you need to remember. FUEL CELLS DONT LAST VERY LONG. According to Toyota and Hyundai, their fuel cells are only rated to last around 150,000 miles, around 1/3rd the lifespan of modern BEV batteries. Meaning you have to scrap and manufacture 3 whole ass cars for every BEV lifepsan. Which do you think has the larger environmental impact? making 3 whole hydrogen cars that run of fuel 4 times more dirty AT BEST or making 1 BEV's which produces 4 times less emissions per mile? It isnt rocket science. Aside from the fact that fuel cells use Palladium, which is an incredible toxic rare earth metal. WAY More toxic than anything in an EV battery. So no, Synthetic fuels arent going to save us. It will never be cheap and will never be green. And no, Hydrogen is not green, its not better, infact its worse in every conceivable way. It even gets less range despite popular belief. They just make bad, short lived, slow, impractical, expensive and less green cars. Do yourself a favor and open google.
    4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44.  @TheKingkingg  engineering is in the name because that’s what I am. Hydrogen cars are a poor idea for cars. So why havn’t you heard that they actually have LESS range than similar sized BEV? Why havn’t you heard that they have a much MUCH shorter lifespan than both BEV’s and ICE vehicles. Why havn’t you heard about why they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their life to only 10 years? Why havn’t you heard that the large hydrogen sedans like the mirai, have less cabin and boot space than a Toyota Yaris. If the oil companies are anted to get rid of them so badly seems like an easy target right? But you don’t hear those things do you? You just hear that’s it’s a wonder fuel of the future. By contrast for BEV’s which can be charged at home with home solar and don’t need fossil fuels or fuel stations, why do you think the batteries don’t last long when modern EV batteries are designed to, and showing signs of last twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine Why do you hear that BEV’s are a fire hazzard when statistics and MULTIPLE vehicle safety Authorities say they’re 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. Why do you hear the batteries are going to end up in landfills for ever when they are <95% recyclable? Why do you hear they’re expensive when similar sized vehicles with similar performance and luxury features often cost as much and often more than their EV counterparts. And they save you significantly more in fuel costs. Why do you hear they’re expensive to maintain when there isn’t anything to maintain. No spark plugs, oil filters engine oil, timing belts, nothing. Why do you hear that the grid can’t support BEV’s but nobody mentions that green hydrogen needs 3-4 time more electricity per mile to create the hydrogen. Face it. Fossil fuel companies love hydrogen. And are doing everything they can to push the undesirably bad solution to the public so they can continue to make money. And are doing everything they can to crush the competition.
    3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. If we're talking about grid to vehicle efficiency, (which im assuming you mean includes transmission losses and power plant losses), then much of that is redundant when comparing green hydrogen to BEV's. As they both require electricity from the same source. However hydrogen requires 3-4 times the same amount of energy per miles from the same grid as BEV. Charging of a BEV is between 85-98% efficient depending on how you do it. Batteries themselves are highly efficient. Hydrogen, is not so much. Fuel cells are around 60% efficient and hydrogen combustion is only around 20-25% efficient. That means that home and small scale hydrogen production would not be very favourable over putting that solar or grid energy into a BEV. If you're getting hydrogen from water you need much more of that same energy per mile. For example the Mirai gets 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen. If you put 3kWh from a solar cell into producing hydrogen, assuming even high efficiency electrolysis you'll get 2.25 kWh worth of hydrogen (Just less than 0.07kg of hydrogen) that will be able to transport you 5 miles. Put that same energy into a Tesla Model 3 with a range of 325 miles on a 75 kWh battery pack, and assuming home charging efficiencies of 98% (which we will reduce to 90% for demonstration purposes) that will get the model 3, 13 miles of driving. The other thing is that whilst hydrogen is light weight it takes up alot of space. EV batteries used in Teslas have a Volumetric Energy Density of 0.71 kWh/L. (not to be confused with hydrogens superior Gravimetric energy density in kWh/kg). Hydrogen as a gas does have a Volumetric energy density of 1.4 kWh/L, however thats not the full story, fuel tanks are round on all sides and tubular with a 3:1 length to diameter ratio, necessary to reduce stress concentrations in corners. When ever you put a round shape into a rectangular body like in a car, you get wasted space (draw a circle inside a square and note the wasted space in the corners). Further to that the fuel tanks have 1 inch thick walls adding 2inch to the diameter. With all that space not used for storing hydrogen gas, you get 0.62 kWh/L. But not all of that fuel is going to be used, for a fuel cell (being the most efficient use of hydrogen) you only use 60% of that fuel, meaning you have 0.37 kWh/L practical volumetric energy density, (about half that of batteries). Then if you consider that Hydrogen now also needs its own battery pack for adequate acceleration as well as an engine sized fuel cell, you have an overall practical volumetric energy density of almost 0.003kWh/L inclusive of the volume taken up by the battery and the fuel cell (which would obviously change depending on the battery and fuel cell size, but the fuel tanks will remain around 0.37kWh/L). To fit 400 miles worth into a car is challenge. And you can see the results in the Miari with its boot being so small that its nearly 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half it size, and the cabin space being so small you cent even fold the rear seats down extend the boot. All that sacrifice in practicality in terms of space, speed and cost of fuel per mile for only 75 more miles of range. Ontop of that hydrogen has a very short life, Most hydrogen vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date limiting the life of the car to only 15 years. Whilst the fuel cell itself is only rated for 100,000 miles to 150,000 miles depending on the manufacturer with Hyundai expected to announce a 200,000 miles life fuel cell late 2022. For those reasons I dont see hydrogen as being a good option.
    3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61.  @touyube481  couple of corrections. In terms of long range vehicles and freight, unfortunately BEV's also have the advantage there with better ranges, power and cost charactorists. Hydrogen simply takes up too much volume. So whilst weight isnt an issue, and you can theoretically stack on more fuel with little impact on consumption per mile, unfortunately in practice there is a limited volume where you can store fuel before needing to build a larger and heavier vehicle. Batteries on the other hand have less than half the volumetric requirements of hydrogen, so whilst more batteries means more weight, but also more range, You can fit far more batteries in meaning you can get far more range. For example the flagship hydrogen semi at the moment is the Hyundai Xcient, which cant even get to freeway speeds unloaded (because fuel cells are famously low power output) but also has a 400 mile range despite having double the fuel tank volume of a standard semi. Meanwhile the Tesla semi can get 100 miles more at 500 miles whilst being faster than a tradition truck and allowing more cabin space and shorter wheel frame. The other thing I want to correct is the fuel cell degradation. The fuel cells dont degrade in the same way. But I would argue worse. Firstly they're only rated for a mere 100,000-150,000 miles. Which excessively small, especially compared to BEV batter lives. The fuel cells are degraded by air contaminants. although they are filtered, filters are never 100% effective and it does affect the fuel cell. Especially during start ups after production pauses. What happens then is you end up putting more fuel through for less power. You vehicle becomes slower and weaker and less fuel efficient. Where as before the 5.6kg in a Mirai got you 400 miles. By end of life that same 5.6kg would only get you 200 miles. And when you started with a fairly dismal acceleration of 9.2s 0-60mph. That would blow out to 12-13s -60mph. This means you're paying just as much for less. By comparison when a battery degrades, its ability to be charged is compromised. Where as before you would charge 75kWh, now you can charge 60kWh at its end of life. You're only using 60kWh to charge the battery. So you're not paying for 75kWh of electricity, only for the 60 that the battery can hold. It doesn't degrade the efficiency of the motor or the vehicle meaning your electricity consumption per mile is the same and thus, your cost per mile remains the same and so does your performance. So instead of paying $80-$90 for 400 miles at the start, and by the end, paying $80-$90 for 200 miles and much less performance. For a battery, only the range is affected.
    3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81.  @Phill0old  it’s also easier to store a lot of gasses than it is to store electricity, however hydrogen isn’t one of them. Hydrogen atoms are so small they can leak through solid steel so already not an easy thing to contain, then you have to realise it has to be stored in a vessel not made of steel which has to withstand 700+ bar. Which is 32 times the pressure of LPG. Then you also have to make this not steel super strength containment vessel anti-puncture because hydrogen is extremely volatile and will readily explode with minute amounts of air. It’s more explosive than LPG, petrol fumes or even some explosives. Then you have to get this non steel, super strong, anti puncture tank and cool it. Because hydrogen has a very low inversion temperature, meaning that while most gasses, as they are taken out of a containment vessel, cool down substantially, hydrogen heats up substantially. So as you draw the gas out it gets hotter, as it gets hotter the liquid vapour pressure increases and it starts to boil off, as it does that it has to be safely discharged from the tank to avoid an explosion. So you need a non steel, super strength, anti puncture cryogenic storage. So not so much easier than putting electricity in a battery huh? But I guess that’s all not something that the media mentions with hydrogen. It would be bad for hydrogen if people found out that your fuel leaks out of your fuel tank as you drive, while it’s releasing boiled fuel because the tank is depressurising, and it means hydrogen fuel tanks only last around 3 years. Infact. I’m not sure about modern hydrogen but the first hydrogen car produced by Toyota would have to release 1/3rd of its fuel into the air through release valves due to the liquid hydrogen boiling off.
    3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84.  @stefanmetzeler  I wouldnt be so arrogant. i'll go down paragraph by paragraph but I'm not touching the Climate stuff as that is outside my area of expertise. I'll stick to EV stuff. Batteries represent a substantial combustion risk? no they don't. Firstly most battery fires are thermal runaway, which takes hours of smouldering before visible flames. secondly, in relation to EV's. real-world statistics don't support your anecdotes. according to the Beuro of Statistics both In the EU, Australia and the US, the AANCAP safety board, NCAP safety board and NHTSA EV's are typically 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust, and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. Id love to see you support your claim that EV's pose a raised likelihood of combustion. next, you claim there is alot of loss in energy transportation? no there isnt. The most ineffective powerlines in the US only represent a 15% loss of energy at worst and typically sits much lower. and by loading process i believe you mean charging? EV batteries charge at about a 98% efficiency. so thats false also. Next, Batteries do lose charge over time. But not much. My EV was parked in long term airport parking for a month and I lost less than 4% charge. But tell me, how often do you leave your car, which you can charge at home, and leave connected to the charger, sit around for months without a power supply? If you own a car, chances are its because you have use for one. The next one. and this is a BIG one. Im especially interested to see you back this up. You claim EV batteries today dont last longer than 7 years. Where in the flying huntsman did you get that from? Modern EV batteries have a Warranty Period of 8 years alone! meaning they'll last much longer than that. They need to otherwise the company will start losing money hand over foot on warranty claims. Modern EV batteries have been showing that they'll last, and have been lasting over 400,000-500,000 miles (800,000 km). That represents approximately 30-40 years of driving for the average person and much longer than the lifespan of a combustion engine. For example, Tesla Batteries have a cycle life of 1,500 cycles to 70% health. As in, after 1,500 cycles you have 70% of your original capacity remaining. For a model 3, its range is 325 miles (with the model S and X having lager ranges as well as other EV models). after 1,500 cycles that's 487,500 miles of driving. and you still have 230 miles of range to a charge at that point. and when the average daily commute is 70 miles. That seems more than still usable. So please, Id love to see you support that claim. Next is range. Most EV's are shooting at around the 400km mark these days as entry levels. For example the 2021 Nissan leaf gets 385km of range. The Tesla Model 3 Standard Range gets a realworld range of 400km. So you wont have to stop every 200km, thats half your range. Additionally super chargers are everywhere, if you're on a long trip, a stop at one of these bad boys can charge you up fully in 45 minutes with a V2 charger or 20 minutes with a V3 charger and less time if you dont need a full charge (lets say you get to the charger at 30% charge instead of 1%). Every other instance you are charging from home, While you're not using it, while youre sleep or doing something else like cooking dinner. In that instance, you dont wait at all for a charge. you just take up the next day to a full tank of gas. You dont have to drive to a fuel station every week for gas which wastes the average person between 16-17 hours per year. so spending an additional 1.5 hours of a 1,600 km road trip i might do once per year is a lot better than wasting 16-17 hours per year standing outside holding a pump dont you think? Then there is grid loading. Whilst you're absolutely correct that you cant tell people to just charge their cars at night, how many people do you know who have jobs in which they cant do that, and what percentage of the population do you think they represent? a small proportion statically would be the correct answer. The vast majority of people don't need to travel more than around 100km per day (on the extreme end). for their daily commutes, shopping etc. The vast majority of people dont use their vehilces whilst they are sleeping. Hence they charge them at night when they sleep. The load on the grid is minimal at night, many generators are shut down because there simply isnt the demand. Additionally this is a stupid point ignorant people make because its supposing that everyone receives their brand new tesla tomorrow and their gas cars are taken away. every person on the planet. Wow. what a coincidence and logistical miracle the would be! No, the world doesnt work like that. EV's have been successful on the market for over a decade now. They still make up a small (but growing) portion of the vehicle market. It will be decades still before all new vehicles are electric, and decades still before all second hand cars are electric. Meanwhile Grid capacity in every developed country has failed to, on average, double its energy capacity every 20 years due to continually rising demand ever since the light bulb was invented. meaning that the grid is more than capable of keeping up with EV adoption, as it occurs. We're not all going to get one at once. you can calm down. Next, you dont have to replace existing energy infrastructure for EV's. Even on coal only grids they produce less emissions than combustion cars do, even before you start considering transport of fuel and fuel refining. Secondly Nuclear is not the way forward. Nuclear in all industrial instances, produces radioactive waste, it also produces irradiated contaminated waste. At current we have no other option but to bury that waste in the ground and pray it doesnt eventually leak through the corroding steel drums. There is so treatment out there right now for nuclear power plant waste. Additionally, currently, unless you're china you cannot but a nuclear reactor in less than 8 years from project commission. By the time they're built, it will already be too late. conventional green energies such as wind and solar, hydro and geothermal can be very stable and reliable. When coupled with source and geographic diversification and storage. There have been many papers researching this and they all come to the same conclusion. Even look at the state of South Australia. They have over 70% renewables. with big battery storage. Before they invested in renewables, they were the least stable grid in the state, they were energy dependant on other states and had the most expensive electricity prices in Australia. Now they have the second cheapest wholesale energy prices in Australia, are net exporters of electricity to other states and have the most stable grid in Australia reaching 70% renewables. how did they do this? they diversified the type of renewables they used and the diversified, their location (part of this was rooftop solar through home solar incentives to for a VPG or Virtual Power Plant). If the wind dies down in one place, 1,000 km away its likely still windy. They also implemented storage which significantly reduced the curtailment of renewables. They did this both with grid scale battery storage, and with home storage. They are also in talks to connect their grid to Tasmania who runs entirely on Hydro, to used pumped hydro storage to further increase their storage capacity. This isnt an uncommon or unknown thing. The EU is looking at something called the EU super grid. Which will connect Solar from countries like Portugal, wind from places like Germany and Belgium with hydro storage in places like Norway. MANY studies have been done on renewables grid stability. They almost always come to the same conclusion. On their own, they're unreliable and ineffective, Diversified by source and geography, and with storage to reduce curtailment, they are reliable and effective.
    3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. How the hell did you work that out? Firstly 1L/min of hydrogen is not 1kg/min of hydrogen. Hydrogen does not have the volumetric density of water. In 6kg of hydrogen compressed to 700 bar, it equates to around 160L. If it was flowing at 1L/min it would take 2 and a half hour to fill. Also you cannot create 6kg from a home solar array. Because it takes ALOT of energy. Let me give you a real world example. Toyota recently announced they had finished installing a Hydrogen station/production plant in one of their old factories in Melbourne Australia. Its a 200kW system. (you get 3kW from your wall outlet in Australia and just under 2kW from wall outlets in the US). with this massive 200kW electrolyser, it creates 80kg of Hydrogen in 24 hours. Meaning you will use 4,800 kWh to produce 80 kg of hydrogen (not including power needed for compression). Thats 60kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen. That also means with a whole 200kW, (more than you'd ever get to your home, solar or not) it takes 3.3 hours to make 1kg of hydrogen. Now lets say you have an average sized roof. You would only be able to fit approximately around 7kW of solar on your roof. This would become around 5kW once it passes through the inverter. during a sunny summers day in Australia, you'd produce around 42 kWh. That would be enough energy produce, 0.7kg of hydrogen or around 1/10th of a full tank per day. Put that on a trailer you'd be lucky to get more than 2kW of solar, meaning you'd only make 17 kWh of solar making 0.3kg of hydrogen. That 0.7kg of hydrogen you can make at home per day, (excluding the power required for compressing it). you'd be able to travel 50 miles in a hydrogen car. Put that same 42kWh into a Battery Electric car of the same size and you can drive 200 miles. Take the 17 kWh from the trailer solar, for a Hydrogen car that wold get you 21 miles, Put that into a Battery electric car of the same size and it will get you 81 miles.
    2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98.  @AdrenalineandEpiphany  Also for the trailer example you have me, That massive solar sail ontop was a 2kW system with 1kW of wind totally 3kW potential which we've already discussed how much hydrogen is created by a 3kW system. But during the demonstration there was no wind so it would only be able to peak at 2kW. Also worth noting that you wont get 3kW all throughout the day. If it was windy enough you might get 3kW for an hour or two at noon, but it would wane in the morning and evening. He also noted that you store the hydrogen in propane tanks. This mean you wouldnt be able to use them for your hydrogen car. Why? because propane tanks have a maximum pressure rating of 20 bar, 32 times less than the 700 bar required to fill a hydrogen car. A hydrogen car tank empties at 10 bar, meaning there is no longer enough pressure to push the hydrogen through the fuel cell. You would even be able to put half of the hydrogen you make into a completely empty hydrogen car and nothing into a hydrogen even on a fuel warning light. Propane tanks typically store gas at 13 bar but max out as a physical pressure limit at 20 bar. There is also another problem with using propane tanks. Hydrogen in its gaseous state can leak through solid metal. you'd lose as much as 30% of your hydrogen in one month. But when it does do this, it embrittles the steel as it does so. compromising the strength and integrity of the propane tank. meaning that a Propane tank used to store hydrogen would need to be replaced every year or so otherwise you risk explosion as the metal becomes too brittle to store the hydrogen. All round its impractical, and wont work.
    2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. In physics there is an upper limit to the efficiency of anything. If you heat up a cup of coffee, you will never get 100% of the energy used back. No matter what you do. Hydrogen is made using grid energy. You are effectively storing eletricity as hydrogen. No matter what you do, to convert it back to electricity from hydrogen you will never ever get the same energy you used to begin with. So if you started with 100kwh of electricity, you will never ever be able to get 100kwh of electricity back when you convert the hydrogen back to electricity. Where you could have given that 100kWh directly to a battery electric car. It will always be inefficient. That means it will always cost more per km. If you need 3x the same grid energy per mile for a hydrogen compared to a battery vehicle, you will always be AT LEAST 3 times more expensive per km. Hydrogen fuel cells also don't output alot of power, making them very slow. That will always be the case, as the physical limitation is the surface area of the catalyst. No catalyst, no reaction. Battery electrics rely on the power output of the battery which can increase with battery size. So you will always have better performance out of a battery electric. for example the worlds fastest Hydrogen super car, the hyperion, is only just barely as fast (not faster) than the Tesla Model S plaid. The difference between the two however is that the hyperion is a purpose built performance car, no cargo space, barely any passeneger space with only 1 passenger seat and a driver seat. the rest of the car is taken up by maximising catalytic surface area and putting in batteries required to boost power output during acceleration. and even then. with all that efford the Hyperion does 0-60 mph in 2.2 seconds. Whilst the Model S plaid, which is a large 4 door 5 seat luxury family sedan with a normal trunk as well as a front truck too, does the same 0-60 in 1.99 seconds. Teslas Large family luxury SUV does this in 2.7s. All that performance without sacrificing practicality. To make hydrogen practical they need to be slow. The Toyota Mirai for example having a blistering 0-60 of 9.2 seconds. Hydrogen is also extremely explosive in the presence of atmosphere, needs to be stored at 32 times the pressure LPG is stored at, and can leak through solid metal. All of that is terrifying from a safety perspective. if you have a bad enough impact you can level a small block. ontop of that the water vapours it emits will corrode the car over time and when hydrogen leaks through solid metal, it embrittles it, making the metal increasingly delicate and liable to shatter. This means that the lifespan of hydrogen vehicles are alot less than combustion cars and even less the Battery Electrics which now have a longer lifespan the combustion cars. There simply is no way around a lot of what I just mentioned. They are physical limitations. For domestic purposes there is no way Hydrogen will be the future. Possibly for trucking and long distance freight or shipping. But not for passenger cars you and me drive. They cost more, are slower, dont last as long and are more dangerous.
    2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. It hasnt been built yet because whilst is feasible in theory, not so much in practice. what do I mean by that? well lets look at hydrogen plants operating today. One of the most modern Hydrogen plants in the world is the freshly built hydrogen plant built by Toyota in Melbourne Australia. They converted an old factory to both produce hydrogen but also be the states first hydrogen fuel station. An entire car factory, repurposed to produce hydrogen. Keep that in mind. An entire vehicle assembly line. Now it uses a 200kW, state of the art electrolyser to produce its hydrogen, it does so at a rate of 80kg every 24 hours. (which means you would need 4,800kWh of electricity to produce the hydrogen and 720kWh to compress it for storage, so a total of 5,520 kWh per 80kg of hydrogen). That would be enough to fill only 14 Toyota Mirai hydrogen vehicles. an entire factory, to produce enough fuel to only top up 14 cars per day. What i'm outlying to you is how slow and energy intensive hydrogen production is. If we scale that down to a fuel station with maybe 1/5th the size of the plant in Melbourne at best, that means you'd produce conceptually around 1/5th the hydrogen, which would be 20kg of hydrogen, or enough to top up a whopping 3 hydrogen cars per day. Which doesnt really meet demand. Then you are wanting to use on-site renewables instead of grid energy, that means you'd get maybe at best 1/3rd the energy needs over 24 hours from the space taken up by the fuel station, (you only have so much space). that means you'd only realistically be able to produce around 1 hydrogen cars worth of hydrogen per day. a whole fuel station which would have costs millions to retrofit to dispense hydrogen and more again for the hydrogen production equipment and renewables, to only fill up 1 car per day. Its not a great investment. Hence, not practically feasible.
    2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192.  @TanvirNa  a company does a thing does not mean it’s any more viable. As for 6 hours? No. Super chargers do that in 5-10 minutes. But you only gotta do that for trips you might make once a year or less. For the rest of the time, you charge at home wasting 0 hours of your life getting fuel whilst hydrogen needs to waste as much as 16-17 hours per year on average getting fuel from a fuel station. As for power generation. That’s what I was getting to in my previous comment. Yes, most grids aren’t fully or even mostly green. Most still run of fossil fuels but that isn’t the home run argument you think it is. Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally in its pure form on earth. You need to split it from things. There are generally 2 ways to do this. First is green hydrogen you split from water (sounds good right?) well not really. Seeing as you need in the order of 3-4 times more grid electricity per mile to create hydrogen than a BEV needs, from the very same electricity grid so not as green, not even close there. The other types of hydrogen production, and by far the most common, is splitting hydrogen out of hydrocarbons. And for those not in the know, hydrocarbons are fossil fuels and when you take the hydro from hydrocarbons, you’re left with just carbon. So to do that you need to burn fossil fuels releasing CO2 to split hydrogen from more fossil fuels, which releases more CO2. This process actually creates more carbon than if you had just used the fossil fuels as a direct fuel in the first place. So again. Not green. Hydrogen cars are also extremely expensive to fuel, are impractical cars, have incredibly short lifespans, slower and don’t even get me started on the fuelling issues.
    2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204.  @wraithconscience  I am not arguing that you can’t burn hydrogen in a piston cylinder car. I’m also not arguing that you can’t then use that to create hydrogen. What I’m saying is you’ll generate less hydrogen than you used to create the hydrogen you just burnt. There is no such thing as free energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that nothing can have more than 100% efficiency. The zeroth law defines that energy cannot be create or destroyed, only transformed. You are generating hydrogen, using that hydrogen to release energy which produces water, then using that water to make more hydrogen from the energy released by turning it into water. You would need the hydrogen to release more energy when it is recombined into water than you need to split it again if you were to even attempt to drive a car that way. But that would mean you would be constantly creating energy from nothing. Water, to hydrogen, to water, to hydrogen, and somehow every time you do that you get more energy? No. It’s not possible. It’s against the laws of physics. You wouldn’t be able to do it for long because when you start counting energy losses instead of thinking the whole system is 100% efficient, you create significantly less hydrogen than you burnt to get the energy to generate it. You’d be pouring energy down the drain. This is different than LPG substitution in a car. You’re not generating LPG by combing carbon and hydrogen then Burning that LPG. If you wanted something that ran like LPG substitution you’d need to not generate hydrogen but store it as a separate fuel you fill up externally.
    2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. well if you're looking at the big picture that sort of changes. Because hydrogen takes up a huge amount of volume. more than twice the volume per mile. The toyota Mirai is a model S sized car and it has more fuel tank storage than a Ford F250. meaning it also has so little cabin space you cant actually fold the rear seats which is a big deal because the boot is almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size. The next thing you want to look at is lifespan. Hydrogen cars are actually extraordinarly short lived. (i know, nobody mentions that, or the 10 year expiration date they come with printed on the fuel caps). With hydrogen cars only rated to last 150,000 miles according to Toyota and Hyundai. Meanwhile modern BEV's being sold today are rated to last over 500,000 miles. and the battery replacement cost at current is only around $7k, but with the rate its falling by the time you hit the end of your battery life, it is projected to be less than $3k. So whilst you dont need to do 0-60 in a family/commuter car, you do sorta need it to be able to carry passengers and luggage, which it cannot do very well. It also costs around 20x per mile to fuel compared to a BEV, lasts around 1/3rd of the lifespan of a BEV, and when all is said and done, the Model S actually gets further than the Mirai despite the two being similar sizes. And unlike what alot of hydrogen supporters say, you cant just add more fuel tanks to the Mirai to make it go further, that would require space to put the fuel tanks which the Mirai doesnt have any more of. Meaning no, it wont get any further. You'd just have to buy a bigger car.
    2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228.  @BlacXtar32  I agree that those who do not have access to local charging either at their work or at home would ultimately be better off with hydrogen. But if you can charge from home it saves you a trip to the fuel station every week. For the average person this would save you 16-17 hours per year. So I disagree with refueling as an advantage. It just opens it up to use cases BEV's arent suited for. As for self feeding hydrogen fuel stations. You're absolutely right, But they already exist. For example here in Melbourne they just installed the first ever hydrogen refueling station in Melbourne. Toyota installed it in one of their old decommissioned factories. Its designed to produce its own hydrogen for distribution and it uses almost the entire factory floor to do so and to store it. without going into the energy used to compress the hydrogen they use a 200 kW electrolyser producing 80kg of hydrogen per day. sounds good except that even at the scale of a factory, thats only enough fuel to top up 14 hydrogen cars evenly spaced throughout the day. Meaning that it creates enough hydrogen in one day to power HFC cars 9,100km. Using the same amount of energy which would power a BEV 35,500km. It pulls most of that power from the grid, however it does have an 80kW solar array. So in Australian Summer it would produce just enough hydrogen to fill up 4/5th of a single cars fuel tanks in one day. All without considering the inversion losses from the solar array or power required to compress the hydrogen to 700 bar.
    2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. actually most modern EV's have ranges between 250 miles to 400 miles. The computers on them are smart enough to realise your destination is outside your battery range and will divert you to the nearest charger. it is also smart enough to know you dont have enough charge to get home and will again, warn you and set a navigation to the nearest charging point. If it is a super charger, it would only take around 20 minutes to get to full. Hydrogen cant get much further than BEV's though, and need significant sacrifices just to do that. People always froth at the mount about hydrogens gravimetric energy density (kWh/kg) but completely ignore its volumetric energy density (kWh/L) which is less than half that of BEV's. That means you cant actually fit enough fuel into the car to drive significant distances. Even if you had the refuelling infrastructure. which you dont. Look at the Mirai, it only slightly larger than the Model 3, but has so little cabin space you cant fold the rear seats to extend the boot which is a big deal since the boot is almost 100L smaller than a Toyota Yaris half its size, and has no front boot. Making it extremely impractical as a taxi or family car especially when compared to BEV's. why? because they tried to stack so much fuel into it to only get 400 miles of range whilst the model 3 gets 325 and the model S gets 412. It also meant they had to sacrifice their speed, with the Mirai taking a whopping 9.1s to get to freeway speeds whilst the model 3 does it in 3.1s. So you are paying almost 20x more per mile for something that doesnt get much further, on a tank, and is significantly slower and has an impractical amount of room, just because you might be able to fill up faster on the road, at some point in the future maybe if fuel stations decided the $1.2 million upgrade to hydrogen is worthwhile. As opposed to just charging every night at home and never needing a fuel station.
    2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266.  @mightyweapon  the production of an EV only produces 15% more emissions than the production of a similar ICE car. To give you context on how little that is, and how much better they are for the environment. To make up for that 15% more emissions on a coal only grid, the EV only has to drive 20,000 miles before it’s even with emissions to an ICE car. That’s around 1-2 years of driving. And that’s BEFORE you include the emissions produced by fuel refineries for every litre of fuel you burn. As for disposal, even a basic google search shows that more than 95% of an EV battery is recyclable. Infact the end of life impacts between EV’s and ICE have been stated as being roughly equivalent to each other almost unanimously across the auto industry. Lastly, yes, there isn’t really a country today on 100% renewables… yet. However why is that a bar from entry? Firstly, EV’s still produce less emission on even a coal only grid. Infact if I were to charge an EV using a cheap, small, portable generator, I’d get more range than if I had used that same fuel in even a modern conventional engine. But you think large Powerplants purpose built for efficiency would be worse than a cheap $100 pocket generator from the hardware store? Ok bud. Calm down. Besides, even while produce less emission on dirty grids, why do they have to wait for a 100% green grid when EV’s are already cleaner than ICE and just get cleaner as the grid does, like a damage multiplier in a game reducing the emissions of TWO industries at once? You should probably think this through more.
    2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. I would disagree with some of this. Does the 145kj/kg include compression of hydrogen to 700 bar? But the crux of what I wanted to say was that hydrogen does have a high gravimetric energy density kWh/kg. Objectively that is true. However there is a slight problem people often overlook. Which is Volumetric energy density, kWh/L. Hydrogen itself as a gas does have a high volumetric energy density at around 1.4kWh/L at 700 bar, much higher than a BEV's 0.3 kWh/L. However that isnt the full story. The space consumed by the gas isnt the only constraint. The fuel tanks are designed as an edgeless cylinder to avoid stress concentrations and such high pressures. Looking through the cross section of the fuel tank its soon clear than you cannot neatly stack circles, especially in to a mostly rectangular geometry such as a car. hydrogen fuel tanks also have about 1 inch thick walls, adding 2 inches to its diameter. So when you work out the volumetric energy density taken up by the hydrogen, inclusive of the tank walls and wasted space around the fuel tanks (imagine the empty space fitting a circle inside a square for example). The Practical Volumetric energy density is less than 0.16kWh/L. Much less than a BEV. Not including additional space required for the fuel cells, larger cooling system and exhaust water discharge system and the small battery packs required. This can be seen in hydrogen cars today. Lets compare two similar sized vehicles, Both mid-sized sedans. The Tesla Model 3 BEV and the FCEV Toyota Mirai. The Mirai is 1 inch taller, 1 inch wider and 11 inches longer. Similar sizes but the Mirai is ever so slightly larger. The Tesla Model 3 has a HUGE boot, with another boot inside it where a fuel tank would traditionally go. It has 425L of rear boot space, with another boot in the front engine bay. The Mirai however, well... the Mirai has 361L, a full 272 L of boot pace. Less than a Toyota Yaris half its size and not front trunk and its entirety is taken up by the fuel cell. In addition, unlike the Model 3, the Toyota has so little cabin space that you cant actually fold the rear seats down to extend the boost space for longer items. Whilst the model 3, you can. This bears out a very impractical amount of cabin and cargo space for the hydrogen vehicle which only gets an additional 75 miles of range over the Tesla. Unfortinately for heavy hauling, this needs to be considered. A larger truck would need bigger fuel cell or more fuel cells to generate the power to drive the truck. A larger Lithium Battery pack to provide enough torque to the wheels through the electric motor, and more hydrogen for the increased consumption. But the Mirai, even being a mid-sized sedan has 149L of hydrogen on board, more fuel storage than a Ford F150. Building a truck with an acceptable range and towing power would be very difficult to fit in. For reference with towing power, the Mirai has an engine sized Fuel cell, which produces only enough power to drive the car when cruising and not enough power to adequately accelerate the car, so the Mirai has 1.6kwh of batteries to provide the power to the electric motor to accelerate it at a whopping.. 9.2s 0-60mph. I would imagine that a truck would require far more torque and power, meaning bigger battery pack and much bigger fuel cells and bigger hydrogen tanks to boot. All in all, hydrogen freighting doesnt look like it would be a good idea.
    2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350.  @stefanmetzeler  you’re so ignorant. A notebook is not the same as a car. For starters, the BMS and battery architecture is completely different. Notebooks tend to have large singular battery cells. EV’s have thousands of individual cells in the battery pack. Notebooks also don’t have their batteries swimming in coolant fluid constantly keeping them within optimal operating temperatures. Notebooks don’t have charge and discharge regulators and often go from 0-100% on a daily basis, EV’s rarely go below 20% or over 90% charge in average daily use. Most important, power consumption factors are completely different. If you get a notebook to send emails, it will last longer than if you had got it to perform Engineering computational simulations. Some people might browse one tab at a time on the internet while others might have 1,000 tabs open at a time. Driving. Is driving. There are factors which affect range but nothing usually that extremely different from person to person. If you drive through traffic better range, if on freeway, around 10-20% less. If it’s windy, a few percent lost if you’re only travelling into the wind. If it’s raining, you lose something like 5%. But most importantly, driving conditions in general obey the law of averages. The more you drive, the more your average range reflects the average road conditions and your average driving style. This is relatively EASY to predict. Infact Tesla’s make these predictions all the time. If you plug in a destination it tells you what state of charge you’ll have when you arrive. I’ve found it’s usually accurate to within 1 or 2%. You can reduce that more with third party travel apps like “a better route planner” in which you can enter weather conditions, tire pressure, passenger weights, etc. Unfortunately for computers use, there isn’t a typical average, or any accurate average, as the use of each computer varies so wildly from person to person. Job to job. Where as cars will always typically drive on roads. They are only used for driving. And the driving conditions are predictable. And you’d agree with that if you ever quote the google maps drive times when giving an estimated time of arrive to someone. You are so profoundly ignorant of the technology or even what makes a sensible argument. You claim you don’t use anecdotal evidence. And none of your evidence is anecdotal. Yet you keep claiming “well this German guy got a new car and it wasn’t electric” as evidence electrics don’t work well. that’s the definition and anecdotal you muppet
    2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. it could. yes. But it wont make a big impact. Even on a BEV which can get significantly further on the same amount of energy cannot extend its range very far with solar mounter to the roof of the car. A car typically has between 1.5-2 m2 of roof area, as you need to use some of that for front and rear windows you get around 0.5-1m2 of available roof area in which you could mount solar panels. as a general rule of thumb, solar panels produce 1kW per m2. so best case you'd be getting 1kW peak during a sunny mid-day. I can do the maths for you if you want but for a long range model 3, driving an average speed of 47mph, (75km/h) you'd get an extra 41 miles (66km) bring your range from 325 miles to 366 miles. (around a 13% increase in range assuming a perfectly sunny day and a noon sun lasting more than 8 hours). for a standard range model 3, you'd only gain an extra 28 miles (45km) which is a 11% increase in range. Considering mid-day sun doesn't last 5-8 hours, we'll assume the standard solar utility factor of 30%. So you'd actually only gain 4% for the long range and 3% for the standard range. Now if we look at hydrogen, like the Mirai, uses 5.6kg to get 400 miles. (0.014 kg/mile). Hydrogen has an energy density of 33.6kWh/kg so it uses 0.47 kWh/mile. We know that producing hydrogen is at best around 70% efficient. We also know it needs to be compressed which is at best 85% efficient. Meaning only 59.5% of the energy ends up as hydrogen. so our 1kW becomes 0.595 kW, plus out 30% utilisation factor, making it 0.18 kW from solar into hydrogen. What this means is that we can only boost our range by 4.6 miles (1.1% increase). It does increase efficiency and range, but not by alot, especially for hydrogen. 3-4% for BEV's and 1% for hydrogen.
    2
  374. Elon was right, and There’s a lot he’s missing here. For starters, 1.) the cost of running a hydrogen vehicle will always been much higher than a BEV, even on energy costs alone. And all the “cheap” ways to produce hydrogen all produce carbon emissions which defeat the purpose. 2.) Hydrogen cells, as he mentioned don’t produce a lot of power, that’s why the mirai is so slow. The less power you can give to an electric motor the slower it becomes. That is also why most hydrogen vehicles on the market have large battery packs in them (less than a BEV but more than a hybrid). That’s because batteries can output large amounts of energy, quickly. So vehicles like the mirai don’t have enough power from the fuel cells to adequately accelerate the vehicle. But have more than they need to “cruise” meaning they charge up the battery as they drive, and the battery is what launches the vehicle. The big drawback is that the smaller your battery pack, the lower power you can supply. Giving BEV’s the distinct advantage there. Infact, the only way to make hydrogen fast is if you increase the catalytic surface area. Meaning you’d have to sacrifice practicality to do so. For example, to increase catalytic surface area you’d have to reduce fuel tank capacity to make room, cargo space to make room and cabin space to make room. To get a hydrogen vehicle like the large luxury 4 door, double boot family based Model S, you’d need a purpose build 2 door no boot hydrogen vehicle. You won’t ever get a hydrogen vehicle that’s as quick as a BEV whilst also working as your daily driver. 3.) safety, hydrogen is extremely explosive and needs to be stored at pressures 32 times higher than LPG. That’s a lot. Hydrogen, which is explosive with even minute traces of air, is also so small it can leak through solid metal. They also have an inherently higher centre of gravity when compared to a BEV. But they’re so unsafe that hydrogen vehicles are designed to sacrifice their occupants survivability to protect the fuel tanks because of the risk of explosion which could kill pedestrians and other people and vehicles nearby. All while BEV has such a low centre of gravity that they’re nearly in-rollable, have double the crumple zone and are shown to be dramatically safer than combustion vehicles. So to summarise, BEV, are cheaper than hydrogen, faster than hydrogen whilst still being practical daily drivers and are much safer than hydrogen. There really isn’t a case for hydrogen what so ever.
    2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377.  @Remorsefullyhumble  fossil fuels are hydro carbons. Meaning they’re made of chains of hydrogen and carbon. To extract the hydrogen we need to use a lot of energy to do so. Which comes from a very convenient place when extracting from fossil fuels. As you can use the fossil fuels. For example extract hydrogen from natural gas, you burn the natural gas to create the steaks by separates the hydrogen from the carbon in more natural gas. So you’re burning gas to get hydrogen from gas. If you havn’t realised as yet, this means you’re creating CO2 from burning the gas, as well as from extraction of the hydrogen. Instead of just burning the gas in a car in the first place. Basically doubling your emissions output. You can make green hydrogen from water but this process is energy intensive and slow. It’s very difficult to scale up because of how slow it is. And even then it uses far more electricity (around 4 times more) to create 1 miles worth of hydrogen than if you had used that same electricity to charge a BEV. In other words, the grid electricity used to create 1 miles worth of green hydrogen would take a battery electric car 4 miles. Seeing as no grid on the planet yet is 100% renewable energies, this means green hydrogen produces 4 times more emissions than BEV’s do per mile. But as I noted before green hydrogen is slow and difficult to upscale. Thus the only way to produce enough hydrogen at the rate required for a large number of hydrogen vehicles in the road is via fossil fuels, which would be worse than just using a normal combustion car.
    2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. actually no for 3 reasons. 1.) Hydrogen is expensive. Why is the important to being environmentally friendly? well the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is by getting it from fossil fuels which are hydro-carbons. This means using electricity to split the fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) into hydrogen and oxygen, you can capture the hydrogen but often the carbon is released into the air. With green hydrogen costing more than 2.5 times the cost of petrol per miles currently, cheaper alternatives would be very appealing. 2.) Fuel cells use platinum. Platinum is an extremely toxic element. There are machining wastes to deal with when producing fuel cells for hydrogen vehicles, But further to that, it has to be dealt with when the car is at its end of life. which is concerning given point 3 below, especially since its orders of magnitude more toxic than anything found in a lithium battery if exposed to the environment. 3.) Hydrogen vehicles dont last very long. Its not a widely advertised fact as the media has a bias for hydrogen and against EV's (buy in large), by hydrogen vehicles roll off the factory floor with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of hydrogen vehicles to 10 years from the date of manufacture. EV's on the other hand (again, contrary to popular belief due to media bias) last a very long time, modern EV batteries are designed to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles with the batteries being the biggest limitation to the life of the vehicle. This represents an average of 30-40 years worth of driving for the average person and is double the average lifespan of a typical combustion engine. What that means is that for every EV you own to the end of its lifetime, you'd have to manufacture and dispose of 3-4 hydrogen vehicles and all the emissions that go with manufacturing and disposing of an entire hydrogen vehicle. (including disposal of the platinum from the fuel cell).
    1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543.  @middleagedbaldguy6774  You're right in that Ford have more experience with building trucks, they've also been mass producing for much longer which means they've already eliminated the problem like panel gaps that come when you step up to mass production for the first time. But Tesla has more experience than any other auto manufacturer in making EV's. Thats why even the likes of Porsche with all the effort they put in, couldn't produce anything that met what Tesla's was capable of doing 10 years earlier. That being said, This year seems to be the first year other Auto Makers are putting in a solid effort instead of making compliance cars. Additionally Tesla doesnt have any dealerships. I forgot to mention that in the last comment. And they dont have service centres (you can book service with them but there is maybe one place in every city) and there is a good reason for that. EV's dont need servicing. I'm not sure if anyone has ever told you this but there arent any regular services required for Tesla's. They have no engine oil, no transmission, no spark plugs, no oil filters, no air filters, no timing belts, no fuel pumps, no fuel filters, no distributors, no differentials, no sumps. There is nothing to service on them. They have an axel running to a bi-directional Electric motor which operates as motor, transmission and differential all in one. sitting above a battery pack, designed AS THE CHASIS, to protect the batteries, with a quarter inch Titanium plate running the length of the undercarriage to protect it from anything which would try to penetrate it from underneath.
    1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560.  @AllThingsRamdom  I don't think you understand. when you strip electrons away, it's given back by a donor near by, the next atom near by then donates to the original donor, ultimately this continues as a chain (visible as a spark or bolt of lightning) until it find a earth or grounding point. The gounding point or earth GIVES AN ELECTRON which means all the gasses going in are not ionized. As a donor electron is given by a grounding point. They arent consumed by grounding, they are DONATED by grounding. Additionally, removing an electron does not change the composition of elements or molecules, That would need them to gain or lose protons. NOT electrons. The only thing that achieves is change the polarity of its state of charge. which is an electrical and magnetic property. It will have ZERO effect on combustion. As the chemical bonds and compositions going into the reaction are the same going out of the reaction. and whilst the power required to strip an electron, is small. the AMOUNT of electrons in a small amount of air is enormous. and ALOT of that energy is lost as heat and more importantly, light, when you strip an electron. In fact this is how NEON lights work. LEAN SOME BASIC PHYSICS Not only would all the air atoms going in, have all their electrons immediately after you attempt to ionise them, meaning you wont be inputting any ionized air what so ever, even if you did it would have NO effect on combustion NONE. So lets follow this. You put in energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. You somehow separate the hydrogen and for some reason yeet the oxygen. You new have less energy in the form of hydrogen than you used to get the hydrogen. You then ionize the intake air, which immediately is grounded by the vehicle meaning the air is no longer ionized but regular air milliseconds after expending the energy. The net result you spend energy creating alot of light and a little bit of heat. that air goes into the chamber to be reacted with hydrogen in a combustion which rapidly expands the gasses inside the chamber and also creates water vapour. This drives the car, Less energy is released by the combustion in relation to pressure than you initially had in hydrogen, most of the energy is lost as heat and sound, and a little to light. You then turn the pressure energy into mechanical energy, which again, suffers and efficiency loss. Most of that energy goes towards driving the car, some of it goes to creating more hydrogen which means converting the mechanical energy into electrical energy, which once again, suffers and efficiency loss. All you are doing is wasting energy. There is no part in that process which yields more energy than you began with. you need to learn some basic physics. I cant spell this out any clearer for you.
    1
  561.  @AllThingsRamdom  "none of it goes against the laws of physics what so ever" - "Please dont tell me you believe all the laws of physics" you cant have it both ways. It follows the laws of physics or you're making shit up. pick one Also you did say it worked like a nuclear reaction because I outlined that nuclear reactions work by converting mass into energy and you responded with "it actually is to a degree what is happening here." - leaves little room for interpretation. additionally it does not follow the laws of physics. Specifically the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. To which to date we have never ever seen a violation of this law. It basically states energy will always decrease in quality, the only way to increase the quality is to put more energy in than you will get out, or you put in as much energy as you will get out. It basically outlines that nothing is more than 100% efficient. It also notes that whenever you transform energy, there will always be a loss of energy. an example of this is that an electric heater. To convert electricity (high energy quality), to heat energery (lower energy quality), a resistance heater will be near 90% or more efficient (but not 100%). But converting heat (lower quality( into electricity (higher quality) is much harder and far less efficient. No matter how hard you try you will never ever reclaim all of the heat back into usable energy. No where near. So when you break down hydrogen using energy, you will always lose some energy. Combusting it back into water will always lose more energy. Converting that pressure and heat energy into mechanical energy will always lose energy, converting that mechanical energy back into electrical energy to split more hydrogen will always lose more energy than you get out. Thems the kicks. stripping electrons would do nothing for you but convert perfectly good electrical energy you could be using to split hydrogen or run the car, into light and heat. it does not and can not change the chemical composition of the gas. The energy released during combustion is to do with the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. not electrons. BASIC CHEMISTRY I suggest you learn it.
    1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569.  @arcanevoid9199  actually that couldnt be further from the truth. There are various types of electric motors each with different characteristics, the weighting and balance of the car and the design of the suspension and the chassis also contribute to the feel and responsiveness of the car. Some electric cars have 2 gear speeds and some have 1, some have different forced power bands for battery management and some push those lines further. You even get different performance for different cars, even within tesla, their standard range model 3 does 0-60 in just under 5s, whilst their performance model does it in 3.1s. Different electric motors will be geared different for different speed profiles even it is a single speed. Tesla for example has a single speed car but they still have a 9:300 for some vehicles and 9:700 for others. you thinking that every electric car will be the same is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. I could just as easily say the same thing about combustion cars. They all have similar power bands that just shift up or down the RPM scale. they all operate identically to each other in their use of the otto-cycle. its rated as one of the most satisfactory drive experience is because of how the car is set up to handle the instant torque, the motor profile, suspension actuation in handling with their incredibly low centre of gravity and a range of other things. To simply state that they're satisfying to drive based on the pure assumption that its because people dont want to drive is incredibly naïve. Consumer reports takes weighted rating of various driving criteria in terms of satisfaction from a huge range of demographics.
    1
  570.  @arcanevoid9199  Everyone who drives my Tesla never think it has a lack of character. In addition thats a common myth. Whilst the batteries are heavy, the car also does not have an enigne or transmission taking up a bulk of the weight. EV's actually weigh around the same as other vehicles in its class. Take for example the Tesla model 3. its a mid-sized luxury sedan. (the luxury part makes a difference because luxury features inside a car weigh significantly more). It weighs a maximum of 1850kg. (lighter versions weigh 1600kg). In the same size and class category, there is the BMW 5 series and the Auto A6 quattro which are both similar in size and performance to the model 3. The BMW weighs 1900kg and the Audi weighs 1990kg. with the model 3 being the lightest of the 3. how you work your suspension, no matter the weight of the vehicle, makes a dramatic difference to the feel and handling of the car. You are arguing against yourself in alot of way. You're arguing that a drivetrain unlike any other car on the road, that is at current extremely unique in its performance characterises, somehow has no character. really the only think it lacks is sound. and sound alone does not constitute character or feel of a car. there is a very good reason that an EV is rated as one of the most satisfying cars to drive. There is a reason that a vast portion of EV owners are ex BMW owners. There is reason that Tesla has one of the highest customer retention rates of any car company. and its not because the cars they make are souless, lack character or are boring. I've driven a model S and it belt completely and utterly like an entirely different beast to my model 3. I've also driven an electric Kona which feels incredibly different again. EV's also dont have a flat power profile, I know that my car, whilst is sharp off the line, kicks in way more power around 60km/h and drops back around 80km/h. I know that the 2 wheels drive model 3 has a slower 0-60 than the awd performance model 3 but a faster 60-100 time than the performance model 3. you think they're flat and linear because you've been told they are. In reality they are not. They're just more flat and linear than a combustion engine. Trying taking one for a test drive and tell me it wasn't an exhilarating experience. that it wasn't more fun than most of the other cars that you've driven and that it was soulless and lacking of character and that it was boring. as a next best thing, finding someone who has driven one and ask them if they found it boring.
    1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. There are two big factors here to consider when comparing your experience with a prius. 1.) a Prius is a hydrid. As such its battery size is very very low. around 1.3kWh to a tesla's 50kWh-100kWh. Why that is important is that batteries are rated in cycles. How many charges and discharges of your full battery capacity. To break it into numbers lets assume you can go 1km for 0.13 kWh (model 3's efficiency). So for a 50kWh battery you can travel 50/0.13=384km for every cycle. Now for the Prius with a 1.3 kWh capacity. Thats 10km per cycle. Now Teslas have battery cycles of 1500 cycles for modern Teslas. And thats 1,500 cycles to 70% of your original battery health (or 30% battery degradation). So for a Tesla that lifespan is 384 x 1,500 = 576,000 km. For the prius that battery life is 15,000km worth of battery driving. (when you're not using the motor). The second thing to consider 2.) is battery management systems. Teslas and other modern EV's have very sophisticated battery management systems. They regulate charge and discharge rates for the batteries at different charge states (tesla's accelerate fastest at 90-100% charge and slowest at 30-0% charge. They also charge fastest at 10%-80% and slowest from 80%-100% and 0%-10%.) In addition to this and many other safeguarding systems to maximise battery life, is that Teslas have dedicated cooling and heating systems for their batteries keeping them constantly within optimal temperatures for battery health. They arent allowed to overheat or to get too cold before the car steps in to cool or heat them. All together this means that Tesla's can achieve a cycle life of 1,500 cycles, whist without BMS systems you'd be lucky to reach 800-1,000 cycles. Another thing the prius falls victim to. So in short, the battery in the prius should not be considered analogous to EV batteries.
    1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. um. no. not quite that simple. Even the most fuel efficient fuel cells use around 3-4 times as much grid electricity to create 1 miles worth of hydrogen than if you had just put that electricity into a BEV. That means if you had 1 wind farm to power the needs to 1,000 people with BEV's, with all the tax payer cost, emissions and materials required to build and operate it, you would need 3-4 wind farms to power the needs of those same 1,000 people with hydrogen. additionally no, you wont get similar ranges. the efficiency is there sure, but the fuel isnt. Everyone says hydrogen is very energy dense. What they mean is its gravimetrically energy dense (kWh/kg), but hydrogen practically is not very Volumetrically energy dense (kWh/L). With batteries well more than double the volumetric energy density. What that means is you dont really have the space to physically put the fuel to go as far as an ICE. whilst hydrogen cars in most cases get only about as far as their equivalent BEV's competitors, even when sacrificing cabin and boot space to do so, and in some cases, they get less. (hydrogen truck the Xcient for example gets 400 miles fully loaded whilst the Tesla Semi gets 500 miles fully loaded.) Just look at the model 3 vs the toyota Mirai, Both are in the mid-sized sedan class, the Mirai being a little longer than the model 3 but otherwise being near identical in size. Despite this extra length, the Mirai has a boot size almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size and has so little cabin space you cant even fold the rear passenger seats to extend your abnormally small boot, all to fit 150L of hydrogen tanks (more fuel tank capacity than a ford F150) to get 400 miles. The model 3 gets 325 miles (only 75 miles less) to a charge, but it not only has a huge rear boot with a second large boot compartment inside the rear boot but also has a front boot. It also has class leading cabin space and the rear seats do fold. The Mirai is efficient for a hydrogen car using its fuel cell. Less efficient hydrogen cars will either get less range or have less space for people and cargo. Combustion hydrogen is less efficient again. (Fuels cells are roughly 45-60% efficient, combustion hydrogen is 20-25% efficient), meaning they get even less range.
    1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. Actually the electric motors in a Tesla are VERY different in design and functionality than a Prius. Tesla also pioneered the skateboard battery pack given them the lowest center of gravity of any production car leading to extremely good handling and safety and the only SUV ever to have gotten a 5 star safety rating thanks to its resistance to rolling over. Tesla are also the closest car company to achieving level 5 full self driving. A feat you can’t achieve with lidar. But you can with camera’s and in doing so, provide their customers with “autopilot” which, whilst other car companies have attempted to replicate, Tesla’s the only one who can offer anything more than adaptive cruise control that isn’t geofenced. Tesla are so close to level 5 because unlike every other car company all their cars came standard with all the sensors to record all the data required to develop it. So their consumers pay Tesla for the cars, and teslas cars all collect billions of miles of data every year. Every other car company has to supply a modified car to test drivers they pay to collect data, leading to a costly exercise for the company which yields only hundreds of miles of data. Tesla also pioneered free over the air updates ensuring their cars improve as time goes on, all without having to go and making a hours long booking at a service centre. Tesla has been doing this since 2012, Mercedes are the first other car company to start doing this in 2021 with a paid subscription. Tesla is also the only car company to do away with android auto and apple car play, in favour of a built in connection that is built around their cars. It also uses it’s over the air abilities (not from your phone connection) to give access to Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, etc. giving the most advanced infotainment system on the market. Tesla was also the first car company to make cars with app connectivity. They only car company not use keys or fobs, but your phone as the key. The app can call your car out of a parking spot, allow you to lock or unlock the car, let someone remotely drive it, flash lights, honk the horn, see its location, speed and direction in live time, open and close windows, operate climate controls and heated seats, adjust speed limit of the car, and acceleration, lock out the console, open and close the front and rear boots, and see if any doors, windows, hoods, boots, or charging caps are open or closed, all from your phone and all from anywhere in the world. The next closest thing to this is fords offering which can only unlock the car via the app and turn the aircon onto its last set setting and start the engine, but only when it is within Bluetooth range of the vehicle. And that’s it. Even in 2020.
    1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641.  @mariobrandanltl8597  doesn’t quite work like that. FCEV’s are actually heavier than battery electrics. The mirai for example is dimensionally similar to the Tesla Model 3 (although slightly smaller). But it weighs as much as half a ton more than the model 3. Because not only do you have to have fuel tanks which have to be triple layered, anti-puncture pressure tanks capable of withstanding at least 32 times the pressures LPG is stored at in their big steel gas bottles, (like for bbq’s). But you also have to store at least twice as much energy in hydrogen. Hydrogen cars and Battery cars don’t use energy like for like, if you have 100kWh of energy stored in a battery electric, you will be able to use 95 kWh of that 100. If you have 100kWh of stored hydrogen, you will only be able to use 40kWh if that 100. By reducing the battery size to fit hydrogen tanks which can store more than double the equivalent energy of hydrogen at 700 times atmospheric pressure and adding a fuel cell, you reduce the amount of power which can be supplied to the motor, you also increase the centre of gravity making it handle worse, you reduce safety, reduce storage and cabin space to fit the extra components and hydrogen costs at current 20x more per km. Meaning you also increase the cost of operation of the vehicle. All that and the only benefits is reducing your charge time by 10 minutes on trips you take maybe once a year or less, and increased your time getting fuel every week by 5 minutes which adds up to 17 hours per year. Where is the benefit?
    1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650.  @mariobrandanltl8597  batteries and SC is the only combination that makes sense, you add SC they’re light weight and small. They don’t impact any of the characteristics of the car expect for purchase cost, and improved performance. Hydrogen however, doesn’t offer that. It negatively impacts performance handling and safety. It barely makes up for that inconvenience with range. The Tesla Model 3 performance getting 325 miles to a charge, the mirai only getting 75 miles further to a tank of hydrogen. Except the model 3 is significantly cheaper to run, the mirai as <9s 0-60 whilst the model 3 has 3.2s to 60. The mirai has reduced passenger space and only 1 boot and seats that don’t fold, whilst the model 3 has a boot, a boot inside that where a fuel tank would go, foldable seats and a drunk which more generous passenger space despite the slightly smaller dimensions. Here are some facts for you to save your research. Hydrogen is made from electricity. You can’t get it without putting in energy, that’s either electricity or straight up burning fossil fuels. Let’s go with green. You need power from the grid to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is only 70% efficient at best and often is worse. It then has to be compressed and liquified cryogenically. This has a 20% loss on energy as a result. It then has to be trucked to fuel stations, losing another 20%. Then once it’s in the car, fuel cells are only about 60% efficient at best. the electricity provided by the fuel cell then goes into the batteries, the charging is around 98% efficient. Then it’s put through an inverter to generate AC current for the motor which is again 98% efficient before it goes into the electric motor which (if it’s using a Tesla motor) 97% efficient. So if you supplied 100kWh from the grid to the hydrogen production plant, you would only get 25 kWh of work out of it at the wheels. Meanwhile you could supply the same power to a BEV from the grid for charging. It goes through an inverter to charge the battery, comes out into another inverter then used in the electric motor. All this gives 80kWh of use from the original 100kWh. Hydrogen vehicles are also slow not only because they weigh more but because you can’t fit a lot of surface area for the catalytic reaction which produces the electricity from hydrogen, inside the car. Fuel cells have low power output. Only just enough to let the car cruise but not enough the adequately accelerate the car. So they use batteries. Store excess energy in them for when you need to accelerate. That’s why the mirai is slow. The mirai Has a battery rack, there is no car which runs direct from the FC. They don’t produce enough power. Simple things to google if you want to verify for yourself.
    1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. Actually gas and oil have been propping up the fuel cell vehicle Toyota released the Mirai in 2014. Infact fuel cell vehicle still receive the lions share of government subsidies and private sponsorship over BEV's. This is because you cannot make enough hydrogen using electrolysis (in other words there isnt a known way to mass produce the required amount of green hydrogen for a hydrogen based automotive economy). That means you have to get it from.... {checks notes}... fossil fuels! In addition to this, whilst BEV's can be charged from renewables and even home solar, they also dont have to go to fuel stations to get electricity with electricity being delivered to almost every single home and building in the developed world. Hydrogen however, you HAVE to go to fuel stations to get your fuel... Guess who owns a monopoly on fuel stations worldwide... guess who's single largest income is made from fuel stations and guess who's second largest capital investment has been fuel stations? FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES! so whilst BEV's do away with big oil's single largest income source and use so little electricity that they can be effectively charged from home renewables projects, This means catastrophe for gas and oil companies. Meanwhile if you go hydrogen you can pretend its green, whilst fossil fuel companies continue to provide gas oil and coal to create hydrogen from to supply the demand and sell it from their fuel stations saving their second largest capital investments and maintaining their largest income stream.... I dont think they're going to be back EV's kiddo, and they've already put their money where their mouth is in terms of funding's and donations.
    1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661.  @العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف  ahh no. EQE has a range of 410 miles. Also for the lucid air about to hit the market is close to 520 miles. As for price. What you are forgetting is the luxury and perforance you get from these vehicles. The mirai isn’t a luxury car. The model S and Mercedes’ are. What I’m getting at, is that you can put more batteries into those cars to go further. You can’t put more fuel into the mirai. That’s because hydrogen takes up enormous amounts of space. The mirai only holds 5.6L of fuel but needs almost 150L (40 gal) of fuel tank storage. (More than an F150.) aside from the battery and fuel cells it also needs. What that results in, is a large sedan which has a smaller boot than a Toyota Yaris by almost 100L and can’t even fold the rear seats down because there isn’t enough cabin space. And requires a cut out in the roof to achieve the minimum legally required headroom for rear seat passengers. Meanwhile EV’s like the model S have class leading cabin space and boot space and even have a front boot which the mirai doesn’t have. Aside from also being faster, despite also being luxury cars which are typically Much heavier, and having better range. Meaning whilst there isn’t any more space to fit more hydrogen, there in plenty more space to fit more batteries to go further. This was proven by the “ONE” battery start up which replaced Tesla batteries with their own and put in a few extra and got a range of 752 miles out of the car. Go google it if you’d like. Hydrogen doesn’t get the range it is touted to have.
    1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. well this comment is troublingly stupid. The automotive industry is by far the largest emitter of man made green house gasses accounting for almost 25% (1/4) of all man made emissions. Reducing that by 50% has a big impact. It also reduces past 50% even further as the grid slowly transitions over to renewables. If you play alot of video games. This is like a point multiplier for the grid. With the energy grid renewable and the automotive industry all EV's, you'd cut out more than 45% of all man made emissions just with those two sectors. And whilst combustion engines are becoming more efficient they are still SIGNIFICANTLY less efficient than EV's. and in terms of thermodynamics they will never ever get close to EV efficiency. EV's are significantly safer than ICE vehicles. Also matched by safety ratings of vehicle regulators in effectively every country they're sold in. these include: 1.) no engine, transmission or fuel tank gives you a larger crumple zone in the front and rear of the vehicle dramatically increasing survivability of a crash. 2.) Because batteries are mounted in the floor of the car the centre of mass sits around the wheel axel of the car making them VERY difficult to roll which also drastically increases survivability. This is what gave the Model X the title of being the first SUV in history to achieve a 5 start safety rating. 3.) according to the bureau of statistics in most countries where they are sold, the NACAP safety board in Europe, the AANCAP safety board in Australia and the NHTSA in America, among many others, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles and 5 times less likely to combustion in an accident and when they do combust they are more survivable because it often takes hours for visible flames to appear during thermal runaway and the fire spread far slower as everything isn't swimming in flammable oil. The only reason people THINK they're fire hazards is because the only time the media reports car fires is when someone famous dies, or its an EV. infact that phenomena is so prevalent worldwide that many places have done studies into that phenomena. But here is a real world anecdote for you. about 3 months ago at the traffic lights by my house a pickup spontaneously caught fire whilst sitting at the red light. The fire engulfed the car so quickly both occupants died. It didn't even make the local newsletter much less state or national television news. About a month after that an EV in south America hitting a light post at 140km/h (87 mph). Both occupants walked away from the crash. about an hour later it caught fire. It made national headlines here in Australia and front page of every newspaper. "EV CATCHES FIRE" although they only mentioned that both occupants walked away from a crash that shouldn't have been survivable in a conventional car at the very end of the article, almost in passing. so curb your hate boner.
    1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727.  @donovanh5679  transport a battery once, transport eFuel every single litre you burn every single kilometre. Significant difference. EV’s last much longer than combustion engines, batteries included. Further to that, EV’s don’t require large engine blocks and transmissions, so all up they only produce approximately 15% more emissions during manufacturing. As for energy requires from purely green energy, you can do the same for EV’s but let’s examine those energy requirements. In 2019 the world used 159 billion litres of fuel. Efuel production is only around 55% efficient before it gets to the motor, this means that 159 billion litres of fuel would require 5.4 billion MegaWatt hours to produce, meanwhile the global consumption of electricity in the same period was around 21 billion MegaWatt Hours. (Of which only 14% of it was renewable, or rains 3 billion MegaWatt Hours, far from the 5 billion). So even without it being renewable, you’d have to increase the grid capacity of the entire globe by 25%. A whole 1/4 to add. However if you wanted it green you’d have to increase the worlds green energy capacity by as much as 2.8 times what it is currently globally. almost 3 times more than the worlds current green energy capacity at least Compare that to the amount of energy required for BEV’s for driving the same distances. You’d only have to increase global energy consumption by 4%. And if we went the green energy route, from from increasing the worlds green energy by 280% you’d only need 30% increase. So ultimate energy efficiency is far from accurate. The investment in emissions even to create the required grid capacity, green or not, is enormous compared to doing the same for battery electrics.
    1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746.  @exothermal.sprocket  you seem to be conjuring up something that isn’t there. At no point have I abused anyone for disagreeing with me. If you recall you were the first one to start throwing insults. Oh rebutted a lot of your claims in your comment and you failed to defend them and even brought up more claims you were unable to defend. My goal here isn’t to harass anyone but to presents facts to people instead of reading Ill informed bullshit from people on the internet who don’t understand why they’re talking about. Case in point we were earlier talking about Scott Kilmer. I have no problem with him talking about what he knows and has experience in. But he’s a former mechanic who has never worked on or owned an EV. Him commenting on EV’s should hold about as much weight as him talking about grid fin operation and aerodynamics on a falcon rocket. Oh disapprove it of him making the Ill informed videos he does about EV’s because much of what he says can be easily rebuked with a basic google search that he apparently failed to even do. And then passes that off to his audience trying to get them to give it as much weight as his videos about diagnosing fuel pump videos. So I go to comment sections and alleviate some of the bullshit. Except some people seem to think they have a right to post bullshit on a public forum without fear of response. Sorry, the world doesn’t work like that. If you post something on a public forum, you should expect people to challenge it. Deleting your comments to run away from that fact shows a complete lack of integrity, and worse, you keep posting the same thing pretending it wasn’t ever rebuked. Which is downright dishonest. To yourself and everyone on here.
    1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. you're talking about a crystal radio... unfortunately, you can only convert radio wave energy impacting the antenna back to electrical energy. As the radios waves spread out it does so spherically, the same amount of energy has to be averaged over an ever increasing spherical surface area, making the energy logarithmically smaller with distance. I.e. at double the distance you have 10x less energy per m2. And considering that your antenna only picks up less than 0.1m2 of radio waves, thats not alot of energy to play with. The Fuel cell isnt the part that costs alot of money. Its the fuel. Hydrogen doesnt occur naturally on earth. Not in its pure state. Therefore you have to MAKE hydrogen from other substances containing it which requires an enormous amount of energy to extract. It is also notoriously difficult to contain because it not only takes up a huge amount of volume. but it also can leak through solid metal because hydrogen atoms are so small. You cant feed it entirely off renewables because of the enormous energy demands required to make hydrogen. Lastly, a combustion engine is only around 20% efficient. Whilst a fuel cell is 60% efficient. So you would need more fuel to go just as far. ALOT more fuel. Which, as previously discussed. is the expensive part. making a combustion hydrogen engine much more expensive to own and operate. For example, a Toyota Mirai carries as much fuel as it can fit, even to the detriment of boot space and cabin space without even enough boot space to hold a spare tire (not even a space saver). With the fuel cell at 60% efficient, the hydrogen car, with all that fuel on board. can only go 400 miles. A combustion hydrogen car packed to the brim with fuel, just like the mirai, would only be able to go 133 miles. for the same extremely expensive price of fuel that takes the fuel cell 400.
    1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. Probably not there either. Many of the reasons that make hydrogen bad domestics cars are exacerbated at the commercial transport level. Additionally there are 3 factors why they aren’t good for taxis either. 1.) cost 2.) volume restrictions and; 3.) lifespan. Let’s start at 1.) cost: hydrogens costs ALOT to buy. Even best case scenario it costs well over 5 times more per mile than a similar sized battery car would cost whilst currently it’s over 20x more. For a taxi, this is bad. The less they spend on fuel, the better their income. When it comes down to crunching numbers, it’s still more worthwhile for them to charge at a super charger for 10-15 minutes 2-3 times per day than it is to have a hydrogen car that can refuel faster but costs significantly more to do so. Even if the hydrogen network is complete and comprehensive. 2.) volume restrictions: hydrogen takes up ALOT of volume. The mirai for example is a model S, Toyota Camry sized car, but it’s boot space is almost a full 100L less than that of a Toyota Yaris. It’s so small it can’t physically fit a spare tire in it. Not even a cheap space saver. The back seats are also so cramped that it’s physically impossible to fold the rear seats even if you wanted to extend the boot. Which is bad to say the least. The rear passengers actually get their own cut out groove in the ceiling to give the minimum legally required headroom. What this means is that for cost per mile and space for passengers and luggage, it’s better for a taxi drive to have a Yaris than a large hydrogen sedan. Batteries on the other hand have an abundance of space. With larger than average boots, a front boot to add, and famously generous cabin space making them far more ideal for passenger transport and luggage transport. 3.) lifespan: hydrogen cars have notoriously short lifespans. The fuel cells are only rated to last around 150,000 miles whilst hydrogen cars come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their lifespan to only around 10 years or so. Meanwhile, contrary to popular belief, modern EV batteries are designed to last double the average lifespan of a combust engine yet alone a hydrogen car. So for a taxi driver, in terms of investment cost per average mile as well as depreciation, EV’s are a far better choice for this. If you want more details on why they’d be bad for freight, I’d be happy to explain further.
    1
  787.  @akashnepak504  actually I’m not. Whilst batteries do take up a lot of space. They don’t have a massive engine or transmission. They are also entirely contained in the bed of a chassis. Freeing up the rest of the car. Hydrogen on the other hand needs to be stored in edgeless high pressure tanks with 1inch thick walls. Ever put a circle into a square or rectangular frame? Notice the wasted space at the corners? With tank thickness included this gives a volumetric density less than half that of batteries. Then you also have to include an engine sized fuel cell in the front and a hybrid sized lithium battery. All of which takes up more volume again. Even just the fuel, the Mirai requires almost 150L of fuel tank volume to go its 400 miles. (5.6kg of hydrogen). This bears out in practice too. Everything I said about space is true for the mirai. Which is dimensionally similar to the Model S. The mirai goes 400 miles to a tank whilst the model S goes 412 miles. Even with the slightly longer range, unlike the mirai, it has a front boot, a massive rear boot (one of the largest in its class) and massive amounts of cabin space (again, one of the largest in its class). It doesn’t take a genius to work out that comparison for two cars with almost identical dimensions. As for battery life, old (2018-2021) Tesla batteries with their on board BMS, have a cycle life of around 1,500 cycles, to 80% health (after 1,500 cycles you’ll have 80% of your range left). For a model S with a range of 412 miles, that’s a lifespan to 80% health of 618,000 miles. With 2022 models receiving the new 4680 batteries with a lifespan of 4,000 cycles. How is this born out in real life? Quite accurately as it turns out. Model 3’S in the road today with smaller batteries than the model S, after 100,000 miles of driving, have been averaging less than 1% degradation as independently verified by multiple studies and organisation’s. So yes, modern EV batteries do last that long. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Do not. They even have an expiration date on them.
    1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792.  @akashnepak504  electrolizers use more energy than charging a battery. Because it’s an extra step. Hydrogen fuel cells provide electricity which charges a lithium battery which turns the electric motor. This is due to the lower power output and slow response times of the fuel cell. So charging, discharging and motor losses are common to both BEV’s and hydrogen, meanwhile fuel cells in labs achieve 60% efficiency, however on road they achieve 40% efficiency as they’re not being fed pure dry oxygen. Electrolysing water also has losses because you need energy to overcome the chemical bonds of water which hold the hydrogen to the oxygen. Those chemical bonds can’t just be broken without expending any energy, that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. So you will ALWAYS have energy loss through electrolysis. You also have to compress and transport the hydrogen. In total you have the electrolysis losses, compression losses, Transport losses And fuel cell losses, ALL added to the same losses a BEV faces meaning you will ALWAYS need far more energy per miles worth of hydrogen then charging a battery meaning they will ALWAYS be more expensive to operate, even ignoring the reselling chain from producer to distributor to customer with all parties wanting a profit mark up. Which is something battery electrics don’t have. Face it, hydrogen cars are just bad cars. They’re not as green, not as efficient, not as practical (volume), more expensive, have shorter lifespans, worse performance and worse safety than BEV’s. That’s what happens when You add so many extra steps to the process that you don’t need.
    1
  793. 1
  794.  @akashnepak504  seriously. You know that I own a Tesla… for the last 4 years. Not a single issue. I’m also part of an owners drivers club where we do club drives. No one else reports any issues. Aside from the fact that if the batteries only lasted 6 months they wouldn’t warranty them for 8 years who the hell are you trying to fool because it sure isn’t me. So why keep trying to lie to my face? What has you so invested that you would try to lie, even when they’re calling you out with evidence!? Further to that EV sales have been skyrocketing over the last few years and almost every major OEM has announced multiple new EV models to hit the markets. what makes you think they’ll be gone soon?! And no, fuel cell cars work by creating energy, storing it in a small lithium battery before using it to drive the motor. Because fuel cells have A.) Notoriously low power output. Not enough to accelerate the car. This is a limitation to the surface area of the catalyst. (I.eit’s size. And it’s already at engine size). B.) low responsiveness, they take time to wind up to full power, that delay would be very bad when trying to go from a stop. So I’m not the one who should think before they speak. Because I’m not the one making up complete and utter lies trying to pass them off to someone who already knows they’re lying! once again, BEV batteries have an 8 year warranty. Not less than 6 months. Do you understand what warranties are? How their periods are derived? What happens to a business that sets their warranties on their only and major product 16 time greater than you’re claiming the battery lasts? Take a guess. Every 6 months, the company has to pay for 1.5 million Teslas to get their batteries replaced for free. Tens of thousands of dollars worth for each car. every 6 months the company would have gone bankrupt back in 2012. So yeah, you’re lying. And badly
    1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. not quite that simple. no. It sounds good in theory but in practice not so much. You need the overproduction energy to prevent curtailment when underproducing. If you put it in to hydrogen, then you only get around 20% of your energy back. of 100kWh you over produce you'd only get back around 20-30kWh. Thats a huge waste and will not help with underproduction curtailment to make a stables renewables grid. Hydrogen also responds to demand too slowly. There are dozens of better ways to store that energy. If you do end up with excess after you'd assigned energy for underproduction curtailment (which as i've outlined above is extremely unlikely). Then it would be difficult to sell. You wont have regular consumers because of the intermittency of supply. Fuel stations buy fuel in advance, not when demand is needed. Because it takes time to transport the fuel. You cant rely on fuel that you have no idea how much or how little you'll be supplies until it arrives. Because of the irregular energy production patter it would make that fuel extremely undesirable to purchase for most consumers because the supply of the fuel is so unreliable. It would be like a carpenter making decking using exclusively offcuts from timber factories. It might be cheaper, but its not reliable to use for a sustainable business practice. Especially since they'd know how much timber they'd need around a week or so in advance of the job. But they'd only know how many offcuts they'd get from the timber yard when they arrive to pick up the wood. So in short, sounds good. but in practice. wont work because A.) the renewables need that overproduction energy to prevent underproduction curtailment. B.) storing it has hydrogen is extremely inefficient and unresponsive which defeats the purpose of (A.) and C.) the production of the hydrogen as a fuel would be too unreliable in a market that would demand reliability.
    1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842.  @graczmisiek4131  well firstly, BEV’s don’t catch fire. Statistically speaking BEV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. People just think they’re fire hazards because EV car fires sells. So the only car fires reported in the news are EV’s. I had a use across the street from me spontaneously combust at a set of traffic lights. 2 people died. Didn’t even make the local paper yet alone the news anywhere else. 2 weeks later an EV combusted after hitting a concrete pole at 125km/h but the flames spread so slowly that all the occupants got out of the car and everyone survived. That made the news despite it being in an entirely different country. As for the fuel tanks, they are scrapped at that point. Because of 2 reasons. The extreme pressure cycling causing fatigue stress and hydrogens unfortunately ability of embrittlement of most materials it comes into contact with, making them weaker. And it’s not just the tanks, it’s the fuel cell as well which has an extraordinary short life compared to batteries. Ironically the Mirais lithium batteries are the longest living part of the mirais powertrain. The mirai doesn’t actually get that much more range. The mirai is a mid-sized sedan. So is the Tesla model 3. The model 3 gets 325 miles of range, the mirai gets 400. Only 75 miles less. And the mirai is doing something called “hyper milling” and sorry that’s not reflective of normal driving. They have released no detail about the average speed of the Californian 1,300km run but did accidentally give away just enough information at their France 1,000 km event. Turns out to make that distance it has to average 45km/h (28mph) the entire time. Using the same technique with the a Tesla of similar range (model S, 400 mile range) it got 1,128km. So there is nothing groundbreaking about that. As for fueling, assuming you can find somewhere to fuel and that the fuel station you go to has enough hydrogen (another problem) unless you’re on a long trip. You’re wasting time. That’s because EV’s charge from home. Whilst you’re not using it. Wasting no time. Meanwhile people who top up fuel once per week at fuel stations waste 16-17 hours per year doing so. And as for the tire particulates because of weight? Check again. Model 3 is between 1,600kg and 1,840kg. The mirai of the same size class? Over 1,900kg. Sorry but the mirai weighs more. Blame the explosiveness of hydrogen for that.
    1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845.  @graczmisiek4131  gah, where to start. Again i'd like to direct your attention to the fact the hydrogen cars do not last nearly as long as battery cars do. Even without the fuel tank, which is a high pressure tank. If you dont understand of cyclic fatigue stress is in pressure tanks I would advise you to google it. But even without that, the fuel cell itself is incredibly short lived. Id also like to direct your attention to the VOLUMETRIC ENERGY DENSITY You cant physically put more fuel into a hydrogen car. It takes up too much space. Hydrogen cars are already compromised in that point. Having less boot and cabin space than similar sized cars. Making them VERY impractical. It also means you cant fit in more fuel to go any significant distance further than a fuel cell car. My point with the hypermiling was that it was done as a stunt. it does not represent normal driving. Even during the city portion they limited their speed, acceleration, deceleration and followed the peak hour traffic around the city in loops. Also worth considering that both machines use electric motors and pass their electricity through lithium batteries. What kind of magic do you think a fuel cell brings to the table to make it go further from a similar rated range? you should have realised by now that the mirai isnt the only car that becomes MORE EFFICIENCT when you're going slower. like in peak hour traffic. City driving saves as much energy for a battery car as it does for a fuel cell car. to think otherwise is naive and idiotic. Sure the hyperion does 0-60 in 2.2 seconds but look at what it loses. It is a 2 seat, 2 door NO BOOT sports car. and the price tag is estimated at several million. The Tesla Model S Plaid has a faster 0-60 than the hyperion and is a fully functional large luxury sedan with 4 doors and TWO boots. The two arent even in the same ball park. Hydrogen has to make sacrifices where batteries dont. as for charging. Super charging on the only takes between 10-20 minutes. Not hours. Further to that, on average, people only drive further than 200-400 miles per day around once or twice per year so 20 minutes multiplied by 2-3 is 40 minutes to 1 hour, opposed to 16-17 hours the average person spends chasing fuel stations. also the mirai is only about 11 inches longer in the rear than the model 3. but has exceptionally lower boot and cabin space and also weighs more. Seems like a pretty costly weight impact for 11 inches dont you think? The reason hydrogen weighs more is because the cars have to use the chassis to protect the fuel tanks. They reinforce the chassis to divert crash energy around the tanks. Whilst punctures are easily dealt with by the tanks design, tearing one open like a paper bag presents a uniquely terrifying problem. Hence they're protected by extra steel. Oh, also whilst the cost of a fuel tank environmentally isnt that much, fuel cells are, using platinum which is more toxic than anything contained in a battery. Additionally once the fuel cell and fuel system are at end of life, it would cost more to replace them than it would to just buy a new car. Meaning that while yes, batteries are not that environmentally friendly, they're more friendly than manufacturing and disposing of 2-3 entirely new cars for every one battery life. Also, FYI, lithium batteries are unrecyclable. They're around 95% recyclable. Perhaps try google. I hear it helps.
    1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850.  @graczmisiek4131  as for your comments on the Hyperion, hydrogen technology infancy and the mirai being a prototype. Sorry but the mirai isn’t a prototype. It’s a mass production car. Just like the clarity or the nexo. The mirai has been out since 2014. The leaf was released in 2010 and Tesla launched their model S (first production car) in 2012. So Tesla doesn’t have 15 years on the mirai it has two years and the industry itself only has 4 years if you include the leaf which was the first consumer owned mass production EV. The mirai has stagnated since 2014 with no considerable improvement over the last 7 years it’s been on the road. Hydrogen is also significantly less green than batteries because of how hydrogen is produced. Green hydrogen requires 3-4 times as much electricity from the same grid that charges BEV’s per mile. That’s 3-4 times the cost at least, excluding re-selling, capital and profit margins and it also means 3-4 times more emissions. As stated before hydrogen isn’t at all any significantly lighter than a BEV and in many cases heavier. BEV’s themselves aren’t much heavier than their similar sized ICE cars. They do have heavy batteries but they don’t have heavy engine blocks and transmissions. The model 3 is a mid sized luxury sedan weighing 1,840kg. In that same size and class you have the BMW 6 series at 1,900kg (same as the mirai) and the Audi A6 Quattro at 1,990kg. With the Tesla being the lightest of those 3. EV fires can be managed by something as simple as a fire blanket. It just takes re-training to deal with. Also EV’s use their brakes about 5 times less than a standard car thanks to regen braking. So that’s tired and brakes thoroughly thrown out
    1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853.  @graczmisiek4131  as I said. Batteries only have 2-4 years in hydrogen they might as well have been release in the same year. There has been no significant improvement in hydroge meanwhile electric motor and battery technology continues to improve. Most notably battery technology with Toyota releasing their solid state batteries and Tesla releasing their 4250 batteries. Fuel tank capacity of that mirai in the record was 5.6L. In almost 150L of fuel tank space. A combustion car of the same size (Toyota Camry) has a 50L tank. A Ford F-150 truck has a fuel tank size of 130L. An F150. More than double the size of the Mirai. So yeah. It takes up a lot of space. The mirai also needs a fuel cell and lithium batteries. The end result is, as I said, a boot nearly 100L smaller than a Yaris! And not even enough cabin space to fold the rear seats. Infact the 2021 mirai to fit the extra 0.6kg of fuel, had to put a special cut in, in the roof above the rear passenger seats, to get the minimum legal requirement for headroom. Increasing surface area depends on technology available. It isn’t. They’re already have the surface area maxed out on a nano materials level. How much further you think they can push that? Not very. Aside from the fact that they’re approaching 60% efficiency which is their maximum efficiency they’d ever get. It’s the hyperthetical maximum. Same as wind turbines. Because they need flow. You can’t capture all the energy because then it wouldn’t move through the fuel cell anymore. It’s easier to think of a wind turbine here. Imagine if a wind turbine captured 100% of the wind energy passing through it. The wind would stop, there would be no wind around the turbines so the turbines would stop spinning. That means the peak efficiency you can get is 60% of the energy with the other 40% being used to push the air through to continue the process. Similar with hydrogen fuel cells.
    1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862.  @graczmisiek4131  they’re just not a good concept for cars. They’re being pushed because it’s the fossil fuel industries get out of jail free card. Let me explain. If batteries take over, not only will fossil fuels be phased out entirely but so will fuel stations. The ultimate threat to the fossil fuel industry which has enjoyed a very lucrative partnership with the automotive industry. Hydrogen is their out. Hydrogen is expensive, twice the price per mile than petrol. 3 times the price of its green hydrogen. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is with fossil fuels (which are hydro-carbons). Meaning fossil fuel industry can still supply the automotive industry. Meanwhile if that goes up, then they also know the only place you refuel hydrogen is at fuel stations. Fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on fuel stations. That’s why hydrogen is pushed so hard. There are endless lies about EV’s circulating. They’re catch fire a lot, the batteries only last a few years, they’re not green because they run on coal, you’ll have to wait hours for a charge, energy grid can’t handle EV’s, BEV’s are heavier than any other cars on the road. All very blatant lies about EV’s. But hydrogen is constantly pushed as the saviour. Hydrogens the future, hydrogen is green, hydrogen can get much further than EV’s hydrogen is lighter than other cars. Again lies. Hydrogen is significantly less green than BEV’s and they don’t get much further if at all than BEV’s and they are in any significant way lighter than other cars inclusive of BEV’s. They ignore all of hydrogens flaws such as low lifespan, low power, reduced room and practicality, reduced safety, increased costs. I bet you didn’t know hydrogen cars had a expiration date printed on them until I told you. Hydrogen has received the lions share of funding for R&D. He’ll Switzerland is paying g Hyundai to trial their hydrogen trucks in Switzerland. Nobody is paying Tesla to trial their trucks. Nobody is giving Tesla $15,000 of free fuel, nobody is subsidising BEV’s to the point where you can buy a $60,000 BEV for only $18,000 and still get another $15,000 worth of free fuel. And BEV’s have only been available to consumers for 2-4 years longer than Hydrogen cars. That’s less time than it takes to even collect useable road data from the BEV’s.
    1
  863. 1
  864.  @graczmisiek4131  The performance of electric motor is dependant on the power that can be supplied to it. Fuels cells are notoriously low power and the smaller your battery is, the lower your power available is. Due to space restrictions hydrogen cannot have large batteries. The Mirai already uses a 1.6kWh Battery and still only gets 0-60 in 9.1 seconds. Either you need to allow alot more space for a larger fuel cell or alot more space for a larger battery. There is space for niether. Its actually 32% more boot space. Not 20%. Which for contexted would be like taking an entire 3rd of the boot out of the Model 3. a Third. Not to mention that without the ability to fold the seats, aside from small lugage and grocers, you forget about trying to pack anything else in there. The model 3 can fold the seats down if you want to pack things like snowboards, ikea furniture, tripods, bikes, etc etc. Once again, Im referring to realistic ranges. Both the france and california hypermiling event for the Mirai was done by Toyota as advertisements. They had teams set up, scores of people with the extress purpose of maxing out hypermiling. The only hypermiling records produced for Tesla's have been from owners arbitrarily seeing how far they can push their range. Not company sponsored events. In either case, on road use shows no practical difference between hydrogen and BEV's for range. I'm not worried about the fuel tanks design. Please read what i'm writing. The reason Hydrogen cars weigh as much and often more than BEV's is because of the extra steel used to stiffen the chassis to protect the fuel tanks. Do you know what a downside of a stiffer chassis is? reduced crumple zone and a reduced crumple zone means lower survivability which means its not as safe and to be clear, I mean not as safe compared to a BEV. I readily accept hydrogen is safter than ICE at current. There are Tesla Semi's undergoing road trails at the moment. Similarly there are Hydrogen semi's undergoing road trials as well. Heres the breakdown for you. 1.) Tesla Semi is exceeding its 500 mile range fully loaded. Hydrogen semi gets 400 miles to a full tanks. 2.) The Tesla Semi does have a 3T battery but it also doesnt have a diesel engine and transmission. So it has very little to no detriment in carrying capacity however it is heavier than the hydrogen truck. 3.) The Hydrorgen Semi still has a 75 kWh lithium battery (same size as the Tesla model 3 long range battery). 2 large 95kWh fuel cells and almost double the amount of fuel a diesel semi carries in Litres. The Tesla has a 1,000 kWh battery which we know takes up significantly less space than the hydrogen. This results in better turning circles and doesnt need custom built first trailer like the hydrodgen does (reduced verticle space. They took that for hydrogen storage.) 4.) Hyundai state that their fuel cells in those trucks are only rated to last 100,000 miles. Whilst the Tesla Semi, going off current battery cycle life, would last 750,000 miles, but Tesla are saying it will be using their new 4250 batteries which would give it lifespan of 2 million miles. 5.) The hydrogen truck cannot reach freeway speeds even when unloaded with its maximum speed being 85km/h or 52 mph. Meanwhile the tesla can reach freeways speeds crazy fast, fully loaded, up steep slopes. 6.) to top that all off hydrogen will cost trucking companies around 20x - 30x more money per mile than the Tesla Semi will. So I dont think Tesla is the ones going to be looking stupid here with the semi. I also think its very readily going to happen. and IS happening. Tesla's are already used all over the place by police, taxi companies and businessmen and salesmen. Sorry to say. Hell even police in Austrlia have Tesla's for their highway patrol cars. (not all, some of them are Tesla's). and many serciruty companies have their patrol cars as the Kona Electric. In your response to my remark about the $15K fuel incentive, do you somehow think that Hydrogen also doesnt get environmental credits? So as far as environmal credits and subsidies, Hydrogen gets everything BEV"s do, but they also get additoinal subsidies over BEV's as well as $15 fuel subsidie. And they still cant compete. Thats because Hydorgen cars are substatially lacking compared to Battery Electrics. Yes, EV's are an easier technology to make work for the automotive industry. That should be very telling. If you have to make so many sacrifices and accept so many drawbacks to shoehorn fuel cells into cars, that should tell you something. that it isnt suited for cars. "its finally taking off" - What rock are you living under, last year there were 3 hydrogen models you can buy. This year there are 2. Toyota has had just the 1 hydrogen model available for sale since 2014. Meanwhile this year Toyota announced 30 something new Battery Electric models to hit the market in 2022. "it's finally taking off" what are you taking about?
    1
  865. 1
  866.  @graczmisiek4131  the 3T battery has been proven to supply the truck for more than 500 miles of range fully loaded. So it is enough. I’m not sure how you think you wouldn’t be able to make more than 1,000. Seems like a bizarre conclusion. As for the hydrogen truck, as mentioned it already has a lithium battery the same size as a long range model 3 (75 kWh). So how you think that’s viable for mass production and the Tesla semi isn’t is beyond me. And as for refuelling. It means nothing in reality. Let me explain why. There are labour laws in almost every developed country about how long a truck driver can be behind the wheel. For example in the US, a truck driver cannot be behind the wheel for longer than 11 hours in a day. And in between 5th and 8th hours they’re required to take a minim of 30minutes break. 500 mile range of the Tesla cyber truck averages to around 9 hours driving. 400 is just shy of 8, if it travelled at freeway speeds. Which it doesn’t. It also takes 30 minutes to charge the Tesla Semi at a super charger. So when they pull over for their break they plug in and walk into the rest stop and come back 30 minutes later to continue for the other 3-4 hours driving they’re allowed to do in a day. But the majority of trucks today don’t drive further than 500 miles in a day as they’re just going from warehouse to warehouse in the same city with most of their time to loading and unloading for most of the day. So why would you purchase a hydrogen truck that has worse turning, shorter lifespan, costs 20x more per mile to drive, has less volume in the first trailer, and can’t even reach freeway speeds vs a battery truck which has none of those drawbacks. EVEN IF you had the hydrogen infrastructure for it. Which you don’t. Doesn’t make sense.
    1
  867. 1
  868.  @graczmisiek4131  ok. So Now I have time to replay to your previous long comment. So here it is. "not due to space restrictions" are you joking? the Mirai has sub standard boot space and cabin space but you think you think they left extra space to fit a bigger battery to go faster? no likely. And unless they get batteries the same sizes a full BEV's that speed isnt going to increase significantly. Sorry. "not a company sponsored events" yes thats my point. When you hire a team of experts specifically for the goal of hypermiling a single car in a controlled event. That tends to get better results than joe blogs giving it a go on the weekend. How that isnt immediately obvious to you is astounding. However the hypermiling record for the Model S, which has the same range as the Mirai at 400 miles. got 701 miles. The Mirai at the company sponsored event (which by the way was Toyotas SECOND attempt at a sponsored hypermiling event..) only got less than 20% further. I wouldn't call that significant for two vehicles with similar ranges. Again, Not sure how you think hydrogen is taking off. There were 3 models of hydrogen vehicles on the market. Now there is 2 as the Honda Clarity has discontinued production. So now there is only 2 models on the market. Why you think a car type that just lost a 3rd of its available market offing is "taking off" is beyond me. Thats like Nestle removing a third of its products from circulation due to lack of sales and saying Nestle is taking off. So again what what rock are you living under? "seats dont fold in the mirai but it does fold in some" well lets look into that. The Honda Clarity, which was a mid-sized sedan also. Seats dont fold. The Hyundai Nexo, which is a mid-sized SUV. Seats do fold. So 2 out of 3 car models or 2/3rds of hydrogen vehicles, the seats cannot fold. Not unique to those car models as for the clarity, the hydrogen variant of that car is the only clarity type to not have folding seats. Which should be telling. But I also did a bit of digging into the NEXO. Whilst the seats do fold, it has a range of 413 miles, and has a boot space of 471L. The Tesla Model X which is also a mid-sized SUV. Has a boot space of 2,367L inclusive of the 187L in the front. And with a range of 435 miles. So the Model X actually gets further than the Nexo. which is unfortunate.
    1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872.  @graczmisiek4131  “so what” volumetric entry density matters. If you had a bucket that can carry 40kg, and hold 40L of volume. You will never bake able to “scale” hydrogen to 40kg inside a 40L bucket. A car has a finite volume. Just because it’s light doesn’t mean it’s scalable. Doesn’t mean it’s practical. You can only ever fit so much in before you have to start making tough choices. Do I want more range? Or do I want more boot space or cabin space? Do I want more boot space or cabin space or do I want more performance? Like the Nexo or the Xcient, they had to make sacrifices to fit 400 miles of fuel. Batteries don’t have that problem. The model X and the Tesla semi having much higher ranges with without sacrificing performance or practicality. I’m not doubting that there are applications that hydrogen would suit better such as places that don’t have an energy grid. But they make up the minority. Not the majority. The majority of applications and places, BEV’s offer far better value for money. And “batteries won’t work in trucks, it’s a myth” how many times do I have to tell you before you accept reality, the Tesla semi is on the road today. Just like the Hyundai Xcient semi is on the road today. And yet, on road trials but real freight companies is. A multitude of environments and using I every weather condition, shows that the Tesla Semi is better in every metric. Has better volume, as much payload weight, much better range, much better lifespan and significantly cheaper to operate. These are hypotheticals. These aren’t “myths” these are on the roads right now. You can find YouTube videos of people coming across them. You need to accept reality.
    1
  873. 1
  874.  @graczmisiek4131  in what way are they not viable for mass production? Something you've continually failed to answer. All you say is "they wont work" but they do work. as for particulate emissoins. You seem to think Hydrogen doesnt emit particulate emissoins? Need I remind you that hydrogen cars weigh around the same as BEV's? Meaning similar particulate emissions. Further to that because hydrogen car batteries are so small and they are required for the fuel cell, that they cannot utiilize as much regenerative braking meaning they actually put out MORE particulate emissions than BEV's do. And whilst they do take up some air, its nothing compared to the pollution they cause by the create of every miles worth of hydrogen. As for BEV's their footprint is much less. thats because whilst they do produce alot more emissions to create a battery, their overall footprint over their life time is less. Because a battery will outlive 2-3 hydrogen cars. and a battery itself does not produce more emssions than it does to manufacture an entire car and then dispose of it multiple times. ontop of that hydrogen request at the minimum 3-4 times as much electricity from the same grid to operate per mile. PLUS needing to transport the fuel on the back of diesel trucks. So they're polluting at LEAST 3-4 times as much per mile than a BEV does over its operational life which again, makes them less friendly than BEV's. Sorry but just because one component is emissions heavy to produce once off, does not mean that the whole car over its entire lifespan is less green. Perhaps try looking at the big picture. The Xcient fuel cell truck carries around 32kg of fuel. Which requires 850L of fuel tank storage But thats for 400 miles. To get the same range as the Tesla Semi, you'd have to add another 210L of fuel tanks ontop of that bringing it to 1,060L of fuel tanks (not 500L). It also requires 75 kWh of batteries, which takes up 53L of space. It then carries not 1 but 2 95 kW fuel cells. Typical volumetric requirements of a fuel cell today is around 2.5 kW/L which requires 38L of space each or 76L combined. SO in total the power train for the Xcient will be at best 980L vs a Tesla Semi's 1,000 kWh battery pack which will take up 710L. But if we want the same range as the Tesla to make things fair, the Xcient would require a total of 1,190L. Thats not even getting into the practical wasted space of the fuel tanks (imagine the wasted space when you put a circle inside a square for example.) which means you have to waste even MORE volume than your 980L. The take away from that is that, is that you cant keep scaling before you need to make things bigger. You can only just fit the 1.6kWh battery pack into the Mirari. You cant even fit enough fuel cells into the Xcient truck to reach freeway speeds. its not scalable just because the fuel is light weight.
    1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. Not entirely true. Such as increasing power costs. It actually costs power plants a lot of money to spin down and shut down a power plant. All that energy in the generator needs to be dumped to slow it down to zero. That’s a huge loss. Also a generator not operating is a generator not making money. Regardless of staff. As part of the price of power is covering the overheads of producing power. Otherwise they’d operate at a loss which they don’t often do. Otherwise they’d shut down for good. Further to that spinning up to re-synchronise with the grid takes a lot of fuel and wasted energy. You have to burn a lot of fuel to heat up the steam and turn the generator fast enough to sync with the grid. All the while that energy and fuel is wasted. Which is a big cost again to power companies. Power companies actually prefer to keep their generators running at higher speeds for longer periods for this reason. Also because generators, like car engines, have a peak power output RPM. so at their peak power output they operate peak efficiency. The power company can produce more power for less fuel at peak output. This means cheaper overheads for the power company. Maintaining this peak power output for longer is what power plants want. Sell more product with higher profit margins. That’s why power companies offer cheap off-peak energy. 1.) to keep their generators running at peak output for as long as they can but also 2.) to delay them or even prevent them from having to shut down by incentivising demand. Multiple studies have shown that EV uptake would actually decrease energy costs. Not increase them, by saving power companies the cost of spinning down them spinning back up generators and allowing them to operate at peak efficiency for longer reducing the wholesale cost of electricity.
    1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911.  @tomster7574  What are you talking about "thousands of times more efficient getting into the car in the first place". That makes no sense. Meanwhile let me answer a few other points for you. to create hydrogen takes ALOT of energy. Infact for the energy it takes to generate 1 miles worth of hydrogen, you could have used that same energy in a BEV to travel 3 miles. and the cost of the infastructure alone offsets the impact of developing batteries which their impact has been on a steep decline since they started becoming commercially viable. For example if 1 hydro damn provides enough power to meet the needs of 1,000 BEV's, you'd need to build 3 HYDRO DAMS to power the needs of the same 1,000 people if they had hydrogen instead. Retrofitting combustion cars to burn hydrgoen is not that simple. Firstly, hydrogen cant be stored in normal tanks, or even used in normal engines. That is because hydrogen has a atomic size that is so small that it can literally leak through solid steel. Meaning you need special materials to contain the hydrogen and regular gaskets and metal wont work. Second is that hydrogen needs to be stored at pressured 32 TIMES the pressure of LPG. meaning that the pressure at which it is kept and combusted in an engine is much higher than modern engine blocks are built for. so normal fuel tanks and engine blocks wont work for hydrogen combustion. next is that hydrogen is extremely explosive. and I mean REALLY explosive. so much so that they need to be stored in tripple layered anti-puncture fuel tanks. meaning you'd have to dump out the entire fuel line to store hydrogen. temperature
    1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. Well. No. Electric is still far more efficient. It’s actually even more fuel efficient to charge your EV using a cheap portable generator than it is to use that fuel even in a modern engine. And whilst some engines do last up to a million miles through extensive and costly maintenance and re-building and re-furbishment of the engines, the majority of ICE don’t last longer than 250,000 miles. Hydrogen less so at 100,000-150,000 miles. Meanwhile contrary to popular belief, modern BEV batteries are designed to last and are showing signs of lasting up to and exceeding 500,000 miles even without all that expensive upkeep like you’d do with ICE. It should also be noted the natural performance characteristics of BEV’s over ICE or hydrogen. Then you have the cost of operation. Pre- Ukraine war fuel prices. BEV’s can operate for as little at $0.06 per mile. Petrol of a similar sized and performance car would cost $0.17-$0.20 per mile (depending if your car with similar performance takes premium or not). And for hydrogen it costs $0.23 per mile. So quite clearly electric costs significantly less than either Next you also mentioned child mining. You’re probably about to eat those words so here goes. Modern EV batteries rolling off the line in 2022, don’t use cobalt. Which is the only material in EV’s linked to child mining. Further to that most EV makers like Tesla have signed ethical sourcing agreements to only use ethical cobalt. Lastly, whilst the largest consumer of “pure” cobalt are EV’s the largest consumer of cobalt by mass which means, inclusive of cobalt based compounds and chemicals, are and by a long margin fuel refineries So whilst you want to virtue signal for “petrol heads” about EV’s potentially taking advantage of child miners, ironically petrol heads are the single biggest contributor to child mining. I’ll let they sink in.
    1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. I would love love LOVE a link to that article. because EV's cannot cause cancer, infact EMR levels recorded inside the car are lower than background levels, meaning you're getting more EMR from your phone sitting in your pocket or you typing on what ever device you're using now. In addition wifi and radio represent orders of magnitude higher EMR. All without mentioning that all of these sources dont emit ionizing EMR which would be required to cause the cell damage that leads to cancer. The next point is that whilst batteries are heavy, EV's also dont have massive engine blocks and transmissions. As a result they arent all that much more heavier than a typical ICE vehicle. Infact if you look at something like the model 3, almost a full 3rd of the market offerings in the same class and size category as the model 3 weigh more than the model 3 does. The other part is that rubber particulates from tires are called microparticle emissions which also come off brakes and most predominantly world wide, from tailpipe emissions. Microparticle emissions are microparticle emissions. The source doesnt make them any more or less dangerous aside from any chemical reactions that might occur biologically as a result however wheel rubber is biologically inert. So it wouldnt be worse than tailpipe emissions. Then you have to consider the large Pickups/utes, the large SUV and the big 4x4's and even trucks which all weigh more than current market offerings of EV's, yet their tires dont wear out any faster than any other car. But for some reason you think EV tires are wearing out faster because they.... well.. weigh less than those cars, but weigh around the same as similar cars? That doesnt logically make sense does it? In conclusion I think you're full of Sh*t and would absolutely love to see you back this up with peer reviewed scientific fact.
    1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041.  @sasquatch1554  am I? Can you supply a citation? And while yes, finite resources are a concern. That is why we need to step away from fossil fuels. There is very little left and if we don’t have a working infrastructure before they run out it’s going to be very hard to build a fossil free infrastructure without adequate energy to do so. Lithium batteries have the advantage however of being recyclable. Only less than 0.5% of the lithium on a battery is lost over its lifetime to degradation. (SEI formation trapping the ions). Unlike fossil fuels which are burnt and gone. Further to that they aren’t used every trip. Current battery technology is set to allow modern EV’s to last well over 300,000-500,000 miles depending on your battery size. One final advantage of battery technology is chemistry. Not all battery types use lithium. New battery types are being made and experimented with all the time. Just because lithium is the best solution now does not mean it will be for the next 70 years. Lithium batteries for example have only been around since 1991. Before that lead acid was the way to go. Before that it was sodium. Things are constantly changing in the battery world, Tesla is toying with different chemistries to increase service life, power density and remove cobalt with some success. Toyota are touting that they will be able to successfully produce solid state batteries which would drastically reduce manufacturing emissions and, whilst Toyota has confirmed their chemistry yet, could very easily not use lithium at all.
    1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. Hydrogen cannot use existing infrastructure. The nearest you're going to get is LPG infrastructure. However here is why that cant work. 1.) Hydrogen atoms are so small that they can leak through solid metal. not only would the containment and hoses for LPG not be suitable for this but neither would the gaskets and seals. It would leak like a pasta strainer, which is significant for a highly explosive gas with no smell. not only that but when it does leak through metal it embrittles it. significantly weakening the metal. 2.) Liquid Hydrogen needs to be stored at over 32 times the pressure of LPG. This means that the containment vessels, even if they were made of a hydrogen suitable material would not be suitable for hydrogen as it would not be able to contain the pressures required. 3.) Hydrogen has a very low inversion temperature. The inversion temperature is the temperature at which a gas goes from super cooling as its decompressed to superheating. that means whilst LPG infrastructure is designed to handle decreasing temperatures as the gas is transported or drained. Hydrogen heat up the infrastructure which means they are fundamentally incompatible. All this means is that you would have to build and entire hydrogen infrastructure from scratch. To install hydrogen at an existing fuel station you would need to bury it, not just install new hoses or pumps. You need to buy hydrogen because of how explosive it is. This means you would have to demolish the existing fuel station and re-build it from the ground up.... for every fuel station. meanwhile you can easily add a super charger or destination charger at any location which has electricity for a fraction of the cost, time, effort. Including any fuel station.
    1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129.  @derekmccord3798  The corolla isnt a great example. for starters it averaged a remarkably slow 67km/h over the course of the race (41 mph). it also had to be refuelled on average every 10.2 laps meaning it only got 46km (28.5 miles) before needing refuelling. And the amount of fuel it used is astonishing. Over the course of the race the corolla used 3 full semi trailers worth of hydrogen. which can be seen in red high pressure tanks stacked on top one another over 2 large semi trailers at the pit area. In any case for your concerns about BEV's they're a little misplaced. As far as charging stations, as long as you can connect to a wall outlet. you can charge. I have an EV. I havnt installed my home charger yet (3 years now) because i've never had the particular need to and im lazy. I use the power outlet. I drive between 100-200km in a day. and it charges fine overnight from a wall outlet while I sleep. As for if the grid can handle it or not. You likely wont get a hydrogen car expecting to use blue or brown hydrogen. as they release more emissions than if you had just used those fossil fuels as fuels in the first place. making them worse than driving an ICE car in terms of emissions. which is the only thing going for it since you have worse performance, range and practicality (cabin and boot space) with hydrogen compared to a ICE or BEV car. If you're using green hydrogen, you're using grid electricity. Yes, the same grid that charges a BEV. Except you need 3-4 times more electricity per mile to create hydrogen for the same demand. As an example if I were to drive 200km in a day, I would need 26kWh of electricity to charge my car back up. For hydrogen, if I were to drive 200km, I would need to use 97.5 kWh of grid electricity to produce enough hydrogen to replace what I had just used. a demand on the grid almost 4 times greater. So if you're worried about the grids capacity to charge BEV's. sorry. but its going to be worse with hydrogen. Unless you want to use an objectively worse car that creates more emissions than an ICE car per mile that doesn't last as long, goes slower, has less cabin and cargo space, doesn't go as far, and costs significantly more to refuel IF you can find somewhere with hydrogen. in which case, why did you buy the car? what's the advantage?
    1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136.  @MrMusic-ob2jj  well the model 3 has the highest rated drivers satisfaction than any other car on the market. I own one and it’s one of the most exciting cars I’ve ever been in. Super car levels of torque, instantly, no gear shifts, no waiting to get the sweet spot with the RPM, just instant peak torque, coupled with it having a centre of mass around the axels, means it can corner like a car with anti-sway bars, without compromising how the suspension handles the bumbs as you go around the corner. It’s to me, and everyone who’s driven my car, an anti exhilarating experience that you simply cannot get with any other type of car making it such a unique and strange sensation. There’s even a term for it called “the Tesla giggle” The only part you’re missing is the sound. Making me think that the only thing you find interesting about cars is how much noise they make. Which if that were the case (I’m sure it’s not) would be pretty sad to be perfectly honest. If the only time you feel good or enjoy something, is if everyone in a 4 block radius at 2am knows you’re around. You might benefit from some therapy. As for charging times. Far from an inconvenience most EV owners list charging as one of the biggest convenience for owners. That is because if you can charge from home, you are never waiting for a charge. The average person for 99.99% of the year, travels less than 70 miles per day, with ranges of 250-400 miles, charging from home. Whilst you’re asleep or not using the car, means never having to detour to a fuel station, standing outside on the cold, holding the pump. Statistically this saves the average person 17-18 hours per year getting fuel. So far from being an inconvenience it’s actually a convenience feature for most drivers.
    1
  1137.  @MrMusic-ob2jj  the term motorhead is loose. car enthusiast are excited about electrics. muscle car enthusiasts. not so much. What people really mean is they like the past. They like hanging onto the paradigm where if a car made a loud noise and a heavy gear change you were brought up to recognise that as power. People like what they know. People made similar arguments about horses when cars first arrived on the scene. "driving within a restricted area" not sure what you're meaning. I have no restrictions with my BEV. I have a standard range vehicle and I have to be driving for more than 3-4 hours before I need to start considering getting a charge from somewhere. luckily there is a huge network of super chargers about the place. like... HUGE. not many people realise how many thousands of rapid chargers are out there. If I do stop, its usually only for around 10-15 minutes. Because rapid chargers are much faster these days. In that time I can go get a coffee or some food. I dont have to stand there holding the plug. So i am not sure what you mean about "limited area" I have no limitations. And I live in Australia of all places. As for "problem with fires" this is a misnomer. Statistically and to be found by the NHTSA, AANCAP safety board and NCAP safety board, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to a ICE vehicle. Meanwhile hydrogen stored at 700 bar is enough to level a building. Infact the 700 bar pressure alone, even without the gas being explosive, has more energy than a hand grenade if its sufficiently ruptured. So hydrogen doesnt help there. As for the environmental impacts BEV batteries are around 95% or more recyclable. Hydrogen fuel cells on the other hand, use palladium which is EXTREMLY toxic to the environment. hard to recycle and they also use lithium batteries anyways. Additionally most hydrogen is produce by converting fossil fuels in a process dirtier than if you had used it as the fuel source in the first place. and even green hydrogen is 3-4 times dirtier per mile than Batteries. Couple that with the fact you need to dispose of and make an entire new car every 10 years or 100,000 - 150,000 miles whilst modern EV batteries last around 500,000 miles. And you have yourself a very NOT green solution with hydrogen.
    1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166.  @LWRC  why would I need to charge at the office or shopping centres? Do you need to refuel at the office or shopping centres? I just charge when I’m at home and not using the car. Never had a issue at all. What fresh crazy tinfoil bullshit are you on about now? And sure, there are plenty of other types of vehicles which can outrun the passenger vehicles Tesla makes. But why don’t you look at it this way. Compare similar type vehicles. Tesla model S is a larger luxury SUV. Similar cars in its category and price range can’t come close to its performance. The model S plaid is well and truely in super car performance realm. It’s faster than most sport based 2 seater vehicles at 3 times the price. You said your car. Not any car. What is your car? Can it do 0-60 in less than 2 seconds? Don’t think so. And where oh where would you find yourself in the position to race a another car to 150 mph (it’s 150 now right? Not 100? I’m assuming that’s because you’ve looked at the quarter mile times). And where you would do that repeatedly. No, everywhere, where it counts, on the roads, freeways, traffic light, you will always be creamed by electric. At the lights and there is a merge to a single lane ahead, too bad, eat EV’s fresh air and dust, finally opened to an overtaking lane on a freeway? Too bad. So sad. There will never be any situation which hasn’t been specifically orchestrated, wildly outside every day life to give you any energy edge you can cling to, where you win bud.
    1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276.  @bulletpointacademy  No, no. Batteries are quite clearly better the Hydrogen. Allow me to explain in the below points. 1.) Efficiency: Hydrogen is inefficient. the production of hydrogen requires between 2 to 3 times as much grid energy per km worth of hydrogen than it would if you were to use that exact same grid energy in Battery Electric vehicle. (BEV). which means if you are not on a completely green grid. Hydrogen will produce between 2-3 times more emissions per km than Battery Electric. 2.) Cost: for Battery electrics you are just taking power the grid at what ever kWh rate the power companies sell it to you as. For Hydrogen you need 2 - 3 times more energy. meaning 2-3 times more energy costs per km. To pile onto that you would also have to pay for the demineralised water used to electrolysis to produce the hydrogen or the Methane or natural gas you would get your hydrogen from. Then you also have to pay for the staff, admin, logistics, upkeep maintenance and overheads of the hydrogen production facility including a sales mark-up. Then you have to pay for the Hydrogen to be transported to fuel stations. Then you have to pay for the fuel stations overheads, staffing and profit mark-up when they sell it to the end consumer. The result is whilst Batteries (in Australia at least) average around 1.8 cents per km, ICE cars average 12 cents per km, Hydrogen can be between 15-20 cents per km. Expensive. 3.) Performance: Performance comes naturally to BEV's. Their large battery packs able to produce large amounts of energy onto demand to the electric motors. Most Electric vehicles are very very fast. Hydrogen however, not so fast. That is because the fuel cells power output is largely dependant on the surface area of the catalyst. In a vehicle that space is too small to produce adequate acceleration but enough to maintain cruising speeds. So a battery is installed in fuel cell vehicles to absorb excess energy when it is demanded so that they can draw on that to adequately accelerate. Unfortunately small batteries can only provide small charges (or smaller than larger batteries) and with much of the space of a Hydrogen vehicle already taken up by their fuel tanks and fuel cells, they cant have very large batteries. This means they are slow. Whilst you can have cars like the Hyperion which is a hydrogen vehicle which does 0-60 in 2.2 seconds, this has been streamlined to reduce drag significantly, is a 2 seater vehicle with no luggage space, and has not 1, not 2, but 3 fuel cells which reduce the space for passengers, occupants, luggage and fuel. which means less range. By comparison the new Model S does 0-60 in 1.99 seconds and is a large SUV is an extra trunk in the front, a 5 seater 4 door car with impressive passenger space and cargo space. 4.) handling: Hydrogen vehicles don't have the low centre of gravity that BEV has. This is due to the fuel tanks. This raises the centre of gravity of the vehicle, meaning less handling and agility compared to BEV's (but better than ICE) and also reduces their overall safety rating (when compared to BEV's) due to higher roll over risk. 5.) safety: Hydrogen is extremely explosive in the presence of even minute amounts of air. It is extremely volatile. This coupled with the fact that hydrogen particles are so small they can leak through solid metal, means not only do you need exotic materials to contain and handle it. But the risk of explosion is very very high. To combat this most hydrogen vehicles use fuel tanks which are heavy and bulky. Usually triple layered, anti-puncture high pressure tanks (and I do mean high pressure. Hydrogen is stored at 32x times higher pressure than LPG). They also split them into 3 different tanks and have a whole host of engineered features to prevent explosions. This includes sacrificing occupant safety. That's right, to ensure the tank does not explode, they determined that it was better to potentially kill the occupants to protect the fuel tanks. This is because an explosion if a tank is breached, could not only take out the occupants but several nearby vehicles and pedestrians. BEV's on the other hand have some of the highest safety ratings out there. This is due to the reduced risk of fire and spontaneous combustion offered by not running a high temperature engine next to combustible fuels and hydraulics, but also because without a fuel tank, engine or transmission, they can effectively double the crumpling zone which drastically improves survivability. They also have such a low centre of gravity that even a large SUV like the Model X is nearly impossible to roll over. 6.) Infrastructure: This is a 2 part answer. Firstly lets talk about fuelling infrastructure. Because hydrogen can leak through most materials and is extremely explosive and is stored at pressures 32x higher than any gas currently stored at fuel stations, for fuel stations to store hydrogen they would have to be completely torn down, Specialty tanks installed underground, and the fuel station built ontop with specialty hoses and pumps installed for hydrogen. This is a very costly exercise to undergo. By comparison BEV infrastructure can be installed relatively cheaply to anywhere that is connected to electricity. Which is to say. Nearly everywhere. Part 2 is energy infrastructure. As previously mentioned, Hydrogen requires 2-3 times more energy per km. Most people are already concerned about powering an EV dominant future. Especially if we are also overhauling to renewables. Given that, if I were to build 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 BEV's To power those same people if they had hydrogen vehicles I would need to build 2 or 3 wind farms. 7.) Refuelling: Refuelling is a good reason not to get a Hydrogen car. On average people will fill up once per week. They will detour 7 minutes to a fuel station and 7 minutes back on route. and spend 5 minutes filling and paying. This equates to between 16-17 hours per year. However for BEV's you simply charge whilst your at home and not using the car. Often while your asleep. meaning every morning, without having to go anywhere or do anything, you have effectively a full tank of gas every day. This means 0 hours wasted chasing fuel. So hydrogen in almost every way is worse than BEV. However its not all doom and gloom or hydrogen. BEV's don't have the power density and rapid charging required for long distance freight and shipping. Hydrogen however does. So whilst for domestic passenger cars, there is nearly no reason what so ever to go with hydrogen over BEV. for trucking and freight, Hydrogen will be the ideal option. This means the future will likely require both kinds of technology to move forwards. Similar to how most suburban domestic passenger cars are petrol and most freight and trucking are diesel. Most domestic passenger cars will be BEV and most freight and trucking will be hydrogen.
    1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. Myth 1.) rebuttal to your rebuttle, clean energy is actually significantly cleaner than fossil fuels. Mostly on account of not burning literally hundreds of tons of fossil fuels every single day of its operation. This is a very well founded and very undisputed fact. The only people who dispute it are under educated reporters working for media companies with ties to fossil fuel companies, pretending they have any education in any stem field what so ever. Myth 2.) only in certain states. Most places in the US and developed countries don’t have any such issues. Infact the US at large has a very robust energy grid. You will notice that Nolan refers to the national grids. Not any specific state grid such as California which is a prime example of what happens when politicians chose to play Engineer instead of politician. It’s also worth noting that EV’s typically do most of their charging during off peak hours when most generators are shut down at great cost to the operator because there isn’t enough demand. Myth 3. Most of your rebuttal here seems unhinged and aimless. However there will always be a new car market. Without out it, there wouldn’t be a second hand car market. And all good inventions or new technology has also been offered to the rich as a luxury item. Colour TV. Radio, cars, plasma TV, flat screen LCD. They were always released to the high end consumer markets first. That’s just a fact of life. However the cost savings for consumers with EV’s is significantly. Being between 10-20x cheaper per mile in relation to fuel/power costs, modern EV’s also last longer than ICE vehicles and require next to no servicing what so ever (what is there to service?) when I was studying Engineering as a student working 2 casual weekend jobs. I scrapped together enough (at a very big financial stretch) to get a loan to buy a Tesla model 3. However, I’m easily paying down the loan using the savings im making noting buying fuel or getting regular servicing. Although the upfront cost was high (and almost unachievable) the savings in operational costs has made the car easy to afford and saves me a lot of money in the long run. I’m be had it for 3 years and 110k miles and still going strong like new. Only service has been new tires at 90k miles.
    1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. most of this is incorrect. Lithium clay extraction means that the clays in otherwise uninhabitable land in Nevada could service the Lithium needs of the EV industry for the next 40 years. From a patch of Nevada alone. Also, Yes, flopped. Not just getting started, they've had no real advancements since the Mirai came out in 2014 only 2 years after the model S and 4 years after the Nissan Leaf (first mass produced EV). In 2020, there were 3 hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market which you could buy, as of late 2021, there are now 2 as Hyundai pulled its Nexo model. That means the market offering for hydrogen has reduced by 1/3rd. Also keep in mind that having to fill at a fuel station actually wastes between 16-17 hours per year for the average person, whilst going to a super charger on the rare occasion you need to do more than 3-5 hours of freeway driving in a single day, (for most people less than once per year). you only waste between 2-3 hours. Seems like a no brainer. Power production for EV's? how do you think hydrogen is produced? pixie dust? no, it used electricity from the very same grid. Meaning if you looked at efficiency loss of power production for BEV's you also have to do the same for Hydrogen. Meaning difference to the outcome will be exactly *zero*. Complaining thats not fair is like complaining both cars have to start at the same starting line for a drag race. Its stupid. for the comparison it was assumed 100kWh was supplied to a hydrogen production plant and the same 100kWh from the same power grid, was provided to a charger for a BEV. Power in the US is also NOT principally produced with coal. The US's largest power source is GAS not coal. and even then it only makes up around 36% of the energy production whilst 30% of the US's energy comes from emissions free sources. Also i'd hate to break it to you but Hydrogen isnt any good for trucks either. its just as bad for semi's as it is for cars.
    1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397.  @DanMcD80  you didn’t expressly state that no, but it is implied in your statement however so, yeah no. See lifetime emissions of a vehicle are set by, well, ya’know, their lifespan. EV’s have a longer lifespan than combustion cars these days and even if they had HALF the lifespan still have a better and smaller footprint than a combustion car does. By neglecting the lifespan of the cars after their leasing, to make the assertion that they’re worse. Clearly indicates that in your analysis, they stop serving any purpose or use afterwards which would be the same as sending it off for scrap. Which isn’t the case. You didn’t expressly state it. But like I said. I’m not a idiot. So for you to claim that because leasing companies buy new cars, that this makes them worse than combustion cars, is categorically untrue and means you are entirely neglecting the full life cycle of the vehicle. Also, FYI, between two similar sized and spec’d cars, EV’s only have to drive between 20,000-30,000 miles before their emissions break even with ICE vehicles. Leased vehicles in average travel 12-15k miles per year with an average lease term of 2-3 years meaning in most cases, they have had the same or less footprint than ICE vehicles before their leases end. Also keep in mind that the older models can be leased further to someone else for less or even retained by the same person on an extension. And like previously mentioned, when being retired by the leasing company, sell them to second hand drivers who continue to use them instead of buying a new car. You analysis is flawed. As I said before, I’m not that stupid, I don’t believe you are either. This might work on your brain dead friends or relatives but not everyone is so gullible. So either, stop making idiotic statements that are knowingly categorically untrue. Or face the fact that others are going to think you’re stupid.
    1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409.  @tylermccarren565  well firstly, hydrogen can leak through solid metal. Like and engine block. And it creates a thing called hydrogen embrittlement of metals which makes the metal weaker and brittle. Like plastic left outside in the sun for way to long. This also means it will Leak through pretty much any gasket in a combustion engines meaning you need to replace all the gaskets. It’s also Phillic to oil, so it will dry out your cylinders. All and all it drastically reduces the lifespan of your engine and to make to remotely suitable you have to rebuild the entire engine with different deals and gaskets. As for infrastructure, for similar reasons no. Not only is transporting hydrogen very difficult, so is pumping it at a fuel station. The average cost of retrofitting a gas station to dispense hydrogen is around $1.2 million per pump. By comparison we already have electricity provided to pretty much everywhere. And to install a bank of four super chargers it only costs around $0.2 million. As for energy requirements, it takes 3-4 times more grid electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen, than it does to charge 1 miles worth of power for an EV. So grid infrastructure upgrades for hydrogen cars would be 4 times greater than what you would need for EV’s. So no, EV’s need significantly less infrastructure and no, you probably won’t be converting ICE vehicles to hydrogen. Engine lifespan as one, but range is another. Final note explaining the range, 150L of tanks worth of compressed hydrogen takes a fuel cell car (which is 60% efficient) 400 miles. Combustion engines are around 20% efficient. So that same whopping 150L of hydrogen storage would only take you 130 miles in a combustion engine. Probably much less as a converted petrol engine is not designed to operate efficiently on hydrogen. Hopefully that clears things up for you.
    1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416.  @TheKingkingg  This is why people are stupid. They have a warped view on what professionals do. Anyone can regurgitate information. Thats not what doctors do and its not what Engineers do. If I design a new industrial automation system thats never been done before, thats not regurgitation. There is no text book which has a step by step instruction on how to design a never designed before process. There is no chapter in a text book titled "how to analyse volumetric energy constraints of hydrogen vehicles in comparison to battery electric vehicles that have only been on the road for a few years." you thinking that what we do is regurgitate is obscenely ignorant. We take information about the laws of physics, mathematics and physical properties to apply them to unique and vastly differing situations to determine a vastly wide range of principles or outcomes. Further to that, doctors dont do that either. especially surgeons. There isnt a step by step on how to remove a tumor of exactly the size, consistency and location as the one in their patient. There is no chapter on what to do when they have atypical vein formations in the brain. But what is probably most concerning is that you think doctors must "independently test" every medication they prescribe to know the "ingredients." There are 9.2 million medical doctors in the world. You think that they all have to independently test Paracetamol to prescribe it for a headache? How many times do you think paracetamol has to be independently tested before other doctors can know its safe or is it every single 9,200,000,000 doctors individually? If you say "oh, well then maybe not every 9.2 million, maybe like a few hundred or a few thousand in varying different application and situations should do that trick" then congratulations, you just describe the "peer review" process which defines not only the testing of known medication, but also the testing of laws of physics and mathematics. congratulations, thats what they already do you absolute nugget. But if you think doctors prescribing medication which has undergone thousands of well documented trials over several years to decades by experts in the field, is somehow irresponsible unless they thoroughly and independently test it themselves, each of the 9,2 million medical professionals out there. then you're an idiot.
    1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. How often do you travel more than 1,000 miles in a day? I'm guess not very often. Then how many times do you do that whilst towing. I'm guessing even less. Most peoples daily commutes are around 70 miles. Most modern EV's could get you to work and back plus shopping for 3-4 days in a row before being needed to charge up again. Also there is the fact that EV's are charged at home whilst you're not using it. This means 0 stops at fuel stations 99.9% of the year (your every day daily commutes). On average this represents a saving of 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel. Not to mention that EV's are typically around 10c/km cheaper to operate. For example here in Australia it costs on average around 12c/km for a petrol car with a moderate consumption of 8L/100km (29 mpg). An EV of a similar size operates for around 2c/km. So if you travelled maybe 50,000km in one year you would expect to save $4,000 on fuel alone. Further to that I have recently made the transition to EV. Whenever I would drive to the ski fields each winter (a 5 hour long drive) in my subaru I would have to stop for fuel in Bairnsdale. Since I would have been up so early and at that point have been driving for around 2.5 hours I would also stop for breakfast. This would take me around 5-10 minutes to fill up and pay, and id hang around for another 20 minutes to walk over and get breakfast from somewhere. I would do the same on the way home but for dinner. so around 30 minutes stopped going and 30 minutes stopped going back. This year I did it in my Model 3 Standard Range. I stopped twice on the way up for 20 minutes a stop. During that time I either watched Netflix in the car. On the second stop I went and got breakfast from the local bakery. On the way back I only had to stop once (going downhill saves alot of energy). I was again stopped for 20 minutes and in that time I went and got something to eat for dinner. So total amount of time stopped for fuel and food. 1 hour round trip. Total amount of time stopped for charge and food (20+20+20) 1 hour round trip. I lost no time what so ever doing a 5 hour drive in my Model 3 standard range than I did in my Subaru. However If I had a long range I would only have to stop once on the way up and not at all on the way back. but thats a different situation.
    1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. you also couldn't produce it at home or at a fuel station (not effectively) for multiple reasons. The first is volume. Hydrogen takes up alot of space. The mirai goes 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen. But that takes up a whopping 150L of fuel tank space. (thats more fuel tank capacity than a Ford F250!). So, specialty equipment to hold a dangerously volatile gas at dangerously high levels taking up a huge amount of space sorta rules out producing it at home. as for the fuel station, aside from needing the space for the equipment (assuming it has space for the tanks by default), producing hydrogen is SLOW. how slow? well consider this. In Altona in Melbourne Australia, Toyota has just set up its most modern hydrogen production facility. it used one of its old car factories for it. AN ENTIRE CAR FACTORY TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN! and it has a whopping 200kW electrolyser. Guess how much hydrogen it produces per day (24 hours straight operation)..... 80kg according to Toyota. Sounds like alot? it shouldn't. That would only be enough to fill around 14 Toyota Mirai's per day. 14 cars per day out of an entire car factory sized facility. Now scale that down to a fuel station which is maybe at best 1/5th its size, and used 1/3rd of that space for convention fuel storage and distribution. So you have a footprint maybe 1/15th the size. So you'd produce around 1/15th the hydrogen per day. Meaning you could produce.... maybe at best 1 Toyota Mirai's worth of fuel per day. Congrats, by producing hydrogen at the fuel station you're not only producing enough to refill 1 car per day with all that expensive expensive equipment you just paid for that takes up huge amounts of electricity.... when you could have spent around 1/10th the money to gotten a bank of 4 super chargers which still uses less energy per miles worth. Then try scaling that for at home as well and you quickly find that you'll be using your hydrogen faster than you can dream to make it. Sorry, but the limitations of hydrogen are serious. And its not as simple as "just paying for the water" and "just produce at the fuel station or at home"
    1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. people aren't getting hydrogen conversions. Sorry to burst that bubble. Most of those are scams. HHO systems for example. so no. Also it is worth noting that this channel also has a similar video exploring the positives of hydrogen. So if they were working for someone, they'd have their money pulled out under them a week later when they released their "why elon was wrong about hydrogen fuel" video. Although, you cant say much to defend hydrogen. Contrary to... well your belief I guess, is that the largest sponsor of fuel cell vehicles are fossil fuel companies. (surprise!) That is because, and here comes another surprise. Fossil fuel companies aren't stupid. They know many countries have already set a deadline to phase out combustion cars. And those that haven't yet, are talking about doing so. They know that gravy train is pulling out of the station. hydrogen is their solution. Think about it. The only way we currently have to create enough hydrogen to feed a hydrogen economy is by getting it from fossil fuels. So they still get to sell their largest product. The only place you can get hydrogen is from fuel stations (I know you think otherwise, we'll get to that). And guess who has a monopoly of fuel stations and who's single largest income source are fuel stations? thats right. fossil fuel companies And guess which technology they lose all of that with? thats right. batteries as batteries can be charged from home. often with home solar or off a grid that's progressively becoming more green and using less fuels. No more selling fuels. Their second largest capital investment (fuel stations) and their single largest income source are gone as well. Now you mentioned that people can produce hydrogen from home. not really because it takes so much damn energy to do it. To get it into a car you need to compress it to 700 bar. which is 100 times higher pressure than a trailer mounted air compressor. its ALOT and takes expensive and large specialty equipment to do so. Hydrogen also takes up alot of volume. the 5.6L that goes into a Toyota Mirai takes up almost 150L of fuel tank storage in specialty tanks because hydrogen can leak through and weaken solid steel. But back to the energy. it takes some 56kWh of energy to produce and compress 1kg of hydrogen (in ideal lab conditions mind you). For context an average family of 4 uses 18kWh per day. And you need 5-6kg of hydrogen to put into a car. (5.6 for the Mirai). for you to get that energy out of a wall outlet it would take you just over a week to generate 1 tank worth of fuel. With almost an entire years worth of energy for a family of 4. mind you a week to get enough hydrogen to go 400 miles. thats a rate of 0.5 miles per hour fuel production. With very expensive and large specialty equipment. So no, you're not going to be producing hydrogen at home. Meanwhile a BEV can be plugged into a wall outlet. and 75kWh later you have the same range charged up. no specialty equipment, no years worth of energy. thats it. Fossil fuel companies want hydrogen to work. thats why they get the lions share of funding both privately and from government. Thats why you and pick up the mirai which has a regular retail higher than a Tesla Model 3 performance before incentives for as little as $18k drive away with $15k of free fuel! Its also why you don't hear about the negatives of hydrogen such as the fact that they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them limiting their life to 10 years but you hear blatant misinformation about BEV's such as they're fire hazards (in reality 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely in an accident) or that they don't last long (modern EV batteries are rated to and are showing to last more than twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine). So no, fossil fuel companies arent trying to get rid of hydrogen, they're trying to prop it up. and have been trying for some time now. and trying to squash batteries at the same time. Their most lethal competitor.
    1
  1473. 1
  1474.  @mhix65  well from an Engineering standpoint, it doesnt work. Thats why people hire engineers. to work out if something works or not before they try it. He's the problem. Hydrogen takes up alot of space. especially at atmospheric pressures. A fuel cell is 60% efficient and 1kg of hydrogen makes it go 71.5 miles. 1 kg of hydrogen at atmospheric pressures is a whopping 11,126L of hydrogen. It also comes from 9L of water. Now a combustion engine thats designed from the ground up to take hydrogen is only around 20% efficient. Much less an engine converted from gas or diesel. So that turns that 71.5 miles to 24 miles worth of hydrogen. that is *IF you can isolate it in sufficient quantities. Which means compression, because I doubt you have 11 thousand litres of fuel tank storage on board. Here is another problem. Hydrogen leaks through solid metal. and any gaskets or hoses used in a combustion engine. It also has a nasty habit of embrittling metal as it passes through it which is not so good when that metal is supposed to contain controlled explosions such as in a combustion engine. What you end up with is an engine that doesn't run as efficiently, if at all, and lasts around 1/5th the lifespan. So a conversion. no. Then lets look at HHO scams. We know it takes around 48 kWh to electrolyze 1kg of hydrogen. Which means 5.3kWh to electrolyze 1L of water. That hydrogen from 1L of water will only release 4.4 kWh of energy. Of that 4.4kWh of energy if your engine is 20% efficient (likely less) than you'd be left with 0.88 kWh of energy released. It does not make up for the energy used to create the hydrogen. HHO is a scam As you said. there are no free lunches. If you produced more energy from hydrogen than you did from electrolysing it you would have made an infinite energy machine. Use the same water over and over going from water to hydrogen to water again to get more and more energy. Unfortunately, as you said. no free lunches. As I said. Scam.
    1
  1475. 1
  1476.  @mhix65  yeah no. it doesnt work. and its well explained why some people see better ecnonomy and less power whilst others see a decrease in both. (dependant on the EPU). It doesnt work because it violates the laws of physics. Think about it. I mean really think about it. You are using electricity to create hydrogen, then combining that hydrogen back into water and you're expecting to get MORE energy than you started with? are you nuts? that would be like plugging a power-board into itself and expecting it to give you unlimited electricity. it. does. not. work You may see an increase in mileage but its because of the nerfed performance. The way that works is the same as how hypermiling works. If you accelerate slower you are spending more time in lower air and rolling resistance. It also takes less power to accelerate slower. both combined means better fuel economy. If you tried driving with the same accelerations and speeds without your HHO system sucking power from the alternator for no real gain, you'd find better economy again. This has been proven time and time again empirically. You havnt invented something new. what you've done is one of two things. Water injection (which has been done since the 1940's) or you are actually electrolysing hydrogen and running it with gasoline in which case, you've nerfed your car and have effectively forced it to hypermile. and engineers categorically arent wrong all the time. If we were wrong all the time people wouldn't hire engineers would they? But they do. so spout less B.S. thanks.
    1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. Also as one of those Australians currently being Taxed per km of driving an EV. I can confirm its still cheaper than a Combustion car. I drive approximately 65,000km per year. I purchased a Tesla model 3. Excluding other cars in its performance and price range using up to 11L/100km of premium fuel, most vehicles in its size class consume 8L/100km. So if we consider that the average price of fuel in Melbourne last year was around $1.40/L. My cost of electricity is 20c/kWh. My EV consumes around 130 Wh/km according to the odometer average. That means over 65,000km it will cost me (65,000x0.13)x$0.2=$1,690 per year in electricity. (excluding free destination charging I get at lots of locations). For fuel it would cost me 8x(65,000/100)x$1.4= $7,280 per year. EV's also use regenerative braking, this means they use their brake pads 5x less often on average. The average distance before replacement of brakes and rotors for a combustion car is 80,000km, for an EV that number is 200,000km, at a cost of $700. Incrimental cost towards this between petrol and EV is (65/80)x$700= $569 towards brakes and rotors, for an EV that is (65/200)x$700 = $227. Then there is servicing. Not alot of people realise this but EV's dont actually have anything to service. The model 3 have Zero manditory regular maintenance. Infact the only thing it does have is it recommends tire rotation but that is optional in the eyes of the warrantee. Combustion cars not so much. For a combustion car, you need to do a minor $250 service every 10,000km and a $1,400 major service every 100,000 km. So the incremental service costs over the year would be ((65/10)x$250)+((65/100)x$1,400)=$2,535 and for an EV thats... well $0. So it costs me $1,917 per year to operate my Tesla Model 3. But if I had a Petrol car it would cost me $10,384 per year to operate. But we'll add in the tax, 2c per km. that adds $1,300 per year But in that state EV's also get a $100 discount towards their rego each years, so it becomes $1,200. In other words the difference is now $3,117 per year against 10,384 per year. So I get a saving of $7,267 per year in my pocket. Averaged per km, EV's cost $0.048 (4.8c) per km. For a petrol car that doesnt have the luxury features and performance of the same EV (remember above they were 11L/100km), it costs $0.16 per km. So 16c per km. I am saving around 11c per km. EV's even with the tax are significantly cheaper to operate than a petrol car.
    1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555.  @electro1622  Unfortunately, whilst you can create hydrogen from as little as 1 watt of electricity, it doesn't generate very quickly. Lets take, for example a 200kW electrolyser such as the one installed in Melbourne Australia. That 200kW electrolyser will use, over 24 hours, 4,800 kWh of electricity from the grid. It also is so large it takes up a large portion of a factory. Over that 24 hour period it will only produce approximately 80kg of hydrogen. which is enough to fill up to 14 Hydrogen Toyota Mirai's. not alot. Now lets image in you have 8 solar panels which would produce around 5 kW of electricity. Lets say its a summer day and there are no clouds, and the sun is out for around 14 hours. Due to the changing angle of the sun, the total power output would be approximately 60% of the total daylight hours so an equivalent to 8.5 hours of sunlight. 5kWh over 8.5 hours will give you 42.5 kWh. If we assume the same efficiency as the factory sized hydrogen plant, we would produce 0.71 kg of hydrogen. But we also need some of that electricity to compress the hydrogen to 700 bar to get it into the fuel tanks. Thats appoximately 85% efficient, so we've actually only made and compressed 0.6kg of hydrogen with our 5kw solar panel array. To get a full tanks worth hydrogen for a Mirai that would mean you'd need 9.3 clear sunny summer days to get enough hydrogen. Not exactly expedient or practical. Now if we collected 42.5kWh of electricity into a BEV of a similar size and range, we'd have charged the car approximately 43% which would represent 177.5 miles worth of driving (much more than your regular daily commute). Meanwhile 0.6kg of hydrogen would get you 43 miles of driving. Which is lower than your average daily commute at 70 miles. So all in all, home hydrogen production is not very practical. even before you consider the space require to store the hydrogen, the equipment to make the hydrogen via electrolysis and then the super heavy duty compressor require to compress it to 700 bar (100 times higher pressure than a typical home compressor unit).
    1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569.  @electro1622  actually there is more than infrastructure holding hydrogen back. 1.) they don’t last as long. Having to buy a new car every 5-10 years without even being able to sell it second hand is costly and not green. 2.) hydrogen has low power output. Meaning they’re typically slow. 3.) they’re expensive. The cost of fuel is 20x more expensive than charging a BEV 4.) you have to go to fuel stations whilst BEV’s can be charged from home. On average this means you waste 16-17 hours per year getting fuel which you would save by charging a BEV at home. 5.) practicality. Hydrogen is lightweight, but the drawback is it takes up ALOT of volume, with significantly less than half the volumetric energy density of batteries hydrogen cars suffer from a distinct lack of cabin and cargo space. For example the mirai, despite being bigger than say the model 3, has so little cabin space you can’t actually fold the rear seats which is a biggy since it’s boot is so small it’s almost a full 100L smaller than that of a a Toyota Yaris half it’s size whilst the model 3 has generous amount a of both with folding seats. 6.) range. Hydrogen actually doesn’t get much further than comparable BEV’s and sometimes less. The Mirai is around the same size as a Tesla Model S, but gets 402 miles whilst the Tesla gets 412. But due to space restrictions you can’t actually fit more fuel into hydrogen cars whilst battery technology continues to improve along its S curve. So, in summary, not only is infrastructure an issue, the fuel is a huge waste of electricity to make, they don’t last nearly as long, theyre slow, expensive to operate, have impractically small amount of space and all for similar or less range. Hydrogen just isn’t a good solution for cars. There is a reason they’re called fool cells
    1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584.  @RicardoPicena  the issue is that even if my calculations are wrong, the end result is not. Thermodynamics second law of energy states that there is an upper efficiency limit to everything. You are effectively using electricity to split water into hydrogen then recombing hydrogen into water to generate electricity. Its a round trip, like plugging a power board into itself. water to hydrogen to water again, to hydrogen to water, so on and so forth. If you had 100% efficiency, you would see absolutely no benefit from the motor. But there are losses, there are losses in the electrical generation, in the heat light and sound lost to combustion, in the energy required to split the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. Even the belts to transfer the mechanical energy from the crank to the alternator would have approximately a 15% loss. Nothing is 100% efficient. So you cant split water into hydrogen and oxygen to then get MORE energy by recombining it with oxygen to make water again. That wold be like plugging a power board into itself and getting unlimited electricity. Because thats what would be required. you could infinately collect the water you're making, and split that with the excess energy and use even more energy again to drive the car. It doesnt work like that. It violates the fundamental laws of physics. If you had hydrogen on its own and burnt it, then yes, but to then make hydrogen on board means the complete energy cycle is within the car. Its just going to waste energy. water to hydrogen to water. Like cable to powerboard back to cable. It cannot work.
    1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588.  @RicardoPicena  The other explaination, which is not hydrogen related, (some scammy products take advantage of this for older car engines) is that they dont split the water into hydrogen and oxygen but just inject water into the cylinders. Technically this works. This works because it rapidly cools the inside of the cylinder due to the latent heat of evaporation and the injected fuel and air at the right ratios, this means that (since cold gases are more dense) you can fit more fuel and oxygen in the cylinder than you could previously at higher temperatures. Giving a bigger kick and higher compression ratio's. However modern Engines with advanced computer monitoring already attempt to pre-cool injections without water and water just screws with the computer. You can tell which products operate this way. Such as the AquaTune you directed me to. Hydrogen burning in a combustion engine to create exhaust would release a huge amount of heat. This would maintain or even increase the heat of the engine, However water injection works by cooling the cylinders between cycles. Reducing the engine temperature considerably. One of AquaTunes claims is, quote "Lowers oil temperatures by an average of 25 degrees." That indicates to me that they arent producing magical hydrogen from some complicated and expensive cutting edge device, but by dribbling atomised water into the cylinders like they've been doing since the 1940's for aircraft engines in what amounts to a very expensive spray bottle mounted on your intake. hopefully that gives you some answers. If you have AquaTune, you're not burning hydrogen or generating hydrogen, you're just using water to cool your pistons. Its not ground breaking. its old tech that only works in older engines.
    1
  1589. 1
  1590.  @RicardoPicena  I would be open to that. I would be very interested to know if you could confirm that hydrogen is being made by the device, perhaps by disconnecting a tube and running it into a bottle and later igniting it to see if hydrogen was in there. I would like that test because I am fairy sure that you just have a water injection system (you can youtube that and see what it is). it does not involve hydrogen but does involve water and can boost your power output. But its very very cheap to do. however wont work on newer cars. I am fairly confident in my calculations, the laws of physics are called laws for a reason, Hundreds of years and not a single known a verified example of any exceptions to those laws has ever been found. I am using calculations that Engineers have used for hundreds of years to quantify and predict the outcome of designs and machines. These calculations are about as certain as 1+1=2. I can calculate how large a refrigeration unit needs to be to keep a room at -40c. I can calculate how much condensation will develop on the condenser, how close the cooling fins need to be, the flow rate of ammonia required to the cooler and the total electrical energy requirements to do so. And I can do all that with a significant degree of accuracy, I can watch it get built and see the end results for myself. After all if you're going to install a 1.2 million dollar refrigeration room you want to know it works. Engineering isnt alot of guess work. we can accurate predict outcomes with accurate information. But I dont need accurate information to tell you that in a close loop system you are never going to get more energy out than what you put in. Because that would violate the laws of physics. the same laws of physics which allow me to predict design outcomes with such high precision before they're even made.
    1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622.  @jammiedodger7040  yeah no. thats not how that works. Lets break it down. 1.) Hydrogen can be used to replace gas. But it wont be as green. Because hydrogen does not occur in its pure state naturally. you have to extract it from exclusively lower energy dense sources. Meaning it requires ALOT of energy. more than you get out of it. That energy comes from somewhere. 2.) It cant replace diesel. Firstly, hydrogen needs a spark for ignition. A modified diesel engine cannot run on hydrogen. A modified petrol engine can. But I wouldn't do that as hydrogen embrittles metals. unlike fuels its also not oil based so it will dry out the lubricated surfaces. Ultimately leading to significantly early failure of the engine. and for diesel to work significant modifications will need to be made for it to ignite. Including increasing the compression ratio to that of engines for freight trains and cargo ships, and reinforcing the pistons for explosive shock. 3.) Hydrogen combustion is not highly efficient. like most spark initiated combustion engines, they achieve around 20% efficiency for even a purpose built engine. yet alone modified petrol engine. If you want efficiency, you'll have to settle for a fuel cell which is 60% efficient at best, but in practice in vehicles it gets closer to 40%. 4.) Whilst you can fill up in minutes, you cannot charge from home. You have to find somewhere that HAS hydrogen first. Which is to say.. difficult. whilst you can get electricity pretty much everywhere. But as it is, having an BEV saves the average person around 16-17 hours per year from getting fuel from a fuel station. The same can be said for hydrogen. 5.) Whilst the fuel tanks dont get smaller over time, fuel cells dont last as long as batteries. Infact, according to Toyota and Hyundai, Fuel cells typically last 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV. As they degrade, not only do they use more fuel per km, whilst unlike BEV's means you're paying more per mile, they also reduce power output as they get older, again, something a BEV doesnt suffer from. 6.) Whilst hydrogen is light weight, You cant store alot of it because it takes up SO MUCH VOLUME Which means your races wont be very long, especially with combustion. But also, This means hydrogen wont have a high power out. either for a fuel cell or combustion. Infact the reason fuel cell cars have Lithium battery packs is because the fuel cell cannot provide enough fuel to adequately accelerate the car. Meaning you wont be doing any tracks days any time soon. In fact, Toyota's mirai only goes 0-60 in 9.2s whilst the similarly sized Tesla model S does it in less than 2 seconds. Toyotoa even put a hydrogen combustion engine into a corrola and sent to to a track day where it averaged a disappointing 45km/h and had to refuel after a disappointingly short 50km on average. Sorry but no.
    1
  1623. 1
  1624.  @jammiedodger7040  firstly, combustion of any kind is far less efficient than electric motors which sit up around the 97% efficiency mark. That’s how hybrids get such good fuel economy, they drive an electric motor, not drive their combustion engine through gears to the wheels. Second, EV’s don’t increase wear on tires. That’s a myth. Saying that EV’s chew through tires because they have the extra weight of a battery is a little like saying someone with a large SUV also chews through tires even more because of its extra weight over current model EV’s. That’s not what happens. Additionally EV’s aren’t much heavier if at all with other vehicles in its size and class category, on account of NOT having massive steel engine blocks and transmissions. Third. Why the hell do you think hydrogen doesn’t produce emissions to make? Green hydrogen uses 4x more electricity per mile than BEV’s do to charge their battery per mile. Surprise surprise they get that electricity from the grid. If you are going to argue that it’s greener because hydrogen production could use renewables. I got news for you. So can Battery Electrics, except they need 4x less renewables to be built to get just as far and unlike hydrogen, can also be charged from home solar. Environmentally friendly coal still produces emissions. Coal is a hydrocarbon. Meaning it’s made of a hydrogen carbon chain. When you burn it, the hydrogen is released as energy and combusts and you’re left with oxidised carbon. I.e. carbon dioxide. So no, that ain’t green either. And lastly, on hydrogen production. Whilst green hydrogen is a neat thing to idealise, unfortunately, it’s very VERY slow to produce, even in a huge plant. An entire car factory in Melbourne was refitted to produce green hydrogen. An entire old car assembly line. And it still only produces enough hydrogen to fill 14 mirais over 24 hours straight production. So if it operated 24/7 and you only had to fill your hydrogen car once per week. That entire factory sized hydrogen production plant could only produce enough hydrogen to supply just under 100 mirais in Melbourne. Using the same grid electricity that would charge 400 battery electric cars over the same distance. So how would you figure you could supply enough hydrogen for 1 million cars? Or 10 million cars. Or what about just the US, with 360 million drivers? You can’t. Which Leads me to my final point, if you can’t use purely green hydrogen, what do you use? Grey and brown hydrogen. Which use hydrocarbons. They separate the hydro, from the carbon to produce hydrogen. I.e made from fossil fuels like gas, coal and oil in a process that produces MORE EMISSIONS THAN IF YOU HAD JUST BURNT IT FOR FUEL IN THE FIRST PLACE Take gas steam reformation for example. You burn the gas, release carbon, to creat steam. That steam then reacts with more gas to produce hydrogen, releasing more carbon. That’s way more carbon than if you had just put that gas in an ICE car to begin with as LPG.
    1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. You do have to remember that pretty much the only people using a super charger are only those who happened to be doing road trips well past their daily commute drives (represents 0.01% of the population at any given time) and only those of whom happen to be in the same area as you at the time they need to charge. Second it’s worth noting that super chargers charge at up to 250kW. Which means if you were there for 30 minutes and you had a super long range 100KWh battery you’d charge 125% of your batteries charge. Super charging only takes between 10-15 minutes typically because you don’t roll in on your very last electron, typically at around 20-30% charge left. And you typically only charge to 90%. Meaning you’d only need to charge your battery between 60-70% or less. Which at 250kW from a super charger would take 10-15 minutes if you had a 100kWh battery pack. But for context a Tesla model Y long range has a 75kWh battery pack. So it would take even less again. No one is suggesting an over night swap to electrics. Even if every automaker on the plantet switched to EV’s for all its car models, and made them and sold them in the same production numbers they do today, and even if then everyone purchased those cars being made faster than the automakers can manufacture them, it would still take well over 30 years before we get close to 100% EV adoption. This is going to be a very VERY slow process. Most modern apartment blocks have secure parking garages with. Well you guessed it, electricity for lights and power points for cleaners etc. most people who get EV’s in these situations just as the body corporate to either install a charger or simply install a closer PowerPoint for them to charge from. We adapt. We have plenty of time to do so. Lastly, second hand EV’s are valuable. Infact the Tesla model 3, even before the covid supply shortages, has the lowest 5 year depreciation of any car ever measured. Partly due to the fact that despite common misconceptions, EV batteries actually last longer than ICE engines. If you think there isn’t a hunger in the market for secondhand EV’s, then you REALLY havn’t been paying attention.
    1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659.  @paulziegler8505  actually EV adoption has shown to reduce energy costs which I can explain if you’d like. As for the infrastructure, best estimates see battery electric uptake to be reaching 50% over the next 15-20 years. On average the energy grid increases capacity by 50% every 10 years. EV adoption isn’t flicking a switch. It will take a generation or more. There won’t be any problems with the grid. Also by comparison Charging infrastructure is cheap. For example destination chargers only cost $600 to buy and install. Many small shops, cafe’s and even shopping centres now have paid to have destination chargers installed and offer free electricity and charging to EV’s. Because it’s so cheap. If you can attract at least one more customer per day, that’s $20-$30 more revenue (or more) you’ve brought in. But it cost you the electricity which, as a pessimistic price of 28c/kWh, would be at best a 28c investment per customer and at worst, a $15 investment. But since that cost is directly proportional to the amount of time that person spends at your store, the longer they are there, the more they buy. Larger shopping centres have started installing super chargers. Because high capital and high return. But charging infrastructure is cheap. Tesla are building their own super charger network and have the largest in the world. You mark up the price of electricity from 28c/kWh to 30-35c/kWh. And people will charge from it because it’s still significantly cheaper per km than fuel. Other companies like charge fox, base their entire business model from charging. That’s all they do. Build a network and watch money come in. In saying that most destination chargers are free to use and cost the consumer nothing. Most people charge from home for the price of home electricity and sometimes discounted for EV’s. The infrastructure isn’t a problem. Either on the grid side or the charging side
    1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670.  @schopen-hauer  Well dude to the flow through required for the fuel cell it wont ever be much more than 60% efficient. Additionally, you cant make hydrogen production more than 70-80 efficient due to the energy required to break the chemical bonds to release it even under perfect circumstances. So it is always going to require far more energy from the very same grid that charges BEV's per mile. Which makes it far more expensive per mile. to drive by comparison. In addition you arent just paying for the electricity to produce hydrogen. You're also paying for transport, the capital cost of the equipment which produces the hydrogen, the water or carrier, the profit markup, logistics, staffing, admin costs of the production plant and the profit markup ONTOP of that from the fuel station which provides it. Meaning it is always going to cost SIGNIFICANTLY more to operate. Then there are the practicalities of hydrogen. Whilst hydrogen is extremely light, people neglect that it takes up ALOT of volume. The Toyota Mirai carries only 5.6 kg of hydrogen but that small amount (only enough to get it about as far as a comparative BEV currently) takes up a whopping 146L of fuel tanks. Thats more volume than a Ford F150 over double it size. But it also needs a fuel cell taking up the entire engine bay plus a Lithium battery (because fuel cells are low power output by nature. Hydrogen cars are very slow typically). That means you have significantly less cabin space and cargo space than even a comparative ICE vehicle yet alone a BEV. The practical Volumetric energy density of hydrogen is less than half that of batteries. The Mirai has a smaller boot, by almost 100L, than a Toyota Yarris half its size. We've already mentioned that they cant achieve the same speeds easily. The only hydrogen car that does achieve those speeds, is a purpose built, multi-milion dollar 2 door, 2 seat, no boot performance concept car. And it still has slower acceleration than a Tesla Model S which is a fully functioning 4 door, 5 seat TWIN BOOT large luxury family sedan. Then there is the lifespan. Fuel cells dont last very long, neither do the fuel tanks and the surrounding structure because of hydrogen embrittlement. Fuel cells only last approximately 100,000 to 150,000 miles or 10-15 years (FCEV's come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps). Whilst (contrary to popular belief) Battery Electric cars have the longest expected lifespan of any powertrain on the market, with modern batteries expected to and are showing signs of lasting up to and over 500,000 miles. As for the market. BEV's have exploded in recent years. Toyota recently announce some 30 odd new BEV models to hit the market in 2022, and making advancements in solid state batteries and almost every single auto maker is now offering at least 1 BEV option. Meanwhile, Toyota has only 1 hydrogen car offering. and has only ever had 1 hydrogen car offering. Infact there were only 3 options for hydrogen cars on the market up until recently... why Honda pulled out of hydrogen. So now there is only 2. Its reducing, not expanding. and as for development of technology? Not really. The Mirai was the first mass produced FCEV on the market. Since its initial release, its only gained around 20% more range. Its done this by increasing fuel capacity by around 14%, increase its aerodynamics by another 14%, reducing rolling resistance with modern hyper efficient tires by around 7%, and reducing the weight of the 1.6kWh Lithium battery by about 50%. It still has the same acceleration, and space compromises. In effect, the fuel cell system has not improve any, or if it has, marginally, over the last 7 years. BEV's over the last 9 have improved drastically. So the market for hydrogen is shrinking, the infrastructure never took off, because the cars are slower, more expensive to operate, more limited in refuelling, and less practical in terms of both cabin and boot space and have one of the shortest lifespans of any type of car on the road. Hydrogen cars are not the future.
    1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689.  @jrburger95  it’s actually very correct. Hydrogen energy dense but it takes up ALOT of volume. It means you simply cannot get enough mass into the cylinders for high power output in combustion. Making them slow. Toyotas demonstrator hydrogen race car which was combustion averaged an whopping 45km/h during its debut race… that’s 5km/h faster than what you’re allowed to drive in a parking lot or school zone in Australia. Then there is the fact the fuel takes up so much space to store. The mirai using a fuel cell which is 60% efficient. Whilst combustion engines for hydrogen around closer to 20% efficient. The mirai has a range of 400 miles on only 5.6kg of fuel. Except that 5.6kg of hydrogen takes up almost 150L of fuel tank storage. That’s more fuel tank volume than you’d find in a fire F259 packed into a Camry sized car. Even without a transmission block that a combustion engine needs, the mirai has so little cabin space you can’t fold the rear seats. Which is a big deal since the boot is so small it’s almost a full 100L smaller than that of a YARIS inside a Camry sized car. It’s so small infact that you can’t even fit a spare tire in the boot. Not even a space saver! But combustion is less efficient than fuel cells, so even if you could get that 150L of fuel tanks into the car WITH a transmission block ontop of it, you’d only get 130 miles instead of the fuel cells 400 miles. Congrats, you have a slower car, that doesn’t last as long (more moving parts), and has 30% the range. You really picked the diamond of the litter didn’t you! Like I said. Worst of both worlds. Plus it produces more toxic emissions than a fuel cell. Because surprise surprise, the atmosphere isn’t pure oxygen. So there’s that too.
    1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720.  @BlacXtar32  I dont think you understand the balance of issues here. Firstly whilst production of Hydrogen isnt efficient, Running hydrogen through a fuel cell to create electricity is even less efficient. Hydrogen production is approximately 70-75% efficient peak, whilst fuel cells are between 40-60% efficient peak. As for the Hyperion XP-1, you are look at a vehicle is has no boot, is very large, is only a 2 door 2 seat vehicle. Compare this to the Model S plaid. The plaid is faster, smaller, and is a 4 door luxury family sedan with a generous boot at the front and the back, and would most like be 1/10th the price of the Hyperion XP-1. Hydrogen is very gravimetrically energy dense. And its certainly volumetrically energy dense when compressed to 700 bar. However here is the problem. It has to be stored in round fuel tanks. This actually makes its volumetric energy density less than Battery Electrics by 1/4th. Due to the fact that the tanks need to be round to hold the pressure they do, meaning there isnt anywhere convenient to put them that you dont waste alot of space. What this means is that whilst hydrogen cars like the Mirai carry only 5.6kg of fuel to travel 400 miles. it takes up a whopping 149L of fuel tank space. thats well and truely more fuel tank capacity in a relatively tiny Mid-sized sedan than you'd find in an F150 more than twice its size! Another thing to consider is that Hydrogen vehicles actually weigh more than Battery Electrics. The Model 3 and the Mirai are both similar sizes and are both in the mid-sized sedan size class. The Tesla is around 1,847kg whist the Mirai is around 1900kg.
    1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740.  @fordman7479  2 reasons. 1.) volume. And 2.) power. Fuel cells have notoriously low power out put (so does combustion of hydrogen but fuel cells it’s a critical lacking). Meaning you won’t go anywhere very fast at all. Even Toyota’s hydrogen combustion demonstrator race car averages 45km/h (28mph) in the last race it competed in. There there is volume. whilst hydrogen is light weight it does take up a HUGE amount of volume. Massive. The Toyota Mirai fuel cell car has a range of 400 miles with only 5.6kg of hydrogen. But that 5.6kg needs almost 150L of fuel tank storage even at 700 bar pressure. That’s more fuel tank volume than you find in a stock Ford F-250 in a Toyota Camry sized car. It takes up so much space that you have no front trunk like an EV. The cabin is so small you can’t even fold the rear seats. Which is a big deal because that means you can’t expand the boot. Which is a whopping nearly 100L smaller than what you get in a YARIS and is so small it can’t physically fit a spare tire in it. Not even a space saver tire. Keep in mind the mirais fuel cell is supposedly 60% efficient. Combustion gets around 20% efficient. Meaning your 400 miles for the same size combustion hydrogen car with the same 150L of fuel tanks, would only get around 130 miles. Same car, same fuel capacity, 30% of the range. The mirai is a large sedan but is slow and useless. In terms of cabin space, boot space, performance and cost of ownership a taxi driver would be better off buying a Toyota Yaris than the camry sized Toyota Mirai.
    1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. I think this analysis is flawed, buy in large EV’s are still more green than hybrids but that’s not the big considering I have in mind. But I’ll get to that in a second. A new type of lithium plant is currently being built in Nevada which would extent lithium from clay. If it’s successful, that means there is now enough available lithium in Nevada to fuel the needs of. The EV industry for better half of the next century. Additionally, lithium in batteries are recyclable, fuel in cars are not, and we are fast approaching a point where we no longer have oil for fuel. Also EV’s aren’t much heavier than their competitors. Keep in mind most of the time they compare luxury EV’s against standard economy cars. Not factoring the luxury features which take up weight. For example. The model 3 is in the mid-sized luxury sedan category (not even the same size class as a Corolla btw). Also in the mid-sized luxury sedan category is the BMW 5 series and the Audi A6 Quattro. Both with similar performance and features as the model 3. The BMW weighs 1900kg, the Audi is 1990kg and the Tesla is 1850kg. The lightest of the 3. Batteries are heavy but you also don’t have an engine or transmission which are the 2 heaviest parts of an ICE. But the number 1 thing I think you havn’t considered is lifespan. Hybrids do use lithium batteries. But batteries life is dependent on cycle life. How many cycles it can do. A Tesla battery with all its battery management systems to maintain the batteries within optimal operating conditions have a cycle life currently of 1,500 cycles. With a range per cycle of 325 mile that means it had a lifespan of nearly 500,000 miles. A plug in hybrid cannot fit all those battery management systems in there and they almost exclusively don’t even bother with hybrids. This gives them a cycle life of 500 cycles on average. With a range of around 20 miles for plug in hybrids on the battery, that gives it a lifespan of 10,000 miles of battery driving to a lifespan. So you’d have to keep replacing the batteries in the hybrids and for a lot of people, it would be cheaper just to buy a new car. So sure, you could make 10 hybrids with 1 EV battery, but you’d have to build around 50 hybrids to keep up with 1 lifespan of a BEV.
    1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748.  @Tyguyborgerding  well you need to look at wholesale energy prices. The wholesale energy prices have dropped to the second lowest in the EU. What makes electricity expensive in Germany however is that the government taxes it so highly. As much as 40%. So in reality renewables are infact making electricity cheaper. (Which should be wholey unsurprising). What is making it more expensive is the government taxing the electricity so highly. As for winter, that is a known problem. Windmills don’t stop turning because it is cold, but typically wind is lower during winter. However last year was the first year Germany used more renewables than fossil fuels by kWh in their grid over the course of the year. The problem with winter in Germany is diversification. They’ve diversified sources but can’t geographically diversify as Germany is such a small country. That’s why there have been talks about a European super grid. Where German could send excess energy to Norway for pumped hydro storage (alone with every other EU nation). You could have large wind farms in countries with higher wind like scottland, and solar arrays in more sunny countries like Malta, France or Portugal. This means that whilst it might be snowey in Germany, it’s probably sunny in Portugal. If there is no wind in Germany to turn the turbines, it’s probably windy in Scotland. You can also capacitate that energy on a large scale with pumped hydro helping to pick up any deficiency and absorb over production. For example if your demand is 800MW and you’re producing 750 MW you can add the extra 50MW from the stored hydro energy. Ontop of that more reliable renewables could enter the grid in a major way such as geothermal or tidal energy.
    1
  1749. 1
  1750.  @Tyguyborgerding  Its actually the other way around. The larger you scale your renewables the more dependable they are. That statement doesnt come without its own technicalities, for example capacitance at a grid level to prevent curtailment would be required. But diversification in location as well as source both greatly increase the stability of renewables. On a local level you will be struggling to do either. That being said, renewables arent like fossil fuels or nuclear. You cant just build one, plug it into the grid and walk away. Renewables are very complicated to implement correctly. But the bennefits are significant. Cheaper energy, less emissions, less building materials, faster construction, and more significantly but least talked about, better response times, especially with some form of capacitance. A VPP can respond to grid demand within nanoseconds, so can solar and battery. On the other hand, it takes traditional power plants in the order of 5-10 seconds depending on their design. That means a sudden shift such as a shortage, earthing event, lightning strike, or other forms of failure, are significantly less likely to results in a blackout or brownout as the frequency can be stabilized within nanoseconds prevent cascading events. Thats why South Australia went from the worst least stable grid in Australia, to being the most stable grid in Australia just by investing in renewables. thats also why Germany is in the top 10 most stable grid in the world (national grids) with far less blackout or brownout events than most other countries.
    1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783.  @solarcookingTravel  you mean “accept” additionally, there is no free energy. You can’t make something out of nothing. Never have and never will. You don’t have to look far to start unraveling Stan’s BS parade. Aside from the convictions of fraud, he claimed he was a certified masters in Engineering from an Ivey league school. Except those schools have no record of him ever attending and he does not appear in any group graduation photos. Meaning he lied. He only has a high school education. He claimed he was hired by the pentagon to study alien spaceships. Which, firstly, fat chance, secondly, I’m Sure the pentagon had some more qualified people than someone who’s never achieved more than a high school educations. He also claimed his car worked on “resonance” of water. The resonant frequency of water changes depending on the water, it’s solution, impurities, current pressure (atmospheric pressure shifts) and temperature. Meaning it’s resonance is constantly on a state of flux. So there is no set frequency. Second he stated this used less energy. That’s a lie. There is a minimum amount of energy required to break a chemical bond just like there is a minimum required energy to break a stick of chalk. All resonance does is store energy in a wave. If you pushed a water wave at a stick of chalk to break it. If you kept adding energy at a resonant frequency, the chalk would break at the time by which those incremental increases of energy input into the wave accumulated in a wave powerful enough to exert that minimal required force. Similar with chemical bonds. Resonance isn’t a get out of jail free card. There is a minimum required energy. That bond is only going to break with waves, at the time that you impart enough energy into it to break it. The energy required to break it doesn’t change. It’s VERRRRRRRRY basic physics. Plugging a power board into itself doesn’t give you unlimited energy. It’s time you accept that.
    1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793.  @kupasotomotif  Actually not true. BEV's dont cost much more than their counterparts. Take the BMW M3 and the Model 3 for example. The model 3 performance is around $30K AUD cheaper than the BMW. Keep in mind that BEV's arent incentivised in Australia. They're taxed. But you get better performance, features and handling than a M3 with the Tesla. Plus operational costs are significantly cheaper both in maintenance overheads and fuel savings. As for the second part of your comment. What a ridiculous thing to say. Whilst the statement is true. Everyone wont suddenly own an EV tomorrow. At current EV adoption is fairly full pelt. There are wait lists for model 3's and other EV's as much as 9-14 months long. So even if everyone suddenly decided to buy one, they wouldn't be coming out any faster. But to give context to that, at current, the total number of EV's Ever produced worldwide is 6.5 million cars. With that many cars you could arm only less than 2% of the USA with EV's. But keep in mind, that number is global. So whilst the statement is correct. its not reflective of reality. The transition will happen slowly, over multiple decades, They're expected that ICE vehicles will begin to leave the second hand market in 40-50 years. I'll be retired before that happens. Keep in mind that the energy grid has never fail to double in capacity every 20 years since its inception. The energy grid in almost every country has always continued to increase as the demand for electricity has always continued to increase. more lights, more tv's, more phones, more tables, more computers, laptops, smart watches smart washers, dish washers, electric kettles, refrigerators. yada yada yada. So as we gradually move towards further EV adoption the grid will gradually be built to cope. thats how the world works. Presenting an unrealistic and impossible scenario to justify turning away from EV's is misleading and illogical.
    1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797.  @kupasotomotif  well no. The difference between the cheapest models of a manufacture isnt a good comparison either. As they'd be vastly different in size, performance and luxury features. Hence why I compared the Tesla Model 3 to the BMW M3, because they have similar specs, they are in the same size class and are both in the luxury vehicle category. But as I pointed out the BMW costs more than the model 3 despite having slightly worse performance. You could argue that you could compare two of the same car models but one being an EV and the other an ICE like the golf which has a petrol, diesel and EV range. however this is also not a great comparison because its not a true EV. I say that because its an electric motor and battery jammed into a combustion car chassis. The car, body and interior is built from the ground up for combustion engines. Not for being an EV which require fundamentally different design criteria. For example you wont easily get a combustion engine and transmission and exhaust into a Tesla. you'd have to give it a tiny motor, and limit the transmission size among other things. now for your main comment I promised to respond to. 1.) you dont typically take into account unexpected breakdown into the cost of ownership projection. however EV's do breakdown far less than ICE vehicles on account of having only a few hundred moving parts, instead of a few hundred thousand moving parts like an ICE vehicle has. 2.) the transition you are talking about will take some 50 years or more. that isnt sudden by any metric and is more than enough time for the grid to keep up. 3.) Because Australian media is almost exclusively owned by mining companies, politicians bought out by mining companies or Murdoch media. so much so that it even took a ground breaking record social push for the government to instigate a royal commission into media bias and monopolies. Keep in mind that Australia's EV ownership is still less than 2% and before 2021, it was less than 1%. So the first headline is fear mongering. There have been no blackouts in Australia linked to EV's or any instance where the grid hasnt been able to produce enough energy aside from natural disasters and massive breakdowns of key powerplants. So no. 4.) There are some misleading parts of the interview. For starters, it would infact take 2 days to charge a long range model 3 form a wall point. However there are two things to note here. A.) He notes that its 0-100%. unless he's rolling into his driveway on his very last electron then he wont be going from 0%. additionally that for him to drive from 100% to 0% requiring him to charge that much, he would need to be travelling the full range of the vehicle. which is around 560km. So unless he's doing 6 hours + of freeway driving per day, I dont think he needs to charge 0-100%. I actually own a model 3 and I charge from the wall outlet. It takes roughly 7 hours to charge from a wall outlet for the 120km I drive each day when I am home between my 8 hour works shifts for around 14 hours. Which is more than enough time to charge before I get up in the morning to start again. B.) he did note it was from a wall outlet. Tesla along with most other EV's actually come with their own home chargers you need to install for level 2 charging. Which means he would be able to fully charge his EV at home from 0-100% in 4 hours. However it costs around $200-$300 to install the home charger that comes with the car. And whilst the device can be installed and used outdoors, some people like myself who are renting, or living in apartments with communal parking, might have trouble installing their home chargers. (I was renting I just moved into my new house and I havnt gotten around to installing mine yet.) 5.) you maths on the power is bad. Australian homes operate nominally around 240V by 10A for outlet power. Home chargers operate at between 16-32 amps depending on how it is installed. Keep in mind, you can have your washing machine, laptop, refrigerator, air-conditioning etc etc, all connected to separate 10A plugs each. Using a home charger would be the equivalent power draw to turning on 3 electric kettles at once to put that into context. However it also matters how long this draws for. If its drawing 24/7, thats a big deal, if its drawing for 1 hour each night. less so. Tesla level 2 home charging isnt 100-200 amps, its 16-32 amps for Tesla chargers but anything over 40 amps is regarded as level 3.
    1
  1798.  @kupasotomotif  I am not familiar with either of those cars. But if comparing cars on cost basis you have to compare on an even playing field. Comparing the cost of a ford raptor with a Toyota Corolla isn’t a good way to decide if ford cars are more expensive than Toyota cars. You need similar cars. That’s why I say you need similar size, class, performance and features to compare EV to ICE to get a good indication of cost. Porsche sell almost exclusively luxury and performance cars. That doesn’t mean cars from Porsche are more expensive. Because you might find cars with similar size, performance, class and luxury features/finish, from the likes of Ford, costed similarly. Ford just also sell cheaper smaller cars which aren’t comparable to the performance or quality of a Porsche. 1.) cars, electric motors and batteries aren’t new technologies. Their application in this case is new. But those technologies are well known. 2.) there is a limit to how many EV’s you can produce per year. There is also a limit to peoples financial abilities to buy new cars. Most people will need to wait for EV’s to penetrate into the second hand market which will take 5-10 years on its own. There is also a limit to the practicality of some people to own one. Renters are disincentivised from buying one as they can’t install a home charger. People who don’t have driveways would avoid EV’s. People with communal parking like apartment blocks would also avoid buying one. There will be a long period of reluctant change in these areas. For example on-street charging for people who don’t have driveways or slowly building enough pressure to get the apartment block super to install charging bays. And how they are regulated. That will all take a long long time. 4.) yes. 5.) yes, but in comparison to day time use, very little. Night time is off peak. Power consumption is at its lowest. The grid is more than capable of handling that. But if everyone charged during the day during peak times, that might be a different story.
    1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. you dont consume batteries to run the vehicle. in addtion if you look at the practical VOLUMETRIC energy densities, you find that whilst hydrogen is alot lighter, takes up WAYY more volume. To the point of impracticality. The mirai for example is a mid-sized sedan just like the model 3. (albeit the model 3 is a little smaller which makes the comparison worse). The mirai has so little trunk space (and no frunk space like the model 3) that its a whopping 100L less than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size! It has so little cabin space that the rear seats cant physically fold to expand your very small boot into the cabin if you want to put anything big in there. The model 3 however has one of the most spacious cabins in it class, and the second largest boot in its class and a front boot as well. All for only 50 miles less range to a charge/tank than the mirai. Despite also being faster, safer and longer lasting. You seem to think EV's will "litter" the world. But you are forgetting that batteries are appoximately 95% recyclable. Infact companies such as Tesla recycle all their own batteries after use in-house. You also seem to forget that modern EV's will last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles whilst the mirai's fuel cell isnt rated to last longer than 150,000 miles and 10 years for the fuel tanks, which ever come first. So you'd need to mine, smelt, machine and manufacture, then use, then dispose of 2-3 whole hydrogen cars to meet the service life of one equivalent BEV. And you say BEV's are going to litter the earth. Weird logic if you ask me.
    1
  1812. 1
  1813. Not strictly true. Electric vehicles today are set to last more than 500,000 miles. More than double the average lifespan of an ICE car. Current hydrogen technology places the life of the fuel cell at 250,000 miles and less for the onboard batteries (as life is largely dependent on the size of the battery. Bigger battery, longer life). As for performance, hydrogen vehicles do have electric motors, true. But not the ability to run them like BEV’s do. The fuel cells don’t have enough power output to adequately accelerate the car. As such it needs to put its energy into battery storage if it’s going to adequately accelerate the car. This energy in a smaller battery bottlenecks the car between output for launch or sudden acceleration, and battery life/health. Which isn’t a big a problem for a BEV, as the batteries are significantly larger. In additon, FCEV’s run very VERY hot. So sudden acceleration would require much large energy losses to cooling. And ONTOP of that, due to the use of heavy, triple layered, anti puncture fuel tanks, hydrogen vehicles are, but-in-large, heavier than their BEV counterparts. BEV’s also have the ability to boost their performance by adding super capacitors to the motors. This, whilst would boost performance on a hydrogen car also, likely won’t be widely implemented as you are now tripling the energy storage systems you have to manage and balance at all times. This will often be too much for the platforms they’re installed on (not all. You will get performance hydrogen by the average hydrogen car won’t perform as well as BEV).
    1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. well, actually hydrogen in a very big way supports the petro companies. firstly the cheapest and most common way to create hydrogen is with well... natural gas, the next runners up is with coal and oil. Meanwhile Battery Electrics which are taking off can be charged on home solar if you wanted to. Meanwhile, you need to go to fuel stations to get your hydrogen. Fuel stations petro companies understandably hold a monopoloy over. Whilst BEV's charge from home and never need to visit one. Fuel stations which represent the second largest capital expenditure and single largest income stream from petro companies. Fossil fuel companies have been relentlessly pushing hydrogen. they spin the whole myth that they're the underdog to try to win favour. Thats why you never hear the bad things about hydrogen but always hear lies about BEV's. Some lies about BEV's which are commonly spread: - they're fire hazzards - false - They're short lived and you need to replace the batteries every few years - false - They only have short ranges - false - They expensive to own and maintain - very false - They're worse for the environment - also very false Some things people leave out about hydrogen cars - They have dramatically less cabin and boot space than regular cars yet alone BEV's - They inherently slow - They are more dangerous - They are actually very short lived with the fuel cell only lasting 150,000 miles. - They come off the Assembly line with an expiration date printed on them for 10 years. - They are Expensive to fuel, even by fossil fuel standards - Most hydrogen is definitely NOT green and is actually worse than burning fossil fuels. - They use 3-4 times more grid electricity per mile than BEV's do. Making them higher demand for the energy grid. Are you starting to see a trend?
    1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. This whole post is ironic the moment you mentioned critical thinking. Firstly modern EV batteries last approximately twice the lifespan of a combustion engine. Its also directly related to the size of the battery, which is important considering that hydrogen cars also use Lithium batteries around the size of a hybrid battery. Since this is significantly smaller it has to be retired much sooner, however not as soon as the car. because the fuel cells are only rated to last around half the average lifespan of a combustion engine and the rest of the car rolls off the assembly line with an expiration date for 10 years time. so you need to completely build and retire a whole hydrogen car 2-3 times for every BEV lifespan. Which categorically makes it more heavy on mining and emissions aside from the fact that hydrogen generation creates significantly more emissions than a BEV generates per mile. Another factor is that Lithium batteries arent 100% recyclable (really nothing is) but is is <96% recyclable. Inclusive of all the rare earth metals. Most of what isn't recyclable is the electrolytic fluid in the batteries which can be broken down to safe organic states or repurposed. Another part is the child labour. Whilst the most recent Tesla battery the 4680 battery doesnt even use Cobalt Tesla along with other EV manufacturers have signed ethical sourcing agreements as to not use child mined cobalt. however what is ironic is that whilst batteries are the largest consumer of pure cobalt they are not the largest consumer of Cobalt by mass which includes cobalt based compounds, chemicals and materials. The largest consumer of cobalt BY MASS are none other than.. dun dun daaaa, FUEL REFINERIES! Bet you didnt see that coming. As for Hydrogen, the only way to mass produce enough hydrogen to supply a national domestic hydrogen fleet is with... dun dun daa! Fossil fuel! which are hydro-carbons. 10 points if you can guess what the hydro in hydro-carbons references. As for elon musk trying to profit on stupid people. Every business seeks to maximise profit. thats how it works. however the doesnt mean he is wrong about hydrogen. Hydrogen, even green hydrogen, requiring 3-4 times more electricity to produce per mile than batteries use. They are also much slower and shorter lived than batteries, Whilst hydrogen is light weight it takes up a huge amount of volume with all hydrogen vehicles on the market being extremely compromised in cabin and boot space making them effectively impractical to buy. Hydrogen fueling networks are extremely costly to build with a fuel station retrofit costing around $1.2 million whilst a super charger costs $50k and even then you can charge from home with a standard wall outlet. You cant get hydrogen at home either. Hydrogen does go as far as similar sized battery vehicles in range because they dont have the space to put the fuel and the fuel itself is much more expensive owing to the cost of the equipment used to make it, the increased resources and energy required to make it and the fact it has to be sold from creator, to distributor to customer with everyone taking a share of profit along the way making hydrogen incredibly expensive. They're just not good cars by comparison. Thats why he calls them "fool cells"
    1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863.  @ImageLoX  As I said, Hydrogen vehicles are not suited for the domestic vehicle market. They wont be successful there. Hydrogen can be successful in other areas but not for domestic vehicles. When you compare them with BEV's they are heavier (yes, heavier), Slower, handle worse, are less safe, less convenient and significantly more expensive. And if those metric weren't enough, they also have a fatal lacking of space due to the volume hydrogen takes up. Meaning you get less cabin and storage space in hydrogen vehicles than even ICE vehicles yet alone combustion cars. The fact that it takes 3 times more energy alone from the same grid to produce 1 mile worth of hydrogen than if you had just used that energy to charge a BEV means that Hydrogen will never be cheaper than a BEV per mile in operational costs. thats without plant overheads, profit markups from the plant, profit markups ontop of that for the fuel station, transportation, cost of water etc etc etc. Further to that end, infrastructure is also critically more expensive. It costs on average $1.5 million to retrofit a fuel station to supply hydrogen. $1.5 million. A bay of super chargers costs $200,000. Thats 7.5 times more for a hydrogen station than a super charging station. I also said earlier they are less convenient. Thats because for most people (not all but the majority) they can charge at home when they're not using their BEV. As most homes have electricity. thats on average 0 hours spend per year chasing fuel if you can charge at home while you're asleep. People who have to refuel often do so around once per week. This means they spend on average 16-17 hours per year chasing fuel. Less convenient. Sure if you take longer trips you spend more time charging from a super charger network. But that amounts to an extra 1.5 hours for a 1,000 miles road trip which someone might take as regularly as once or twice a year. So it doesnt come close to breaking even for time. As for range, Hydrogen doesnt offer much in that area either. Again due to the large volume hydrogen takes up. Consider the Hydrogen FCEV Mid-sized sedan, the Toyota Mira against the Battery Electric Mid-sized sedan the Tesla Model 3. The model 3 has a range of 325 miles. Whilst the Mirai has a range of 400 miles. only 75 miles more. and for what? The Model 3 has huge amounts of storage and cabin space with extra space in the front. The Mirai has less boot space than a Toyota Yarris despite being double the size and has so little cabin space you cant physically fold the rear seats to make more storage room. The Model 3 does 0-60 in 3.2s. The Mirai does it in 9.2s. For 75 more miles you have the pain of constantly refuelling every week. borderline unusable amount of storage space, abysmal performance, reduced safety, and operational costs per miles around 15-20 times more per mile. There is no real advantage for hydrogen in the domestic vehicle market.
    1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899.  @n.d.1011  well to begin with. No, EV batteries are generally accepted to be greater than 95% efficient recyclable. Fuel cells also use palladium which is incredibly toxic to people and the environment. As mentioned in my previous comment not only do hydrogen cars also use lithium batteries because the fuel cells dont produce enough power to adequately accelerate the car, but they also only last around 150,000 miles or less. Getting less efficient as it goes on (using more fuel). Whilst a BEV will last 4-5 times that lifespan. So no, I wouldn't say building 4-5 new cars to accommodate the life of 1 BEV is "on parr" Also utilising hydrogen for renewable energy storage is counter productive and inefficient. Renewables need storage, not to palm it off to vehicles or to be used for something else but to cover energy production when renewables are underperforming to stabilise the fluctuations in renewable generation. So selling that as fuel serves little purpose other than to compromise the stability of your own grid. And the excess wont be enough to fuel many vehicles and definitely not reliable enough to fuel a hydrogen economy. Then its also inefficient. If you put say 100MWh into hydrogen storage, by the time you get it back as electricity you'd only have 20-30MWh left. So you're throwing the majority of the energy down the drain because you might be able to use it as an unreliable source of fuel to compromise the operation of your energy grid. Meanwhile almost every other form of grid energy storage is far more efficient. Compressed air storage, liquid salt, kinetic, battery electric, hydroelectric, thermoelectric the list goes on. its all far more efficient and more responsive than hydrogen with the benefit of also not being explosive. So whilst its a novel idea to use excess renewable energy to produce car fuel. its not practical in the least to do so.
    1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. Have you read the wells to wheels reports? The emissions put out by EV’s during manufacturing is only about 15% more than an ICE Vehicle. Which equates to around 1T. Meanwhile during their operational life, even on a coal only grid, EV’s will produce 20-30T less emissions over their operational life whilst their end of life is generally agreed to be comparable to one another in terms of impacts. Hydrogen however is most commonly made from splitting hydro-Carbons where the carbon is released into atmosphere. I.e more fossil fuels. In addition hydrogen requires much much more energy to split. If you follow the efficiencies between hydrogen and batteries you find that per km a hydrogen vehicle will need double the amount of electricity from the very same grid per km of travel. In addition to this if you were to make green hydrogen through electrolysis, you would need 3 times the energy. So if 1 wind far can power the needs of 100 BEV’s, you would need 3 wind farms to power the needs of 100 hydrogen cars. Meaning you need to build 3 times the grid infrastructure. Which has its own carbon footprint. Lastly, hydrogen cars do use large batteries, not as large as BEV’s but larger than hybrids. Because the fuel cell to fit in the car has a small surface area and thus low power output. Especially for acceleration. Which is why they’re so slow. Further to that, the manufacturing impacts aren’t as severe as BEV’s, for hydrogen they are still worse than ICE vehicles. Making a fuel cell with palladium isn’t an energy friendly process. Neither is making 3 triple layered, high density, high pressure, anti-puncture fuel tanks with high density high pressure fuel lines. Because hydrogen particles are so small, they can leak out of almost anything and become extremely explosive in the presence of even a little air. For example, anything designed to contain propane or natural gas. will almost definitely leak hydrogen.
    1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. actually probably not. Whilst hydrogen is lighter than batteries it suffers from three major drawbacks when it comes to trucking. Power, *Volume and Cost Batteries provide significantly more power to the trucks giving them better road handling characteristics. I'll back that up with practical examples further down. But also importantly is that Hydrogen requires around twice the volume for storage than Batteries do. Meaning you don't actually have enough space to get significant range out of it. Especially when you have to shoe horn other things in there to compensate for the lack of power such as additional fuel cells, massive lithium batteries (yes, I know) and even an 8 speed transmission because it cant supply enough power to the electric motors. All of which takes up even more space. and finally, Hydrogen is expensive. VERY expensive. and will always be far more expensive than running a Battery Electric So lets look at practical comparison. The Tesla semi has been doing on-road trials with shipping companies. You can find plenty of videos online of them on the road in these trails. Here is what we know about it. -Range fully loaded is 500 miles -Has an extraordinarily fast 0-60 fully loaded, even up a steep hill. -Can reach freeway speeds fully loaded. -Does not have a transmission and is direct drive from the motors. -The above space saving means a typically better turning circle than a typical semi. -Operates for around $0.5 per mile. -Has a lifespan over 1 million miles Lets compare that to the Hyundai Hydrogen Semi. -It has a range of 400 miles fully loaded -It cannot reach freeway speeds even when unloaded increasing transit times which means more overheads to pay drivers meaning more expensive for the companies. -It has an 8 speed transmission and 2 x 95kW fuel cells -Has over 800L of fuel tanks, almost double that of a typical semi. -Has a 75kWh Lithium Battery (same size as a Tesla Model 3 Long Range battery) -To fit everything in the first trailer needs to be an expensive custom trailer with reduced height and the wheel base is extended to fit fuel tanks giving it a worse turning circle. -Costs around $1.32 per mile according to current fuel prices. -Has a life span of only 150,000 miles. So compared to battery electric trucks, Hydrogen trucks are considerably more expensive, increases driver overhead costs because they're slow, are less manoeuvrable, have reduced trailer volume, have less range, all for a significantly shorter lifepsan. So.... yeah, for freight hydrogen isn't really a go-er either.
    1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971.  @abbiebeast  you do realise that Mechanical Engineering specialises in cycle efficiencies, energy quantification and thermodynamics analysis right? And isn’t it interesting that you have decided not to explain why it is “categorically inaccurate” despite apparently chomping at the bit to comment. Strange. The efficiencies I used are easily verified through google, and research papers. The emission figures for combustion vehicles is chemically based. Combined with fuel consumption accounts for all efficiency losses. The emissions figure for coal fire power plants is based on governments estimations, it is a total figure per kWh that leaves the plant so it’s accounting for all efficiency losses in the power plant. As it is emissions per kWh, not emissions per kg of fuel as an example. The average line losses from plant to node is from US department of Energy data, there will be variations but assuming we’re not analysing for every 135 million individual homes in the US, the average seems appropriate because it’s well… the average. The Teslas consumption is based on EPA range compared with battery size. If the car stored an amount of energy, and it travels a set distance on that energy you can find it’s consumption including any efficiency losses. So the only other loss to account for is charging. Technically I counted motor loss twice because the above energy consumption would have included those losses. So please, elaborate, where exactly was I “categorically incorrect”
    1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. the point is that the cheapest and easiest way to produce hydrogen on mass is with fossil fuels. Also the only way to distribute it effectively is through fuel stations. Which fossil fuel companies also own a monopoly on. In a future where governments and phasing out combustion engine cars, hydrogen is the only option for fossil fuel companies. so they push them hard. They hide all the massive negatives and downsides to hydrogen whilst actively fund dis-information campaigns for BEV's. Here is an example. Lies pushed about EV's: 1.) they're fire hazards, they are actually around 11 times safer than ICE for spontaneous combustion and 5 times safer in a crash in relation to catching fire. 2.) They have short life spans, But modern EV's have lifespans around 500,000 miles or more which is double that of a standard ICE. 3.) they're heavy and the tires wear out faster. Tires dont wear out faster on thinks like Ford F150's why would they wear faster on a BEV? additionally they dont weigh more than other cars typically in their class. Because whilst the batteries are heavy, they also dont have massive engine blocks and a 6 speed transmission. 4.) They're only for city run abouts - Modern EV's have ranges pushing above 300-400 miles to a charge. Way more than your daily commute and super charging today can take as little as 5-10 minutes. 5.) You'll be waiting hours for it to charge. - You typically charge EV's at home. When you're asleep. Far from wasting time this saves the average person around 16-17 hours per year getting fuel as every morning you wake up to effectively a full tank of gas. 6.) they run on coal therefore they're worse. Even on a fully coal grid EV's a much greener than ICE cars, even before considering fuel refining. But even then the majoriy of electricity in the US nationally is gas, not coal. and that majority is only 34% of the total energy production with around 32% being made from emission free sources making them greener again. Things nobody talks about in relation to Hydrogen: 1.) they extremely short lived. The fuel cells alone only last around 150,000 miles according to Hyundai and Toyota. They also come off the assembly line with an 10 year expiration date printed on the fuel caps 2.) they are VERY slow. Fuel cells are notoriously low power output. To make them practically fast, you need to make the car impartial as a daily driver. 3.) whilst hydrogen is extremely light weight, it takes up a HUGE amount of volume. You will get literally more cabin space and boot space in a Toyota Yaris than in a Toyota Mirai even though the mirai is twice the size of the yaris. 4.) they dont Acutally get much further than similar sized BEV's if any further at all. The long range Model S is probably the closest to the Mirai dimensionally, and it goes 412 miles to a charge whilst the Mirai only gets 402. And you have alot of extra space if Tesla wanted to add more batteries, but the Mirai has no space to add extra fuel tanks as previously discussed. 5.) most hydrogen fuel is made with fossil fuels 6.) even green hydrogen uses 3-4 times more grid energy per mile than if you had used that same grid energy to charge a BEV. Clearly, when comparing how the two are talked about in the media and "news articles" there is definitely an agenda being pushed. and its definitely not against hydrogen like most people think it is. (for some reason most people think big oil wants to prop up BEV's and are running a campaign against hydrogen. yet another narrative lie)
    1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. Fossil fuel companies are trying to artificially float hydrogen against EV's. Not the other way around. Most fuel companies are well aware alot of first world countries have set deadlines for fossil fuel car sales to be phased out. they're not stupid. They back hydrogen and are pushing it. Thats because hydrogen is primarily made with and most cheaply made with... you guessed it, fossil fuels, Coal gas or oil. (because they're hydro-carbons). Additionally, you can only get hydrogen from a fuel station. Who owns a monopoly on fuel stations? fossil fuel companies infact fuel stations are the second largest capital investment, all that land and infrastructure just to sell fuel. Imagine the blow they'd take if all that was made worthless overnight by EV's? ooff. thats their single largest income stream, and second largest capital investment... gone! Hydrogen is their only solution. thats why you keep hearing why hydrogen is great. you never hear that hydrogen doesnt get as far as similar sized BEV's, that they're slow, that they have no boot space (mirai has a smaller boot than a Yaris) that they last 1/4 the lifespan of BEV's or that they roll off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on them for 10 years life before you have to replace the car. those little details are kept from people. Meanwhile they try to smear BEV's to downplay the competition, trying to convince people they'd stand around waiting for a charge, when you save more time charging at home than you do going to a fuel station. that the batteries dont last long even thought modern EV batteries last twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine, that they're expensive to maintain even thought they have nothing to service, or that they're fire hazards despite almost every automotive safety board and multiple statistical bodies declaring they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to an ICE vehicle and when they do combust they're safer, because the fire moves slowly, often smoking for hours before visible flames appear, unlike combustion cars which typically are fully engulfed with flames within the first 60 seconds. so no, they're not being "annihilated* by fossil fuel companies, they're being artificially floated by fossil fuel companies because its their last option to keep afloat. if the world transitions to batteries, no one needs fuel stations, no one needs fossil fuels for vehicles, you can charge at home off home solar. they'd be done. and they're not stupid. they know this.
    1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. Here are some problems with that. In terms of $$ investment in Hydrogen technology vs battery technology, Hydrogen wins out by a long margin. They also have a much more positive media spin which is why you'll be suprised below with some misconceptions about EV"s people have lied to you about and the downsides of hydrogen everyone hid from you. 1.) Hydrogen is not a far better technology. Fuels cells are notoriously slow at producing electricity, hydrogen, as a base of physics not technology, requires 3-4 times as much electricity to produce per miles worth than batteries need to charge, aside from that they are incredibly short lived compared to batteries and whilst hydrogen is lightweight, it takes up an incredible amount of volume. meaning the cars are compromised in terms of both cabin space and boot space which is a big hit to their practicality compared to BEV's. No amount of technology can change the amount of volume an element takes up. This is also reflected below. 2.) Hydrogen costs so much for fuel for multiple reasons. reason A.) is because it requires more energy to produce. As a matter of physics you need to expend the energy to break the chemical bonds between molecules to separate the hydrogen. This already is less efficient that a battery car doing this alone. Then you need to expend more energy to compress it to 32 times the pressure of a big steel BBQ gas bottle. Which again, is less efficient than BEV's on its own. Then you have to transport the hydrogen to the end uses which is.. once again.. less efficient than a BEV on its own. What that means is that if you were to put in 100kWh to create hydrogen by the time it gets to the wheels you'd only have at best (not realworld) 30kWh at the wheels. But put it into batteries and you get (real world) around 80-90 kWh at the wheels. This means you are paying ALOT more for the energy alone, yet alone the equipment used to create the hydrogen, store the hydrogen, compress the hydrogen and transport the hydrogen. 2B). It has to be distributed. Nobody is going to make hydrogen for free. So not only does it cost way more to produce it, it has to be sold from the maker at a profit, inclusive of wages, logistics, etc, to distributors. I.e. fuel stations who then have to put a profit markup ONTOP of that to sell it to you. This means hydrogen will always be around 20x more per mile than BEV's and even if you could make you own and you got all the equipment for free to do so, it would still cost around 3 times as much per mile to create
    1
  2089. 1
  2090.  @kanedanoglory  So i'm going to go through that paragraph by paragraph. 1.) refuelling isn't a big advantage, especially for hydrogen. Firstly, BEV's mostly always charge from home with even a wall outlet being able to charge it enough for a daily commute whilst you're asleep. Meaning you spend 0 hours per day getting fuel or charge typically. Meanwhile the average person spends 16-17 hours per year getting fuel, hydrogen included. The other problem is that fuel stations cannot hold alot of hydrogen at high enough pressures for the same reason hydrogen cars cant. Meaning only around a few thousand hydrogen cars are on the road in California and they have 47 hydrogen fuel stations and people cant get fuel. Lots of reports of people showing up, only for the fuel station to not have enough hydrogen to fill up their car. In reality a fuel station can only store enough hydrogen to fill up 2-3 hydrogen cars at best. So even if most fuel stations took to supplying hydrogen, you'd have to triple the amount of fuel stations to supply even as many hydrogen cars on the road as there are BEV's on the road. thats VERY costly and alot of building. and thats not going to happen. 2.) Unfortunately things cannot ALWAYS be improved with efficiency. There is a thing called the second law of thermodynamics which gives an upper limit to efficiency for any given system. Hydrogen has an upper limit much lower than that of BEV's. Sorry to burst that bubble. as an example, hydrogen is not found naturally in its pure state on earth. You have to separate it from something, most commonly hydrocarbons (also known as fossil fuels), or water. to do that you have to break the chemical bonds binding it to the other elements. That requires energy. energy you wont see again because its been used to break those bonds. There is no way around that. You want to break chemical bonds it takes energy. full stop. those bonds require a particular amount of energy to break. full stop. meaning you will always waste that particular amount of energy getting hydrogen. full stop. Hydrogen is always punching up to its theoretical limit already. Seeing has its been in development since the apollo missions. Sorry, they aren't going to be making any giant leaps in efficiency for hydrogen. 3.) Costs will improve, but not by much. Economy of scale doenst ignore the fact you need 3 times more electricity for hydrogen than for BEV's, meaning BEV's will ALWAYS be at least 3-4 times cheaper per mile, But you will always have that re-sale chain through the distributors, water usage transport. as scale increases, transport, and capital compensation reduce, but don't just disappear. For hydrogen to be anywhere even near the cost of a BEV's, companies would have to be selling hydrogen for less money than they spend making the stuff. which is never going to happen. There isnt any way around it. its always going to be more expensive. everyone wants a profit, and everyone has to pay their staff, their utilities etc, that doesnt dissipate with economy of scale. employee's dont get cheaper because you have more of them, electricity doesn't get cheaper when you use more of it. Both still need to be paid. 4.) I am not suggesting that hydrogen technology will remain stagnant, however there isnt much more they can do. the biggest achievement for Hyundai and Toyota on the horizon at the moment is they're trying hard for a fuel cell that will last 200,000 miles and they're hoping to have it by the end of 2022 and start producing it by the end of 2023. But that's the most exciting thing happening. Realistically, any advancements in hydrogen cars will come from the batteries and the electric motors. If batteries get smaller, they can fit a tiny bit more fuel in. Sometimes you have to face reality, there isnt much going for hydrogen. 5.) distribution. you dont really have to distribute the batteries, they come with the car, thats rolled into the distribution of the cars which both ICE and Hydrogen do. Seeing as they sell them and all.... But you have to distribute hydrogen, and that costs hydrogen money. I know you distribute fuel too, that also costs you money. thats why fuel prices can change from area to area to reflect the cost of transporting the fuel to those fuel stations. 6.) Cost of electricity. The cost of electricity is predicable. If they're surprised by it they havnt looked into it enough. never the less and extra $20 for electricity per week compared to the $150 they'd be spending of fuel is still a big cost saving, and coupled with the fact that they dont need servicing its doubly so. For the average commuter, it becomes cheaper to buy, charge and maintain a Tesla model 3 over 5 years than it is to buy, fuel and maintain an entry level Toyota Camry over 5 years. 6.1) the price of electricity is going up. but that isnt something that exclusively hurts BEV's. Seeing as green hydrogen uses 3-4 times as much grid electricity per mile as a BEV does, from the same power grid. a rise in the cost of electricity hurt hydrogen costs 3-4 times a much. 7.) Fuel cell tracks are a scam. Firstly there was Nikola trucks which actually WERE a scam. Then there is Hyundai Xcient hydrogen truck. Let me break down how that goes. despite also have a small 150,000 miles shelf life, it also uses 2 fuel cells, a 75kWh lithium battery (same size as is in a long range model 3) a 6 speed transmission, and over 800L of fuel tanks almost double that of a regular semi. This means they've pushed the wheel base out and raised the bed to accommodate all the fuel giving it a horrendous turning circle and result in it require a custom made trailer which is reduced in height. Know how far that 800L+ gets them.... only 400 miles It gets better too, do you know what the maximum Unloaded speed is? less than freeway speeds, 875km/h (52mph) So it only gets 400 miles, has a bad turning circle, needs a custom trailer, only lasts 150,000 miles and cant even reach freeway speeds all whilst costing more to operate per mile than a diesel truck.... bargain Now lets look at the Tesla Semi, it gets 500 miles to a charge, has a lifespan nearing 1 million miles, can get to freeway speeds fully loaded at a rate which would out drag most cars, and costs around 10x less per mile than diesel. also whilst having absolutely no need for a transmission (servicing costs saved) and doesn't have a reduced turning circle, and can take standard trailer. seeing the pitfalls of hydrogen trucks yet? as I said, hydrogen takes up a HUGE volume and fuel cells have notoriously low power output. meaning no freeway speeds to heavy vehicles. they cannot supply enough power to cruise at those speeds. it also means they need big lithium batteries anyways.
    1
  2091. 1
  2092.  @kanedanoglory  I'm going to go through your comment like I did the last. 1.) range does drop in winter, however modern EV's such as one sold in the Q3&4 2021 onwards have something called a heat pump. Traditionally EV's used resistance heaters to heat the cabin and batteries. A heat pump is far far more efficient to use than a resistance heater meaning the drop in range during winter has been shown to reduce to less than 5% due to this. The only other losses would be from driving through snow which has added resistance shared by all vehicles equally. 2.) Hydrogen is affected by the cold. Hydrogen, like EV's dont produce alot of heat, therefore they need to use a heating element. They need the heat to keep the water liquid in their exhaust lest they risk blocking it due to icing and thus, no more power for the car, they also need it to keep their lithium batteries warm (yes, hydrogen uses lithium batteries, similar size to a plug in hybrid battery). and to keep the cabin air warm. This, like with EV's means that they need to use more hydrogen to travel the same distance. 3.) You dont typically have to worry about charging. This is concern most people who have never owned EV's have but most people who do, dont. Thats because most EV's such as Tesla's give you all the information. remaining range, how long you need to spend at different chargers, if you happen to go further than your range it will route you past chargers automatically and tell you how long you need to be there for. yada yada yada. Surprise surprise, people have thought of that incredible simple and useful feature to put into EV's. ground breaking. Also coupled with the fact that most people dont have daily commutes ranging from 250-400 miles. Meaning you never have to worry about charge. You just plug it in when you get home and wake up to a full tank. evey. single. morning. so there is LESS to worry about than ICE or hydrogen as you dont have to watch your fuel guage, work out the best time to get fuel and where to get it, etc etc. 4.) If he's claiming he gets 250 miles of range and he's stopping at 2,000/12=166 miles then he's charging on average when he gets to 30% charge remaining. He could do less. But lets say in winter you do a 18 stops at 39 minutes for charge, you've spent around 7 hours charging for your road trip. Most people drive these distances maybe once per year AT BEST. Meanwhile the average person spends 16-17 hours per year getting fuel. So seems like a fair trade to me. 5.) the cost per mile is from a super charger. Super chargers cost more money than regular electricity you get from your house. Due to needing to make a profit and all that. maybe something to consider before you use it to base a lifetime cost analysis. 6.) You do save money. I own a model 3, let me break down my expenses. I pay around $28c per kWh. I drive around 120km per day with an odometer average consumption of 0.13kWh/km so thats 15.6 kWh per day. pretty much 365 days per year. That costs me $4.37 per day in electricity. The model 3 doesnt require any regular maintenance ever for the warranty. So regular services are out as saved money. EV's also their breaks less than ICE since they have regen braking meaning brake pads last 5x longer on average and the car itself cost me $60k to buy. (Australian). If I wasn't getting that I was getting a Toyota Camry base model which was 7.5L/100km consumption with an average fuel price of $1.42/L and purchase cost of $31k. Servicing would cost around $250 for regular services every 10k km. $1,400 for major service every 100,000km and brakes cost around $700. Every 80k on average for the Camry and 200k for the Tesla. I average around 50,000 km/year driving. so lets add that all up. this is what we get. Tesla is ((0.13*0.28c)*50,000)+((700/200,000)*50,000) = $1,995 per year. The Camry is ((0.07*1.42)*50,000)+(((250*9)/100,000)*50,000)+((1,400/100,000)*50,000)+((700/80,000)*50,000)=$7,232.5 per year. Meaning the Tesla represents a yearly saving of $5,237.5 for me. Over 5 years thats a saving of $26,187.5. SO anything over 5 years, the Tesla is cheaper to buy and maintain. It also comes with far better features, performance and luxury and comfort than a base model Toyota Camry. If you want to work out how much you'd save yearly then the savings per km is 10.5c per km. Add up your annual mileage and you'll get your savings. So yea, EV's represent a big cost saving kiddo. 7.) Hydrogen might be the most abundant element in the universe but it is one of the hardest to get in its pure form on earth. as i've said, although its abundant, its not readily available in its pure form on earth anywhere. meaning you have to extract it which takes energy. 8.) "so what if it takes more energy to create green energy" so what? really? you're using 3 times more dirty energy production to create your "green" hydrogen. Thats burning 3-4 times more coal per miles and you think thats somehow more green?! think boy! 9.) there are actually 5.6 million Ev's on the road today. not 200,000. 10.) Modern BEV lifespans are up around the 400,000-500,000 mile mark depending on your battery size. The average ICE lifespan is 250,000 miles and Hydrogen is 150,000 miles. Your BEV will last you ALOT longer than 10 years considering the battery warranty alone is 8.
    1
  2093.  @kanedanoglory  The warranty on the battery is 8 years. As for batteries making sense? they are far better suited than hydrogen for a multitude of reasons. BEV's have more practical cabin and boot space, they are faster, they cost significantly less to operate they last longer, you have to spend 16-17 hours per year getting fuel instead of charging from home and only if you have a hydrogen pump nearby and that fuel station hasnt already topped up 2-3 hydrogen cars already that day. So please, explain how any of that sound convenient to you, having a slower, more expensive shorter lives impractical vehicle you cant readily fill up or fill up from home that costs significantly more to operate and performs worse. I'd love to hear that explanation. And i'm not a fan boy, I just think hydrogen is rubbish because when you break down the numbers.. IT IS. Like any Engineer I break down the numbers. Hydrogen doesnt make sense. its inconvenient and shouldnt be used in vehicles. BEV's have alot of advantages over ICE. They also have alot of pitfalls. But you have to level that out with how you actually use a vehicle. But buy in large for the average person in city/suburbs/rural urban fringe, BEV's offer a much better alternative simply from a convenience and costs standpoint. I've shown you the numbers. and the maths. Ive given real world examples and you refuse all of it out a breath-taking feat of cognitive dissonance. Maybe reflect on everything I've said. with this summary below. -Hydrogen vehicles not only cost more to buy but costs signficantly more than even ICE vehicles to fuel -they only last around 150,000 miles, ICE average 250,000 miles and BEV's being sold today are rated to 400,000-500,000 miles. with BEV's having an industry standard 8 year battery warranty many times with unlimited miles. -Hydrogen cars only get about as far as similar sized BEV's however BEV battery density is improving whilst you cant reduce the size of an ELEMENT. Hydrogen might be lightweight but it takes up an incredible amount of volume. This means a sedan like the Mirai which is a Model S or BMW M5 sized car, has less cabin and boot space than a Toyota Yaris No matter what way you cut that, thats bad. -Hydrogen is not nearly as green and requires far more infrasturcture than BEV's even from an energy standpoint -This means Hydrogen will always be expensive even if you didnt have so many middle men re-selling at a profit. -You have to spend 16-17 hours per year getting fuel for you hydrogen car provided you can even find a fuel station for it. whilst BEV's charge from home wasting 0 time. -Hydrogen fuel stations can only carry enough fuel to fill up 2-3 hydrogen cars. Heres another real world example, im Melbourne Australia Toyota opened a hydrogen production plant the size of a factory. It can only produce enough hydrogen to fill 8 Toyota Mirai's per day for a whole factory. Look me in the eye and tell me thats convenient. -The cost to retrofit a fuel station to dispense hydrogen is around $1.2 million whilst to build a bank of 4 superchargers only costs $0.25 million or $250k. So not only is hydrogen slower, shorter lived, more expensive, less practical with its space, and less convenient even if you happen to find somewhere to refuel it. But building the infrastructure isnt going to happen because its too expensive to service only a couple of cars per day, and it isnt even as green as battery electrics. sorry but hydrogen is crap. thats what the numbers say. thats what reality says. and it doesnt even get better when you look at trucking. give it up, hydrogens shit.
    1
  2094. 1
  2095.  @kanedanoglory  and if anyone is also following this convo, few things you should note. 1.) in terms of consumer demands, BEV’s have better performance, equal or better range, cheaper operation, longer operational lifespan, and better cabin and boot space and you can charge from home instead of finding non-existent fuel stations. So you decide what consumers would want more. 2.) if we flicked a switch and went to BEV’s overnight the grid would not be able to cope yes. But that’s a moronic and disingenuous argument which shows deep bias. Firstly, even if every commuter demanded and EV tomorrow, it would take 15-20 years to supply all those vehicles, but we all know that won’t happen so even optimistic estimates in EV adoption is at 50 years for full market penetration. Meanwhile the grid is always increasing. Infact the energy has never failed to double roughly every 20 years since the first power station went online. Think about how much electronics we use now vs even 20 years ago. By the time we have full market penetration of BEV’s the grid will be more than capable of handling that many EV’s. 3.) assuming EV’s use more energy because they run on “coal” is a deeply flawed and desperate argument. Firstly, he’s referring to coal power plants. Electricty from a coal power plant isn’t different to any other kind of electricity, 1kWh is 1kWh, no more or less, so it can’t use more energy simply because of where it comes from. Second is that hydrogen also need electricity from the same source and it also needs 4 times as much per mile so running hydrogen plants would result in higher grid demands from the same energy sources which shows just how ignorant he is. 4.) whilst you can generate and store hydrogen during the day it’s a bad idea. Why? Efficiency. If you made 100kWh and stored it as hydrogen to put into cars, by the time you get it to the wheels you’d only have 20-30kWh, and you’ve thrown down the drain 80-70% of that solar energy you worked so hard to produce. Put it in a BEV, and you’d only lose 5-10%. Big difference. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
    1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100.  @kanedanoglory  okidokey, so to respond to your large comment above finally. 1.) its about selling products. A scam would be if those products were defective, which they are not. you seem to think having an investment such as, designing and making a product and wanting it to succeed for your company and all the people who work and have livelihoods based on said company, is automatically a scam. think for yourself. 2.) "America's biggest Mooch" which must be why he knowingly went out of his way to not only MAXIMISE the tax's he owed to the government, but then also paid the single largest tax payment in history anywhere. Such a mooch... again, think for yourself. 3.) You want to talk about seeding doubt. Look at what the media does to batteries: -"tesla's run on coal thus worse than cars" not true, even in the US your main energy source is GAS, additionally even if it was 100% coal its still greener than ICE cars. -"EV's are a fire hazard" also false, statistically they are 11 times less likey to spontaneously combust compared to ICE vehicles but they are also 5 times less likely to combust in an accident also. -"batteries only last a couple of years" false, EV batteries being sold today are designed to last up to 400,000-500,000 miles with new technology on the way. thats double the average lifespan of a ICE. But on the other hand, lets review Hydrogen, -in every media report, was suggested to be the "fuel of the future" and is still touted by media as such today. -No one mentions the huge amount of space hydrogen takes up and the impact that has on the cars practicality. -"hydrogen can go further than BEV's" wrong, they can go as far and often less than BEV's -"you can just add more hydrogen to go further" wrong, hydrogen takes up volume, you have no space left for more fuel. -Nobody mentions that fuel cells only last 150,000 miles. -nobody mentions that the fuel cap has an expiration date printed on it for 10 years service life! imagine if that was on a BEV's, the media would have a field day!!! So you think there is some kind of disinformation compaign against hydrogen and for BEV's. Guess again, its quite the opposite, Hydrogen lobbyst want you to think that to give them the undog persona. But you know who wants Hydrogen. BIG OIL because most hydrogen is made with fossil fuels and the only way to dispense hydrogen is at a fuel station, which fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on once again, think for yourself 4.) When the Russian Afghan war was raging, ELON MUSK WAS 8 think for yourself. show me you have a brain! 5.) Lithium doesnt explode because its bumped or wet. it ignites when exposed to air. Typically in batteries the lithium is safe. the only reason you heard of them going off on planes is because samsung made a very very VERY poor cheap and nasty cellphone battery which would break open due to cyclic thermal expansion and contraction which would break its foil lining (like i said. cheap and nasty). and as i mentioned before, EV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to ICE. 6.) The majority of lithium in the world is currently supplied by AUSTRALIA which is one of the US's biggest allies. What king of bullshit are people feeding you? additionally the Nevada factory is going to start its own experimental lithium mining called clay extraction which would make Nevada the worlds largest producer of Lithium. 7.) There are gigafactories in Nevada, Texas, New York, China and GERMANY who are decidedly known for NOT being careless with worker safety. THINK. FOR. YOURSELF 8.) so even if it is engineered out, the fact that Lithium has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous mean we shouldnt use it. thats why you'd rather drive a car using the most explosive and easily combustible gas known to man in a pressure tank pumped to 700 bar. With the pressure of the tank itself being more than a hand grenades worth of explosive yeild and the gas inside being around half a kg of TNT worth? (a hand grenade is 0.06kg of TNT). You dont even follow your own logic you numpty. THINK FOR YOURSELF. 9.) Hydrogen is the scam. It has more explosive yeild. takes more energy to make, uses fossil fuels to do so, is less green and less practical and doesnt last as long, they're trying to push it so hard they're giving away $15k of free fuel to people who want to buy one. open your eyes and think for youself.
    1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140.  @gundorethemighty  1.) Modern EV lifespans are between 400,000 miles to 500,000 miles or more. which is often more than double the average lifespan of a modern combustion engine, even with all the service that EV's dont need. 2.) true, battery replacements are expensive, good thing you dont have to do them more than every 40 years or more. And still cheaper than buying and installing a brand new engine and transmission. 3.) They dont have high rate of failure. in terms of on the road reliability, they are rated at some of the most reliable vehicles. Not sure what else you'd expect from a machine with 1/1,000th the moving parts of a combustion car. If you look closely, when Carsguide rated the model 3 down for "reliability" after it was listed as number 1 for a good 3 months they initially refused to comment why, when pressed they said it was because of "paint and panel gap issues from the factory floor" which isnt a reliability issue, thats a fit and finish issue, its also something that is fixed by the manufacturer under warranty. 4.)They are EMP sheilded. You do realise that wireless induction motors works by INDUCING A LARGE MAGNETIC PULSE TO DISPLACE MAGNETS right? if it wasnt EMP protected the car would fry itself! infact people are looked into this and measured less magnetic radiation inside the vehicle sitting atop the motor than they did outside the vehicle in background radiation. 5.) They do drive better, thats why the model 3 has the highest rating of any car for driver satisfaction and driving experience. how else could you interoperate that? 6.) what the hell? what kinda noise do you think the car is generating? you think the EV's are equipped with mud tires or something? the road noise, which is the noise of the tires on the roads, is the same as literally any other vehicle. Empirically EV's are quieter on the road than almost any other car. The only variation in that is how much internal noise insulation you have. But it makes little difference since because its so quiet the only think you hear is road noise. Because thats the only sound. Just like how whispers are quite loud at night when you're trying to sleep but not so much at a concert. In fact, some EV's actually use air-bag suspension to try to reduce that road noise as much because there isnt a loud engine to drown out the noise. But for some reason petrol heads like getting their fanny vibrated by an overly loud engine that makes their neibourhood want to flay them in the wee hours of the morning. 7.) you can literally charge anywhere there is electricity.... which is everywhere. I own an EV in Australia and i've never had an issue. I dont even own a long range either. I have a standard range. 8.)You do realise modern EV's have thermal management systems right? they're swimming in coolant fluid to either heat or cool the batteries? you do know that right? SURPRISE!!! Engineers arent idiots afterall!! infact, in terms of reliability, in the cold EV's are far more reliable the ICE vehicles. As Petrol and Diesel need to heat the engine in the cold in order to get the fuel to combust. This often leads to a flat battery as it takes alot off turning over the engine to get it to finally fire and take. EV's have no such problems. 9.) "its just a new thing and will die out like everything else" ahhh. no. EV's have been growing in popularity, literally at an exponential rate, since 2010. thats over a decade and they've shown no signs of slowing down, only accelerating in popularity. so no, it isnt "just a new thing" its been around for a while and is only getting more popular.
    1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188.  @kingbeam80ify  also again, physics tells us that you can’t achieve the same performance as an EV with hydrogen without sacrificing something EV’s don’t have to. Space, comfort, economy, EV’s get all the performance without sacrificing these things. For a hydrogen car, the physical limit of the amount of energy produced is dictated by the surface area of the fuel cell. It doesn’t produce enough energy to adequately accelerate. Therefore it needs batteries to store and release the amount of energy when required. These are often very small but still larger than a hybrid, but unlike a hybrid they can’t get the raw power from the combustion engine so they’re limited to the battery. The bigger the battery the more power you can output at any one time. This means the car won’t go very fast because of that limitation. You can do a combination of 2 things to improve performance of hydrogen. Increase the surface area or number of fuel cells, which sacrifices passenger/cabin space or fuel tank and battery storage. Or you can increase your battery size as the cost of cabin space, fuel storage or fuel cell surface area. That’s why the only hydrogen super car is a 2 door unpractical car that achieves performance parity with Tesla Larges Sedan 4 door model S. As for handling unfortunately, there is no way to keep the weight anywhere near as low as EV’s can due to the required dimensions and volumes of the fuel tanks and the fuel cells. So they don’t handle as well naturally and are more prone to roll overs Which brings me to safety, you are travelling with an extremely explosive gas which is contained at pressures exceeding 32x that LPG is stored at and has an atomic size so small it can literally leak through solid steel. So the fuel tanks need to be heavy and well protected, meaning no increased crumple zone like a battery electric, which is less safe. As previously mentioned they are more prone to role overs and have worse handling. Less safe again, explosive gas, not very safe, battery electrics however achieve some of the highest ever recorded safety ratings for their categories. So where is the advantage for Hydrogen?
    1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. i'm gonna address alot of what you just said. because alot of it is really just inaccurate. Firstly your opening comment about hydrogen taking off. That is actually kinda true. If hydrogen doesnt take off, you dont get alot of market penetration or investment by companies. Which means fewer cars to chose from in the market which means less adoption. Those two things sorta run in parallel to each other. Mocking them as if they're mutually exclusive to one another isnt intelligent or helpful. Now to the numbered points. (I love numbered points). 1.) Price, Fuel Cell vehicles are definitely not simple. They also still use lithium batteries, (about the size of a plug in hybrid battery). They also have ALOT more parts than a BEV, because despite also having a battery and electric motor, they also need a fuel cell, exhaust system, intake system and fuel tanks. Additionally the construction of the cars arent the expensive part, its the fuel that costs an arm and a leg. at current costing upwards of around 20 x more per mile than a BEV costs, with very little room to become cheaper in the future due to energy requirements. 2.) You cannot fill a hydrogen car to 1,500km. additionally modern rapid chargers can do 20%-80% in approximately 5-10 minutes. Not 30-60 minutes. Let me break down both. The toyotoa Mira which I will use as an example carries a small 5.6kg of hydrogen fuel. But that takes up a whopping 150L of fuel tanks. Which means the small midsized sedan has larger fuel tanks the a Ford F150! This means it has compromised cabin space so much so that you cannot fold the rear seats and its boot is a whopping 100L smaller than a toyota Yaris half its size. You cannot physically fit more fuel tanks on the thing with making it entirely useless as a passenger car. But the Mirai only gets 400 miles, not 1,500. Even hydrogen trucks like the Hyundai Xceint with its whopping 800L of fuel tank capacity, can still only get 400 miles. You're not getting 1,500km out of the thing. Next there is the charging. Whilst it still stakes 5-10 minutes to rapid charge modern EV's, you dont usually need to do this. Most modern EV's have ranges between 400-300 miles. whilst the average daily commute in the US is 16 miles. for the vast majority of people they just charge their EV's at home whilst they're asleep or otherwise not using it. wasting 0 minutes of their time. Unfortunately for refill hydrogen, you MUST go to a fuel station. Statistically this means owning a hydrogen car will waste 16-17 hours per year getting fuel vs 0 for charging. So Convenience? no. 3)a. Performance? no. Hydrogen fuel cells produce notoriously low power outputs. Hence why they need batteries to store energy. This means most hydrogen cars are very very slow whilst you can get very quick electric vehicles. You dont typically burn out the batteries in alot of these cases either, as the larger the battery is, the more power it can output before damaging the battery. If we look again to a the hydrogen fuel truck the Hyundai Excient. it has two massive 95kW fuel cells. But it cannot get to freeway speeds even without load. They only EVER example of a performance fuel cell car is the Hyperion XP-1. In which it has 3 fuel cells, super capacitors and 2 seats, no boot design. Making it less practical as a daily driver than a Lamborgini Aventador. Yes its still lower off the line than a Tesla Model S which is a 4 door, twin boot large luxury sedan. Additionally there are no on-road examples of the Hyperion to date. Its a concept car only. 3.)b Efficiency. there isnt alot of lost efficiency on an electric vehicle. The weight doesnt impact very much for 2 reasons. 1.) it doest actually carry much more weight than a standard car. that is because whilst it does have heavy batteries, it also doesnt have a heavy engine block or transmissions. and 2.) because of regenerative braking. Just as acceleration requires more energy as weight increases, so does braking. with regenerative breaking you can reclaim up to 90-95% of the kinetic energy of the vehicle. this means adding weight has very little effect to efficiency compared to Hydrogen vehicles or ICE vehicles. The only impact is on rolling resistance which is minimal compared to losses due to accelerating large weight. For most cars they spend the extra energy accelerating the extra mass, and lose all that energy by dumping it into the brakes as heat. For EV's they turn the motor into a generator and reclaim most of that energy instead of dumping it into the brakes. You also forget that whilst EV's are around 80%-90% efficient overall, Hydrogen fuel cell alone is only 60% efficient. And when you consider the electricity used to make the hydrogen fuel in the first place you're looking at only around 20-30% efficient overall. 4.) 2 things, firstly, Modern Lithium batteries are rated to last around 500,000 miles. Much more than 100,000 miles. Meanwhile modern fuel cells are only rated to last 150,000 miles according to Toyota and Hyundai. Second. aside from having to produce and dispose of MULTIPLE hydrogen cars to meet the lifespan of 1 BEV, lets talk about other environmental factors, ignoring the fact that Hydrogen cars also use lithium batteries. Firstly lets address the fact that the batteries are around 95% recyclable, including all the lithium, cobalt and nickel in those batteries. Second, lets look at the fuel, Hydrogen fuel requires 3-4 times the same grid electricity to produce per mile compared to just using that same grid electricity from the same source to charge and EV. with EV's having the advantage of using home solar. But lets say you're not using Green hydrogen and therefore not using 3-4 times more grid electricity per mile. Then you're getting your hydrogen from Hydro-carbons, aka, fossil fuels in a process that generates more carbon emissions than if you had just burnt the fuel in a generator in the first place. what is important to remember is that most hydrogen is made this way. Lets look at steam reformation for example. You burn a bunch of natural gas creating emissions, to heat water into steam. Then use that steam to separate more gas into hydrogen and carbon, creating more emissions again. And you think hydrogens more green? nah ah. 5.) Competition, Hydrogen doesnt compete with BEV's. -They're slower, -cost 20 x more to operate per mile, -have significantly less cabin and cargo space, has fewer fuelling opportunities, -you cant charge it from home some you're forever wasting time getting fuel, -they're short lived, especially in comparison to BEV's, -Less environmentally friendly -Dont get any further than BEV's and in some instances, get less range than similar sized BEV's. They're just not even in the same league.
    1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225.  @tracerheat  as I said. It’s anecdotal. EV’s are green. Or at least certainly cleaner than any other alternative currently available. And California would have to build a lot of energy plants to cope with 100% EV fleet. However it’s not strictly accurate as being analogous to the rest of the world or the statement that EV’s aren’t green. Most places in the world have more than enough capacity for at least a 25% fleet of EV’s today. But EV production isn’t so sudden. There is still a long waiting list to get your hands on a Tesla Model 3 for example and at times, their production capacity was so high they were making them in tents. And yet EV’s still only made up 2% of all car sales in the US. The adopting is happening but not suddenly. On average the grid capacity in the US has doubled every 2 decades. Most experts aren’t predicting even 50% adoption until 2040 or 2050. To bring this back home to California, the issue with their grid was poor implementation of renewables (not that they’re bad or expensive or unreliable, when done right they are reliable and cheap). California failed this integration with the grid due to a mixture of bureaucracy, and poor government policy. Your assessment also doesn’t account for interstate grid connectors which can feed in excess power from other states. For example Arizona makes an excess amount of solar energy. Far more than they need. But they’ll sell it to California at a profit. Seeing that grids are and have always been increasing at relatively rapid rates since the 1940’s, there is no reason to assume that there would be any dramatic impact on the grid with our predicted rate of adoption. Especially considering that EV’s do the majority of their charging at night, when power companies usually have to shut down turbines because the of lack of demand.
    1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235.  @christhelonewolf746  Amps isnt power. thats current. Power is Amps multiplied by Voltage. To quantify how ineffieicnt it is, 5.6kg of hydrogen takes the Mirai 400 miles. (650 km). Now there has just been a hydrogen production station built in melbourne. Its used almost the full size of the old Toyota Factory in Altona. with all that space they have a 200 kW electrolysis set up which produces 80kg of hydrogen fuel per day. (which is only enough to fill up 14 cars per day evenly spaced over 24 hours). It also only has the space to store 80kg of hydrogen. Now we know that its getting 200kwh over 24 hours which is 4,800 kWh of energy used to produce 80kg worth of fuel. If 5.6kg of hydrogen gets a Mirai 650km, then 80kg of fuel will take it 9,100km. So for energy consumption thats around 0.52 kWh per km. By comparison the similarly sized and weighted Tesla Model 3, gets 0.130 kWh/km. Now since they are similar size and weights the power to the wheels should be around the same. Meaning that the increase kWh required comes from how inefficient hydrogen production is. Meaning you need to invest around 4x more energy per km for hydrogen than you do for BEV's from the very same grid. ontop of that because hydrogen production is so slow and takes up so much space, fuel stations wont be able to service more than 2-3 cars per day. The facility I mentioned was taking up a whole factory. Additionally in this case we have no transport losses. which also need to be included if Hydrogen is to be widespread.
    1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. But alas, Elon was still right about hydrogen. Even when splitting methane you need at least double the energy per km than battery electric. Which makes it at least twice as expensive even if it didn’t have to be resold twice more. For example the hydrogen producer needs to cover his costs plus add a mark up to sell it to fuel stations then the fuel station covers their cost and add a profit margin ontop of that before it ends up in your car. Hydrogen will never reach cost parity with EV’s for operational costs. Then there is safety, electric vehicles are some of the safest cars out there. Much safer than standard combustion cars. Meanwhile hydrogen drives around with tanks full of one of the most explosive gasses known to man, at 32 times the pressure big metal LPG are rated for, a gas which can leak through solid metal and weaken it at the same time. Then there is performance and handling, hydrogen vehicles, if you want them to run efficient (which means a fuel cell) means they’re slow. Very very slow. Because fuel cells have low power output. Which is a function of the catalytic area available. To get around this they run the electric motor off a small battery bank. In all that means equivalent sized hydrogen vehicles are usually about half a ton heavier than their BEV counter parts, hydrogen vehicles will have a much higher weight and centre of gravity affecting handling and braking, they will be much slower than their BEV counterparts as well. For example the example the mirai is dimensional similar yet slightly smaller than the model 3 without all the fancy heavy things like heated seats. The model 3 has a nearly 3 times faster performance, much better handling, more than 20x cheaper per km, is a safer vehicle, weighs nearly half a ton less, and not only has a boot at the front and the back, whilst the mirai only has a back boot, (btw the rear boot in the model 3 is larger despite the model 3 being dimensionally smaller) but the rear seats in the model 3 are able to fold while the mirai they can’t. Which seems trivial until you realise that’s because there is significantly less cabin space in the mirai meaning there isn’t enough space to fold the rear seats down. So less performance, handling, safety, usability and higher operating costs. But hydrogen people say “range, it’s the range you get with hydrogen”. For all those draw backs, the mirai only has 75 miles more range than the model 3 to a tank. Only 75 miles. Hydrogen are not anywhere near competitive with BEV’s in the domestic passenger vehicles market. Sorry. Elon was right.
    1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282.  @leored5957  no it wont. You'd be closer to the mark if you were talking about Battery electrics. But not hydrogen no. Thats because the cheapest and (at current only) way to mass produce hydrogen.. is with... well.. fossil fuels. i.e. gas, coal and oil all of which are hydro-carbons. additionally, unlike batteries which can be charged effectively anywhere that has electricity, you can only get hydrogen from fuel stations. Guess who owns a monopoly on fuel stations... thats right.. fossil fuel companies. Fuel stations are their second largest capital investment and the single largest income stream. Oil companies aren't stupid. Thats why they run a disinformation campaign against Batteries and try to champion hydrogen. Thats why hydrogen has had the lions share of investment from both private donor (oil companies) and government. Oil companies know that ICE cars are being phased out by hydrogen ensures a continued use of their product and reliance on their infrastructure. Battery electrics effectively eliminate both. For example, you probably expect BEV's to be short lived. In reality modern EV batteries are designed to and showing signs of lasting twice the average lifespan of a combustion engine. you probably heard EV are fire hazards. In reality they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely in an accident than ICE vehicles. meanwhile you've probably never heard that making hydrogen is much dirtier than charging a battery. you've probably never heard that hydrogen cars roll off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps limiting the life to 10 years. you've probably never heard that hydrogen suffers ALOT in the winter (way more so than BEV's). you've also probably never heard that Hydrogen car fuel cells are limited to only 100,000 -150,000 miles. half the lifespan of a combustion engine. See the discrepancy there. Lies about BEV's to make them look worse than they are. Truths about hydrogen actively hidden from you so you don't know how shit they really are. seeing a pattern?
    1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. wrong. Hydrogen has in the past and still does get the lions share of goverment funding and favorable advertising, whilst BEV's are torn down in the media, often with outright lies such as "they're fire hazzards" or "they cost alot to maintain" ignoring the fact that they have no real parts to maintain.. Why else do you think it is you can by a hydrogen car thats more expensive before incentives than a Tesla Model 3 Performance is WITH incentives, for as little as $18k with $15k of free fuel thrown in to sweeten the deal? But you think they're trying to kill hydrogen to make batteries work... right.. heres a quick sum up I bet you were never told that BEV's are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to ICE vehicles or that modern BEV's have a lifespan twice that of a standard combustion engine with none of the maintenance to keep it running. I bet you also never heard that Hydrogen fuel cell cars come off the assembly with an expiration date printed on them for 10 years. or that the fuel cells only last 150,000 to 100,000 miles, or that the majority of hydrogen is made with fossil fuels. or that hydrogen takes up so much space that the Mirai, a car the size of a Tesla Model S, has a boot smaller than than of a Yarris by almost 100L. infact its so small that it cant even fit a space saver spare tire. you get a tire repair kit instead. Notice the difference in how the vehicles are portrayed? nobody mentions how bad hydrogen is. The media outright lies about EV to make them look bad.. You can buy a more expensive hydrogen car for basically penuts. But even with incentives, BEV's cant even come close. What might all that suggest to you?
    1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327.  @1sttrader728  you still have to mine for the materials to make a hydrogen car. including the very rare and extremely toxic palladium that goes into the fuel cells that last 1/3rd the lifepsan of a modern BEV battery. Hydrogen, at best, (meaning green hydrogen), produces 4 times more emissions than a BEV does per mile. But BEV"s last 3 times longer. So to service the life of 1 BEV you need to build and dispose of 3 whole hydrogen cars that use 4 times more emissions per mile. Not the definition of green. Aside from the fact that lithium can be recycled entirely from older BEV's and used in new batteries. And the Mirai uses hydrogen at 700 bar (32 times the maximum pressure of a big steel BBQ gas bottle). Its already at extremely high compression. you cant compress it any more. And frozen? no. That would mean the car has to expend alot of energy cooling the tanks to keep the fuel frozen. Cryogenic fuel will significantly reduce your range. not increase it. Otherwise your tanks will explode due to the gasification of the cryogenic liquid. Even with the extremely high compression ratio the Mirai uses, (so much so that if those tanks were to fail, just on pressure alone it would have the explosive yield higher than a hand grenade) the Miriai has less range than the similarly sized Model S. Except the mirai has sacrificed all its room to fuel tanks. It has so little cabin space it cant physically fold the rear seats and the boot is so small that it cant physically fit a spare tire. Not even a space saver. its a camry sized car and it has almost a full 100L less boot capacity that a YARIS! Meanwhile the model S of the same size has more range and class leading cabin space and boot space...... makes you think doesnt it? Also, whilst going further. The Model S is also exceptionally faster, and lasts much longer, is greener and cheaper to run...... food for thought.
    1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. I hope not. (also Australia) aside from the fact that Australian markets are leaning more towards EV's with the most popular car being sold in Australia in the first quarter of 2022 being the Tesla Model 3 (even in Victoria despite them being Taxed for no logical reason ). But more that a Hydrogen economy in Australia is a codeword for a Gas economy. Most hydrogen around the world is made with natural gas, coal and oil. The first two, Australia has alot of. Creating green hydrogen is extremely energy intensive. You need around 56kWh of electricity to produce just a single kilogram of hydrogen, of which a hydrogen car like the Toyota Mirai carries 5.6kg of. The Mirai has a range of 640km. So 1kWh of grid electricity only gets you 2km or so. Compared to battery electrics where 1kWh of electricity will get you between 7-8km. If we were producing green hydrogen it would cripple our energy grid faster than BEV's ever could. But we're more likely to produce hydrogen using gas and coal which creates more emissions than using the gas in an ICE vehicle in the first place or coal for electricity. Aside from the fact that Hydrogen cars first hit the mass market only 2 years after the first BEV hit the mass market. As of 2021, you had a whopping 3 different hydrogen cars to chose from. as of 2022, you now have 2. The market offering dropped by a whole 3rd. The only pace in Australia to fill a hydrogen car is Altona in Melbourne so you cant go further than around 300km from Altona before turning back to refuel. The price of hydrogen is far exceeding that of even petrol yet alone batteries which are an order of magnitude cheaper again. Their lifespan is half that of a combustion engine whilst BEV's are double that of a combustion engine (contrary to popular belief). Battery electrics also have better performance, safety, cabin space and boot space. Australia should not be happy to be producing dirty fuel to supply a dying industry so that the government can indirectly prop up fossil fuel companies. Another reason a gas lead recovery and a hydrogen economy in Australia should be TERRIFYING to everyone with the ability to vote, is that most global powers are talking about a Carbon Tarif which is, the goods and services from your country are tariffed in proportion to your emissions and environmental policies. Less green energy, more coal and gas burning, including using it to make dirty hydrogen, means that our goods and services are less competitive on the global market. It will damage our economy. BADLY and this isn't a secret either, the government knows this being being pushed. But they wanted a "Gas lead recovery" anyway, despite world economic experts saying the renewables industry in Australia is a $3 trillion industry and would generate 12 times as many jobs as a "gas lead recovery". If the global leaders go ahead with a carbon Tarif, expect to see Australian businesses and agriculture failing and cost of living increasing.
    1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. Big oil wants hydrogen you numpty. The majority of hydrogen and the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is with... drum roll please.... FOSSIL FUELS additionally the only way to service people with hydrogen is via fuel satiations, and guess who owns a monopoly of fuel stations? drum roll again please.... "FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES!!* DING DING DING!!! meanwhile battery electric cars can be charged by home solar and even when being charged by the grid, can be charged from home, not requiring a fuel station at all. But you think big oil intentionally shut down their only future market because they want BEV's for some reason? get real dude. Big oil wants hydrogen, thats why you only hear negative lies about BEV's lies like they are a fire hazard despite catching fire less than ICE cars, that they're short lived despite modern batteries laster twice the lifetime of ice cars. the list goes on. But you only ever hear positive things about hydrogen, you never hear that they have a VERY short lifespan, that they come off the assembly line with an expiration date on them, that they have so little cabin and cargo space because of the volume requirements of the fuel that you'd have more space in a TOYOTA YARIS than you would in a Toyota Mirai, or that they're excessively slow, excessively expensive and much less green the BEV's. You can also tell by the fact that Hydrogen gets significantly more handouts than BEV's. for example in some places you can get a brand new Mirai, for around $8k, when its original price without the incentives is more than a Tesla model 3 and you also get $15,000 worth of free fuel when you buy them to try to push them to people. No such incentives for BEV's. You think big oil are trying to shut it down? open you bloody eyes mate, they're trying to push them down everyone's throats. And they STILL cant compete because they're that bad.
    1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434.  @bencurtis5149  its not a complicated process but the requirements are massive. The energy costs dont go down if made elsewhere. The advantage though a specially designed factory can get more electrical power than a household has access to. Typically hydrogen requires 3-4 times more electricity per mile than BEV's if you're making green hydrogen. And from the same energy grid. in terms of the equipment. Think of it this way. Hydrogen needs ALOT of space to be stored. even at 700 bar which is how its stored in hydrogen vehicles. The mirai for example (a Toyota Camry sized car) only has 5.6kg of hydrogen on board. But that hydrogen, at 700 bar, takes up almost a full 150L of tank volume. Thats more fuel tank volume than on a Ford F250. That means the Mirai has next to no boot space (100L less than you get in a Yarris you cant even fit a spare space saver tire in there). And the cabin space is so cramped you cant fold the rear seats to extend the boot even if you wanted to. You'd need that storage somewhere around your home. You would also need a compressor capable of compressing to 700 bar. For context an air compressor a trades person might have mounted in their trailer typically peaks at 7 bar. You'd need something 100 times bigger. That gets EXPENSIVE. As for energy requirements. To make and compress 1kg of hydrogen, you'd need 56kWh of electricity. And 400 mile range mirai takes 5.6kg. By comparison a family of 4 typically uses 18kWh of electricity per day. Its not very practical.
    1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. ummm.... no hydrogen does have a negative impact. When being made with fossil fuels, take steam gas reformation for example, you burn gas creating co2 to create superheated steam. You use that steam with more gas to separate the hydrogen from the hydro-carbon gas, which gives you hydrogen but releases more CO2. Meaning it would produce less emissions if you just put that gas into a car instead of creating hydrogen with it. Alternatively there is green hydrogen which is significantly harder to scale. Because it takes some 56kWh of electricity to produce just 1kg of hydrogen. To fill a Toyota Mirai you will need more than 313 kWh of electricity to produce enough hydrogen for it. thats around 3-4 times more electricity per mile than a Battery Electric car uses. Now unless you are on a 100% renewables grid (good luck finding one) then it produces 3-4 times more emissions per mile form energy production when compared to using that same energy to charge a BEV. Electric is far more efficient, and in most cases, far more practical. It has longer ranges, better cabin and boot spaces, cheaper to operate, you waste less time at a fuel station, you can charge from a generator in a pinch or if you're in remote locations (you cant carry hydrogen in a jerry can) and they last around 3 times longer than hydrogen cars do before they need to be replaced. All whist costing less and having far better performance and safety to boot. Actually fuel cells are weaker. also far more fragile. Fuel cells output notoriously lower power output. the batteries are not used for regenerative breaking as they need to be charged by the fuel cells to adequately accelerate the cars (due to their low power output). But the smaller a battery is the smaller the power output it provides. meaning that regardless, hydrogen is typical alot slower than BEV's. Take the Mirai for example, electric motor, 1.6kWh battery, goes from 0-60 in 9.1 seconds. The model S - a similar sized vehicle, less than 2 seconds. Whilst getting more range. The other thing is the fuel cells only last according to Toyota and Hyundai, 100,000 to 150,000 miles. Meanwhile modern EV batteries are designed to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles. And modern EV's are already showing signs of achieving this as modern EV's (post 2019) which have already surpassed 100,000 miles show less than 2% degradation.
    1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. actually this would create very little hydrogen. For example a purpose built 200kW electrolyser over 24 hours can only produce 80kg of hydrogen. over 24 hours at 200kW, thats 4,800kWh. Which means you need 60kW of electricity to produce 1kg of hydrogen. You also need to compress it to 700 bar to put it into a car. Which means you lose about 20% on compression. Meaning you'd need 75kWh of electricity. You're 2 volts at 20A, is 0.08kW. Meaning at that power output, to fill a 5.6kg fuel tank of the Toyota Mirai for example, would take you 219 days of non stop energy feed in. In addition, if you were charged 0.28c per kWh for that electricity it would cost you $117.6 to do that. (75kWh/kg x 5.6kg = 420kWh. == 420kWh x 0.28c/kWg = $117.6). Side note that 5.6kg of fuel in a Mirai will get you 400 miles so thats 30c per mile. By comparison the same 420kWh will get a Tesla model 2,100 miles. ( Long range has a 75kWh battery pack which will take it 353 miles). Which equates to a cost of 0.05 cents per mile. Keep in mind that if you buy hydrogen from a fuel station you are also paying for the staffing logistics and transport overheats for the production plant, plus a markup on that when they sell it to fuel stations. then the fuel stations put a profit markup on that before they sell it to you. Also dont forget that you have to pay for the water too. So yes, Hydrogen is very expensive. And yes, whilst you can produce hydrogen with 2v and 20A, it would take a VERY long time to fill a car doing that.
    1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505.  @trinydex  I missed you comment about grid scale hydrogen storage. I dont believe that is a good idea. Firstly because of inefficiency. as a whole we dont do alot of energy storage as it is in relation to the gird. The only reason we store fuel is because... well we have to. there is an illusion that you have to keep doing that. An EV will draw from the grid like any other appliance. Grid scale storage doesn't not need to very large. It also has the capacity to respond excessively quicker than hydrogen or traditional grid control devices. in the realm of a few nanoseconds which can go a long way towards grid stabilisation. Ontop of that the batteries themselves are around 96% efficient. By comparison, turning electricity into hydrogen is only around 60-70% efficient at best, and takes a very long time. A 200kW electrolyser running 24 hours can only produce approximately 80kg of hydrogen per day. For context thats only enough to fuel 14 hydrogen vehicles. Then there are the fuel cells to get the hydrogen back into electricity. These are between 40-60% efficient at best. They are also fairly slow. infact most fuel cells have very low power outputs. making them fairly useless at grid scale unless you boost the catalytic surface area to the size of a building. So response and efficiency work against hydrogen as grid scale energy storage. If you put 100kWh into hydrogen, if you need it back into the grid, you'll only get around 40kWh back. Losing over half your energy. Thats before you consider the energy required to compress the hydrogen in the first place. Its not a good model for grid scale storage.
    1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508.  @trinydex  as you increasing the size of the cylinder doesnt do much to solve that porblem. The design constraints arent space. I'm just pointing out the contextually hydrogen does take up alot of space. As for batteries or not batteries. with technology emergy for lithium clay extractions there should be well and truely enough lithium to go around for the foreseeable future, especially considering that lithium in readily recylable from batteries. In addition Lithium and Hydrogen are far from the only storage methods, Hydrogen just happens to be one of the most inefficient but also one of the potentially more green. For example, Kinetic energy storage has a huge efficiency bonus. Its almost as efficient as a Battery if not more with just as fast response time. However it is arguably more dangerous than Hydrogen or any other kind of storage. The ramifications of a 5T steel fly wheel spinning at 4,000 revolutions per second coming free from its mounting is terrifying thought. there wouldn't be much you could do to stop it. In the middle ground is pumped hydro. much safer than kinetic or hydrogen storage, faster response time than hydrogen but slower than batteries, also more efficient than hydrogen but less than batteries. Then there are others like liquid salt storage, aluminium oxide storage and more. What is better for use is greatly dependant on the balance of issues where ever it needs to be installed. unfortunately Hydrogen rarely has the right conditions were it becomes the best method of energy storage on the balance of issues.
    1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1.) football field 7 yards deep. and only for waste produced in the USA, not globally. Also there is nuclear waste and no, it cannot go back to where it was mined from, in the state its in it will leach into the environment and end up in the food at which point animals will digest it and it will be substituted in their bones for calcium. it is also at a much higher radioactive level than when it was mined, even for low yeild stuff. so yea, it does pollute, we have no way of dealing with that kind of pollution.... none. we just shove it in specially made barrels and put them in warehouses and hangers. 2.) it cant be recycled while you drive. it gets dumped. Also why hydrogen is one of the most common elements, it is also not found in its pure state on earth meaning you have to expend a huge amount of energy (often not clean) to extract it from something else, like water.. or most commonly hydro-carbons (aka, fossil fuels). it does not fill up like gas or diesel. the only way to liquify hydrogen is cryogenically, which means freezing it at super cold temperatures (more than -400°F, or -230°C) which takes a huge amount of energy. Cars take GASSOUS hydrogen. which can leak through solid metal and most gaskets and seals. and will weaken metal it comes into contact with so..... no. 3.) whilst battery production is certainly not clean, its not that dirty either. only producing around 15% more during manufacturing for the whole car compared to ICE. which is more than compensated for by the reduced emissions during operation (yes that includes running off oil and coal generators). They're also not that much heavier than similar type and spec'd cars. For some reason luxury EV's have often been compared to economy cars. If you know anything about cars, Luxury interiors, features, suspension, yada yada, weighs a hell of alot more than economy stock. Compared to similar market cars (also luxury) they're not much heavier at all. sometimes less. keep in mind that whilst BEV's do have very heavy batteries, they also dont have very heavy engine blocks and transmissions. 4.) its not cheaper, its not faster and it doesnt go further. and you're talking about combustion hydrogen too (less than 25% efficient). a fuel cell which has no sound is 60% efficient. and even then they dont get as far as similar sized BEV's and no where near as fast. Thats because hydrogen is low power output whilst also being high volume the Mirai goes 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen which takes up nearly 150L of fuel tank storage. More than a stock ford F250 carries. In a sedan. The similarly sized BEV the Tesla Model S long range gets 412 miles to a charge and recently a company called "ONE batteries" replaced the Tesla Batteries in the model S with their own batteries and got that range to 756 miles so go further no. Keep in mind that the Mirai only does 0-60 in 8.2 seconds whilst the model S can do it in less than 2s. so faster? also no.
    1
  2517. 1
  2518.  @wardencobb7442  1.) you cant "burn" HLW or LLW nuclear waste in a thorium reactor. there is just waste, and as I said, thats only in the US, there is more globally. You do realise that US nuclear waste makes up 0.8% of nuclear waste globally right? the USA has 60 plants. European Union operates 103. That waste doesnt go anywhere, there is no recycling for it. there is no making it safe, we have no where it put it. Making more is stupid 2.) firstly, you cant fuel anything with water, so your hydro-oxy fuel would be in 2 separate tanks. To store it as a liquid both of them would have to be cryogenically stored. Which requires constant amounts of alot of energy and large refrigeration coils. neither of which you're going to fit into a car. that means the hydrogen and oxygen will always need to be a gas. Further to that, hydrogen combustion into water only produces around 30% of the energy natural gas produces. So nothing you fuel with it will go very fast. 3.) "a model 3 weighs the same as a ford F150!" no it doesnt. the lightest Ford F150 weighs around 700 lbs more than the heaviest model 3. keeping in mind that the entire back end of the truck is a tray which take up less than 5% of the vehicles total weight. But lets compare apples to apples instead of apples to F150's. The model 3 is in the same size class and luxury range as a volvo S60 and V60 which weight more than the model 3 by around 100lb. Whilst it might be lighter to carry hydrogen, its not space friendly. Batteries achieve more than half the volumetric requirements of a hydrogen car. Mostly due to the fact that gasseous hydrogen takes up alot of room. And we've already established the liquid hydrogen would be impractical for automotive applications. 4.) how exactly do you think fuel cells work? they combine hydrogen and oxygen through what is basically a catalytic filter which forces the electrons to go around a circuit in order to complete the reaction. This process is around 60% efficient at capturing the energy released by the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, and combustion engine combining the two is only around 20% efficient. Hydrogen and oxygen reactions aren't especially powerful compared to other chemical reactions. But they are light weight, which is important for getting a rocket off the ground. Its used as rocket fuel not because its particularly powerful but because it has a high expansion to weight ratio for the rocket.
    1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533.  @stefanmetzeler  You're not understanding.. like anything.. The power consumption profiles for an EV are vastly different to that of a tablet or laptop. Infact driving demands for power are so predictable, google can accurately predict you arrival time. add a few more variables like weather and elevation plot and other programs including whats used in teslas, can accurately predict how much charge you'll have when you reach your destination. The same cannot be said for laptops or tablets. It depends on the person and the job and they can change wildly. Lets compare even the same person on two different devices. lets say his work computer he just uses it to check emails. Thats it. He checks and responds to emails. HIs power consumption is very minimal, and that device gets much better battery life. Then his home laptop he uses to stream youtube videos and play video games with. As a result he has very poor battery life and needs to leave his computer plug in at all times to do so. so even from the same person between applications the power demands shift wildly. yet alone between different people. Meanwhile if you compare me driving 50 miles. and compare someone is Claifornia driving 50 miles and compare someone in germany driving 50 miles. your power consumption per mile average will be almost identical. There aren't as many different extreme use cases for EV's as there are computers. Something you clearly cant wrap your head around but then get defensive can call me stupid which is laughable. you also dont seem to comprehend the difference between a single cell battery vs a thousand cell battery pack and what the use differences are. Have you ever done any electronics in your lifetime? ever? doesn't sound like you have. try using the noodle of yours once in a while. it could help you look like less of an idiot.
    1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590.  @countlessbathory1485  what the hell are you on about mate? this isnt a contentious topic anymore. The science is in. we have the data, this can been confirmed. Wind turbines are cheaper than coal gas and oil power plants. So is solar. And what do you mean the run of coal? how the hell does that work in your head? that statement makes litterally no sense. Any place which has seen widescale adoption of renewables has seen a drastic reduction in wholesale energy prices and most have seen an increase in stability (I say most because I have to include California which I can get into later if you wish). In Germany, widescale adoption of wind and solar has seen a drastic reduction in wholesale energy prices. They have also reduced their power outages by 10x in 10 years due to the uptake of renewables coupled with some form of energy storage for capacitation. South Australia's energy grid was THE most expensive grid in Australia and THE most unreliable. Now that they have 70% renewables and battery storage they now have THE cheapest wholesale energy prices in Australia and THE most reliable grid in Australia. The cost of windmill per MW is around $3 million dollars. The cost of 500 MW coal power plant is $3 billion for a 500MW powerplant. So if we scale up the wind turbine farm to 500MW thats $1.5 billion for 500MW of nameplate wind energy. And $3 Billion for equivalent nameplate costs for a coal plant. I mean, just google images of wind farms vs coal power plants and tell me which you think would be cheaper to build. In addition, wind turbines dont have to buy and burn thousands of tons of coal every day to generate the required power nor do they require some 500+ employees to operate a wind turbine farm. where as you do for coal gas or oil power plants. This isn't an hypothesis, nor is it brainwashing, or a conspiracy or what ever tin foil hat you want to put on it. The science has been done. Its there in black and white. The real world examples are there. we know they are cheaper. we know they pollute less than burning thousands of tons of coal every day. also its cute that you think the millions of birds killed every year by wind turbines is a big number. But lets put that into context for you, the context that was so conveniently concealed from you by which ever source you got that from. whilst wind turbines kill millions of birds each year. Cell phone towers alone kill BILLIONS. infact, even high rise buildings kill more wildlife than wind turbines do. This is because wind turbines, despite advertisements, aren't very quite when you're close to them. they emit a low frequency hum. A loud hum which animals do not like. Infact populations in the area usually aren't killed. They just move elsewhere. They avoid the wind farms for this reason. No such loud hum or anything to discourage birds from transmissions lines, cell phone towers, or high rises, all of which kill more birds annually than wind turbines. wind turbines discourage animals from going near them the same way hearing a loud truck rolling down its engine brakes discourages you from crossing the road. perhaps getting the whole picture with accurate information may make you look like less of an idiot on the internet in future.
    1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. Some rebuttes. I’ve numbered your “—“ points in chronological order. 1.) Modern EV’s have ranges around or exceeding 400 miles… you can do much more than short trips or city driving. Ask any EV driver. 2.) fair, except for the efficient charger part. EV’s can be more than satisfactorily charged from any regular wall outlet. 3.) wall outlets are cheap, most new EV’s come with home chargers which cost around $250 to install or less. But they do use a lot of electricity. Infact about as much electricity as your car uses. Hence the whole point of charging the car….. but hey, it’s not like you gotta pay for gasoline ontop of that. 4.) true, however the standard domestic vehicle sits for around 14-15 hours each night. More than enough time to get your full 400miles range back after your 100 miles or less of driving you did the day before. Infact that should be enough time to charge 800 miles on a home charger or 250 miles from a wall outlet depending on the efficiency of the car itself. So unless you do DRASTIC daily commutes each day. I think you’re covered… 5.) see (4). I drive 120 miles per day for my commute which is extreme at best in my EV I charge each night from a standard wall outlet because I’ve been to lazy to install the home charger over the last 3 years (crazy I know. Just havn’t had the need to do it yet). 6.) they do, but not that quickly no. It’s not about time, it’s about distance driven that degrades the batteries. Model 3’s made in 2018 did a survey and they found that on average after 100,000 miles of driving, they’d lost less than 2% of their original battery capacity. Infact most batteries are warrantied for 8 years to 20% degradation. To have batteries degrade 2% each year means at the end of their warranty period they’d have 16% degradation according to you which is a VERY fine margin for a warranty when talking about averages so no. Sorry. 7.) correct, aligning with point 2. Let’s not repeat ourselves. 8.) yes, but EV charge points will expand as they have been rapidly. So is it the chicken or the egg you’re worried about here? 9.) most people make stops on long trips to go to the bathroom, get food or coffee or stretch their legs. All of which take about as much time as a super charger takes to charge your battery on a road trip. 10.) is this a point? That’s like saying if you go inside a gas station to pay, if they put the chips out the front, you will spend extra money!! The thought! It’s almost as if gas stations have convenience stores attached to entice you to buy things! The nerve of it all! 11.) that really depends on the quantification on what you think is a lot. And the situation. 12.) actually not much more time than you would spend getting fuel or use the bathroom or getting coffee. I have travel logs if you would like. 13.) if your car runs out gas, you’ll likely need a tow as well. Or you could use a jerry can or in an EV’s case, a cheap portable generator. That being said, how often do you find yourself on the side of the road without fuel? Why would that change with an EV? That’s what I thought. 14.) expensive to buy but extraordinarily cheap to run and maintain. Surprising more than levels the Playing field. 15.) as mentioned before, EV batteries have warranties of 8 years alone. If they need replacing every 8 years, you could get a new battery for free from the manufacturer every 8 years. That would be extraordinary value for money and a huge loss to the manufacturer. As it stands, technically speaking modern EV batteries last longer than standard ICE. 16.) not really. That’s why they have battery management systems.
    1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. actually, the fossil fuel industry isnt stupid. as much as people wish they were. With many countries pushing to ban sales of ICE vehicles by some deadline, they know they're on borrowed time. So they will push mass money into "the next best thing" for them. That happens to be hydrogen for 2 reasons. 1st is that most cheap hydrogen is made with... well fossil fuels. They are hydro-carbons. So they can keep producing gas, oil and coal and instead of refining it into fuel they refine it into hydrogen, just through a much dirtier process. 2nd is that you have to get hydrogen from fuel stations, unlike BEV's which are typically charged from home. Fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on fuel stations around the world and represent their second largest capital expenditure and the single largest revenue source. EV's make all that capital worthless overnight and their income gone. Hydrogen, even green hydrogen, keeps them in business. Thats why you always here how good hydrogen is and never hear the bad things like how they come off the assembly line with an expiration date. its also why hydrogen cars can be purchased with a $15,000 fuel card completely free. But its also why EV's are pushed down, often being called fire hazards despite being 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust an 5 times less likely to combust in an accident compared to BEV's, or constantly advertised by the media as only lasting a few years when modern EV batteries have lifespans double that of ICE without any of the expensive maintenance requirements.
    1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612.  @EdwardHood  big oil loves hydrogen and pushes hydrogen. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from getting it from natural gas, coal or oil. In addition, they’d still be able to hold onto their fuel station monopolies. Which that entire business model goes out the window of battery electrics take off. The downside to hydrogen is that it takes roughly 3 times the same grid energy per mile than a Battery Electric. Meaning if I built 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 battery electric car owners, I would need to build 3 wind farms to power the needs of those same owners if they switched to hydrogen. Then there is safety, battery electric is ideal for safety, they combust significantly less often than regular combustion cars but with no fuel tanks, gear train or motor, the crumple zone both at the front and back are reduced dramatically increasing survivability. In addition it also allows them to have a lower centre of gravity resulting in vehicle nearly impossible to roll, resulting in the first SUV to get a perfect score on safety testing in the role over category. Meanwhile hydrogen doesn’t get the same low centre of gravity, and the fuel is so explosive they get better safety scores from sacrificing the occupants to protect the fuel tanks as an explosion could kill nearby pedestrians or take out other vehicles. They also reduce the crumple zone to protect the fuel tanks. Then there is performance. The power limit of a hydrogen fuel cell car is defined by the available catalytic surface area. Which isn’t a lot inside a car. Meaning it doesn’t have enough power to adequately accelerate. So they need batteries. But the more battery you have, the more power you can send to the motor at any one time, mean they’re inevitably slow. The only way to make them fast is to sacrifice cargo space, passenger space and fuel space. I.e less practicality for better performance. Not a problem shared by electric vehicles. In addition to performance hydrogens higher centre of gravity and weight distribution challenges means worse handling and agility.
    1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644.  @theodorvalentinghita1779  well firstly. Battery autonomy? What are you referring to? Secondly, this isn’t actually a problem. My model 3 has a range of 400km (250 miles). (Real world). My daily commute is 120km (75 miles). It can easily get to work and back around 3 times without needing to charge. And still some left over to visit family. However when I charge, unlike fuel I don’t have to drive around and find a charging station to charge up and stand around outside for “hours” holding the plug waiting for it to charge. I simply charge at home from a power point. And I do so when I get home. I don’t have to attend the car for this to happen. I simply plug in and go about my evening. Making dinner, watching TV, sleeping, etc. in the morning I have effectively a full tank of gas again without wasting any of my time. Fuel by comparison. Most people will detour an average of 7 minutes each way, 7 minutes to the station, 7 minutes back on route, plus 5 minutes filling and paying. They also do so on average once per week. This means that you’d be spending an average of around 16-17 hours per year, wasted in the pursuit of fuel. For me that sum is 0 hours per year wasted charging. As for long trip. Super charging is the way to go. It can fully charge your car in anywhere between 15-30 minutes depending on the charger type. This means that it only takes me around an additional 1.5 hours over a 1,500 mile road trip. However over that period of time required to travel that distance biological limits come into play. You have to stop for food, and toilet break or some coffee, water etc. if we say that takes around 30 minutes to pee and order food and eat in the car, that means over a 1,500 mile road trip that’s 1 additional hour spent charging. But I might only do that trip once or twice a year. So assuming they’re round trips I might make twice a year, that 4 hours lost to charging but 16-17 hours saved from having to get fuel for the other 361 days in a year. So in reality, you are wasting far more of your time having to refuel than you would charging.
    1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. Want to give you some explainers. 1.) hydrogen doesn’t evaporate. It’s already a gas. As for storage longevity, hydrogen can leak through solid steel. It’s very very small. It is going to leak out of the car. Early hydrogen cars lost as much as 40% over 2 weeks. Meanwhile for BEV’s you do get phantom drain, however it’s non-apparent if it’s sitting at home plugged in. Which it presumably is. If you own an EV, you have the ability to plug it in while it’s parked at home. Meaning it’s a non issue. As for the drain itself. I have an EV. I went on a 3 week holiday. I lost less than 5% over that period of time. 2.) range. You may be surprised to know that hydrogen actually has less range than similar sized BEV’s. The mirai is dimensionally closest to the Tesla model S. But the S gets 412 miles to a charge whilst the mirai gets 400 to a tank. The mirai has so much fuel on board it has a boot 100L less than that of a YARRIS and isn’t even big enough to put a spare tire in (not even a space saver). No front boot and a rear cabin space so small you can’t actually fold the rear seats. So you’re not getting more fuel to go further because you can’t fit in anywhere on board. The model S on the other hand is know for have stupid amounts of boot and cabin space with a front boot as well. Also the rear seats do fold to extend the boot. It is also worth noting that this means you can put more batteries in. The ONE battery company replaced the batteries in a model S with their own, without taking up boot or cabin space. And bumped the range from 412 miles to 756 miles. Significantly more than what the mirai can achieve. 3.) thermal stability. You don’t hear about hydrogens problems with the cold because they aren’t anywhere there is significant cold. Otherwise it becomes pretty transparent that the problems that affect BEV’s also affect batteries. For example, the biggest loss of range for a BEV in the cold is the heater (don’t know why you think radio). A ICE car produces a lot of waste heat as a byproduct. That can be used to heat the cabin air effectively for free. Batteries don’t have that, they have to spend energy to heat the cabin air. Unfortunately so does hydrogen as hydrogen electrics also suffer from this problem. Although current EV’s are far better than their predecessors now that they use heat pumps instead of resistance heaters to heat the air. Meaning instead of 15%-20% loss you have less than 5% range loss over a full day. Hydrogen however suffers from a critical drawback in cold temperatures. And you’re going to feel embarrassed when I point it out. Everyone does. What’s hydrogens byproduct? Water. The freezing point of water is 0C (32F) whilst for batteries it’s -40. What happens to fuel cell if your turn it off, and all the water vapour condensed on the exhaust side of the catalyst freezes? No more hydrogen flow when you turn it back on. You have to wait until the weather is warm enough to thaw it out. Then what happens if you’re driving, exhausting all this water vapour into an exhaust system below 0? It freezes, and much like the arteries in a fat man, it starts yo clogg. Restricted flow means worse and worse performance until it stops running entirely. Meaning even if you have turned it off and allowed water to freeze on the fuel cell. If it’s below freezing there’s a good chance that the car will stop mid drive and you can’t do anything until the weather warms up. Doesn’t sound like a winner to me.
    1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699.  @knockywigglesworth1909  how expensive do you think the operational costs of a wind farm is? do you really think its more than the maintance and overhead costs or even the cost of fuel of a fossil fuel plant per kWh? have you seen a fossil fuel power plant? they'd pay more daily than a windfarm does its entire lifespan just on wages for personnel who operate the plant! yet alone for fuel and maintenance. also it depends on how short term you mean? do you mean over the next 30-50 years like its projected to? because i would disagree. and apparently so do many large companies such as cocola, pepsi, walmart, fedex, UPS, DHL, and more who've ordered a fleet of Electric Semi Trucks. places like CA are a minority case. Largely because CA problems are due to incompetence and political interference in the energy sector. their situation is unique in its stupidity. Other places like texas has only had the power go out because of natural disasters which the two big freezes were. The grid was NEVER designed to operate in those condition in Texas. The power outage wasnt due to lack of supply. but due to lack of fuel. As in, the gas pipes pumping the fuel to power plants, FROZE the coal being stored for the powerplant FROZE tranformers for load sharing FROZE. More recently, the Texas government allowed measure to prevent this from happening again, be optional for gas companies. And since gas companies wanted to save a buck, they obviously took 0 action. Hence its happened a second time as those extreme weather related natural disasters at those scale begin to become more common place. (thanks to climate change). as a whole however, the national energy grid (not just specific places like california) operates at approximately 40% capacity most of the year. What also helps is the time in which most people charge their EV's is at night. From home. In their garage, whilst they're sleeping. meaning that EV's typically charge when demand is lowest. So trying to extrapolate from when demand is highest is a misleading way to represent the facts.
    1
  2700. 1