Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "Donut"
channel.
-
52
-
15
-
9
-
@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
-
8
-
Actually EV’s aren’t much heavier than a standard car, additionally, contrary to popular belief, whilst the fuel itself is lighter hydrogen cars are infact heavier. To break it down, the Toyota Mirai is the same size and size class as the Tesla model 3. Tesla model 3 weighs around 1,800kg, the Mirai weighs over 1,900kg
In comparison with to other vehicles, the model 3 is in the midsized luxury sedan range. Other cars in that category were include the BMW 5 series at 1,900kg and the Audi A6 Quattro at 1,990kg. With the tesla being the lightest of the three.
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@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
-
5
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
@omarsatar2003 it implications of making green hydrogen is the same for BEV’s. It’s only truely green if it’s made from pure renewables grid. Unfortunately the world is not yet there. In addition just taking the excess power generation will not be enough to produce enough hydrogen for a national fleet of vehicles. Not even close.
Hydrogen needs between 3-4 times more electricity per mile than BEV’s do. That’s a lot. So on a non 100% renewables grid, green hydrogen isn’t very green. At least with BEVs you can supplement charging with home solar.
Meanwhile on a completely renewables grid, if you have 1 whole wind farm with all the cost, space, materials and emissions that go with that, to power the needs of 100 drivers with BEV’s, you need 2-3 more wind farms to power the needs of those same 100 drivers with hydrogens vehicles.
Not really all that green.
In addition, hydrogen vehicles don’t last very long. With today’s technology, 15 years or 150,000 miles of driving whichever comes first, and your hydrogen car is done. Scrapped, have to build a whole new car. Meanwhile BEV’s today are showing they they’ll last well over 500,000+ miles to a lifetime. So not only are you producing 3-4 times as much energy, you’d have to build and dispose of 2-3 whole hydrogen cars to service the needs provided by a single BEV lifetime. So less green.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Gravimetric energy density? (kWh/kg) in which case, Hydrogen is clearly superior, but Volumetric Energy Density (kWh/L) in which case, Hydrogen is very clearly inferior. What use is lightweight fuel if you cant fit enough in the car. The Mirai is a mid-sized sedan, just like the Tesla Model 3, but the model 3 goes 325 miles whilst the Mirai only goes 75 miles further to 400 miles. Meanwhile the Mirai has such little cabin space that you cant actually fold the rear seats, has no front boot, and the rear boot is so small its almost 100L smaller than that of a Toyota Yaris half its size, which is made worse by the fact you cant fold the seats.
SO not only does the Mirai only carry enough to go only 75 miles further, but that amount of fuel takes up so much space that it makes the car utterly impractical, its ridiculous to transport adults in the rear passenger seats, and you have an impractically small boot for luggage or storage that you cant even extend into the rear seats.
Coupled with the fact its significantly slower and costs around 20x per mile more for fuel than the Tesla model 3, i'd be happy to sacrifice 75 miles of range to get a car thats half way practical, faster and significantly cheaper to run. (oh and it also lasts about 3 times longer than the Mirai too).
So whats the point of having a light weight fuel if you cant store enough of it to make the car practical?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A few misconceptions here. Firstly, it being less efficient has 2 impacts 1. If I need to build 1 wind farm with all the emissions and impacts that entails, to supply the needs of 100 drivers with EV’s I need to build 3-4 wind farms to power the needs of those same 100 people with hydrogen cars. And 2.) hydrogen plants get their power from the energy grid, unless that nations grid is 100% renewable, hydrogen has 3-4 times more emissions per mile than an EV.
And yes batteries degrade by hydrogen cars degrade faster, currently hydrogen fuel cells only last between 100,000-150,000 miles depending on the manufacturer. Why Hyundai expected to release a 200,000 miles fuel cell in late 2022. Additionally hydrogen fuel tanks are also limited in life. Most fuel cell vehicles Come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of the car to 15 years.
Meanwhile BEV batteries today are showing to have an expected life of around 500,000 miles to 70% health. Which is 30-40 years of driving for the average person.
That means you’d have to build and dispose of 2-3 times more hydrogen cars, to meet the needs of one BEV lifetime. And whilst batteries aren’t the most friendly things to manufacture, it’s a good deal better than making and then disposing of 2-3 whole cars compared to one battery.
Also fuel cells use platinum as a catalytic element which is by far more toxic than anything in a BEV.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
you dont drive the full charge of the car every day. A full charge would cost around $18.75 but that would be like saying it costs $80 per tank, then saying that would cost you $80 per day. But with the average energy price in the US of 28 cents per kWh, if you travelled 75 miles per day, (which for something like a Tesla is around or less than a quarter of its total range), you would use around 16 kWh, which would cost you $4.48 per day if you didnt have solar or an EV tarif which most energy companies offer. Over 365 days it would cost you $1,635.20. Mean while going 75 miles in a car with a fuel consumption of 29 mpg, with the average price of fuel in the US being $3.543 per gallon, it would cost you approximately $9 per day in fuel, over 365 days it would cost you $3,344.47 per year. almost 3 times as much as a BEV per mile.
and power outlets at your home only allow for around 10amps for an outlet. if you're lucky you might get to 15 or even 30 amps. But i'd be surprised if you used 70 Amps. in addition to this the gird is capable of supply every single house in that street with maximum load. Its called frequency regulation. Also no, that's not how power boxes work. The amps provided are based on how many fuses you have, the fuses will trip if that amp level is exceeded to protect the relatively thin wiring inside the home. heavier gauge wiring can handle more current, its relatively trivial to install more if needed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
well whilst the batteries do degrade, today its very slow, with modern EV batteries lasting to over 400,000 to 500,000 miles to 70% of their health. However in comparison to hydrogen they also have Batteries onboard but alot smaller 1.5-2kWh, which, because they're much smaller, wear out much faster. In addition, a fuel cell is only rated to last around 150,000 to 200,000 miles before it needs replacing and hydrogen cars come with an expiration date on the fuel cap limiting the life of the vehicle to only 15 years due to hydrogen's embrittlement of materials it comes into contact with. So whilst EV's do degrade over time, they do last much longer than hydrogen cars, and even last longer than Internal Combustion Engine vehicles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chucknetzhammer9489 extreme cold snaps well outside of weather norms of the area so much so that it causes excessive loss of life is a natural disaster. Houses in Texas aren’t built to handle snow. They’re built to shed head easily. Not insulate against cold. Houses in Texas don’t have high capacity heating. Most homes built for that kind of low temperature have heat pump heating systems. Not resistance oil heaters.
It was the coldest event in recorded history for Texas. Damage to property due to snow build up, frozen pipes, etc, again because the houses there aren’t built for that kind of weather, was extensive. About as much damage to homes, vehicles and public infrastructure as a hurricane. For example hurricane Harvey damage cost $19 billion. This snow storm cost $125 billion in damages, to homes, vehicles and public infrastructure like pipe lines, drainage, power, roads, etc. Around 111 people died in Texas snow storm, 68 died in hurricane Harvey.
This wasn’t just “getting a little colder” this was a natural disaster in every sense of the word.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BrownSofaGamer German counterparts to Tesla aren’t really in the same league, even in performance. The Tesla model S plaid does 0-60 in 1.99s and has set the recorder for the fastest 1/4 mile time for any production vehicle. At the time the Porsche Taycan came out, it was marginally faster than the model S. (Only just). Meanwhile they both had 100kWh batteries by the model S was able to go almost double the distance on a charge than the taycan. All that whilst being a 4 door, 5 seat large luxury family sedan. Whilst the taycan with only just (back then) faster speeds but half the range and double the price.
As for the RS E-torn, 3.1 seconds to 60, a range of 290 miles on a 93 kWh battery. The Tesla model X, has a 0-60 of 2.6s, a range of 340 miles on a 100kWh battery.
The Tesla also has 78ft3 more storage space, is $20,000 USD cheaper than the Audi and has a higher safety rating than the Audi.
They’re not really comparable. There is a reason that whilst the taycan was marginally faster in specific scenarios than the model S when it was just released, that many experts noted that the Taycan was only offering range/performance/practicality of the model S a decade old but for double the price.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
actually on a per km/mile basis, it takes significantly more emissions to refine, transport and ultimately burn combustion fuel than it does to generate electricity even from a coal only grid. It also takes alot of emissions to create and refine the oil for oil replacements, to make spark plugs, oil filters, timing belts, fuel pumps, etc etc etc. EV's are more efficient, thus release significantly less emissions as they drive. Even though EV's start off with heavier emissions in production, the break even point from the reduced emissions while operating is only around 15,000-30,000 miles of driving. Further to that, EV batteries are around 95% recyclable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
also, most of what makes up wind turbines is recyclable, wind turbine fires are actually pretty rare, one in every 200,000 or something like that last I checked, And whilst they do kill millions of birds each year, Cell phone towers kill Billions, So do high rise buildings, transmission towers, etc etc etc, all have higher death tolls for birds per unit than wind turbines. Thats because with turbines both rotate, and make a low level humming noise, both of which scare off most wildlife. Whilst its amusing that you're frightened by big numbers, when you put into context, wind turbines are the least of your worries when it comes to bird deaths.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patrickgoncalves3878 actually there are hundreds of examples of Tesla Model S's reaching over 500,000 miles on a single battery pack with only around 20-30% degradation on batteries already more than 2 generations old. Newer batteries and Battery Management Systems (BMS) are set to last even longer and the early data indicates that this is true.
As for their popularity, the Tesla Model 3 is the most popular luxury car in any category The luxury mid sized sedan, large sedan, hatch, estate, SUV, Large SUV, Wagon, etc etc. Infact it out sold its next to closest competitors combined, beating out every other car model from Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW, Lexus and more. To say they're not popular is gross mistruth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually modern EV's have some of the most advanced battery management systems in the world on board. Making them SIGNIFICANTLY different to your iphone battery. But an EV has a cycle life of around 1,500 cycles to 80% battery health. Meaning for a model 3 with a range of 325 miles, thats nearly 500,000 miles until you reach 80% battery health. The average lifespan of a combustion engine is only between 200,000 miles to 250,000 miles. Meaning an EV should double that lifespan. (of course there are exceptions to everything. There will inevitably be combustion engines with very long lived lives.).
In the realworld we are seeing that the rate lifecycle is true, and in many case, an under estimate. For example a study of several model 3's owned by the public (individual owners submitted their cars for testing once they reach 100,000 miles). and what they found was that after 100,000 miles, the model 3's had an average battery degradation of only 2%. Meaning they have 98% battery health. That would suggest that they would well and truely overshoot that 500,000 mile mark.
That study was done on first generation model 3's. There are now more advanced batteries and more advanced battery management systems in the cars today than there was back then as Tesla continues to improve, even on a month by month basis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you meant effect. not efficiency. In any case, Inside a Tesla, even when hard acceleration, EMR (Electro Magnetic radiation) inside the car is lower than background EMR outside the car. Additionally, EMR has little to no effect on the human body, on account of most bodily tissue not having magnetic properties. If it makes you feel better, you get more EMF from your phone or computer than you do inside a Tesla. Because they aren't shielded. In additional cell phone signal, Wi-Fi signal, they're both EMR based. You will get orders of magnitude more EMR from your Wi-Fi router alone than even standing next to a Tesla launching. Yet alone your lights, phone (which you keep in your pocket) microwave, power outlets etc etc etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingFergus 3.)Charging from fossil fuels. As previously mentioned even charging from a coal only grid, EV's still produce much less emissions than a ICE. Even before you consider the emissions and energy used to refine the fuel in the first place. For example, on a coal based grid, Coal produces about 1,000g of emissions per kWh, meaning something like a model 3 would produce 130g of emissions per km. By comparison for a Petrol car to reach that same emissions, it would have to average a fuel efficiency of 5.6L/100km or 42mpg for a petrol car. For diesel you'd have to get an efficiency of 4.8L/100km or 49 mpg. And thats just for a mid-sized sedan. And thats not even including refining and transporting the fuel It will also get worse for ICE as you diversify your grid away from coal, and towards, gas, oil and renewables which are all drastically lower emissions. But most grids in the world are mixed grid. they are rarely coal only. Even in the US where the majority of power generation comes from Gas
So charging from fossil fuels, still better than ICE cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well because there are just a tad few more variables which impact what you’re asking for. For example with manufacturing. It depends on the size of the Sedan (small, mid, large etc) the trim level (standard, base, luxury, sport, performance etc). It also depends where it’s made, I don’t mean country, I means where in what country, your energy mix you get can vary even with a few hundred miles, power energy mix in Nevada is very different to California for example. There are a lot of variables here. You can’t give hard or fast numbers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would argue they aren’t a bad idea, far less likely to combust, 95% of the batteries are recyclable including all the lithium, cobalt and nickel. Even on a coal only grid produce less emissions than a car even before you consider the impact of fuel refineries. They produce far less microparticle emissions, which are so bad if you live within 15 miles of a freeway your life expectancy drops by as much as 15 years and causes brain developmental issues in children. And tailpipe emissions are the leading cause of Micro particle emissions.
They also can be run on home solar and because they don’t have any regular servicing requirements, they are significantly cheaper to run than a combustion car, in some cases saving as much as $6,500+ per year on fuel and servicing. Meaning whilst the upfront cost is higher, over its lifespan, it can become cheaper than some very cheap economy cars like an entry level Toyota Camry after as little as 5 years of driving.
Aside from having better safety in that they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust, 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and have no engine at the front increasing crumple zones which increases survivability, as well as having extraordinarily low centre of gravity which drastically reduces roll over risk, which again, increases survivability.
I think they’re not bad. I think they’re very good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xrsuperduper7660 Wind Turbines are a very very small fire risk. If you look at the statistics, your car is more likely to spontaneously combust than a wind turbine is. In addition, hydraulics leaks are very minimal, however there is a much greater chance of environmental impacts from fuel leaks or hydraulic leaks for fossil fuel power plants.
Not sure where you think micro plastic contamination is going to come from, from wind turbines, once again, due to admin and logistics and maintenance requirements of traditional fossil fuel power plants, they produce far more plastic waste than a wind turbine ever will.
And birds? please, whilst its adorable that you're intimidated by large numbers, but high rise buildings, transmission towers and cellphone/radio towers kills between 10-100x more birds per year each than wind turbines do.
That is because wind turbines emit noise, surprisingly a lot of it. This low lever hum actually deters wildlife from going near the turbines. No such humming exists for transmission towers radio/reception towers or for high rise building with glass that birds contently run into. If you think wind turbines are terrible for birds you must think that transmission towers are apocalyptic. yet I don't see you campaigning to get rid of those.
1
-
@xrsuperduper7660 Once again. the facts dont support you. As I said, more birds are killed each year from cellphone towers alone than from wind turbines, on account of the birds avoiding the moving and audible machinery. So again, whilst its cute that you're impressed with big numbers, context goes a long way here. To quantify this, a study in 2009 studies data and found, quote: "wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh"
Further to that another study from Canada supplied a table which showed the top 10 biggest man made causes for bird mortality, which included power line collisions (not electrocutions) at 3rd place were responsible for 16,810,000 bird deaths. houses (low mid and high rise) in 7th place were responsible for 1,317,130 bird deaths plower line electrocutions in 9th place with 184,300 bird deaths but no information on wind turbines because they didn't even make the top 10
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 in Tesla’s case they use capacitors because they aren’t damaged by rapid discharge meaning they use them for rapid acceleration. And only that.
But using hydrogen makes no sense. Let’s assume you put in the smaller hydrogen system you can, that’s still a large chunk of batteries and space you have to take out for the large and extremely heavy fuel tanks, the exhaust system, the fuel cell itself and lastly the increased coolant system, because instead of needing handle the heat from the motor and the batteries, you now have to handle the heat from the motor, batteries, fuel cell and fuel tanks.
Fuel tanks aren’t flat, vessels holding that kind of pressure are tubular or spherical in nature to avoid stress concerntrations. This raises the centre of gravity. The batteries will also have to be stored above the exhaust system which again, raises the centre of gravity. With less batteries you have a smaller power output. So off the batt you have more weight, less likely performance, worse handling and more expensive running costs all with less storage and cabin space. And now having an extremely explosive gas that can actually leak through solid metal and embrittle and weaken it in the process, you are now driving a bomb on wheels. Which handles worse and brakes slower due to more weight. Meaning less safety.
There is no realm of practicality for introducing hydrogen for domestic passenger vehicles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariobrandanltl8597 thats because you're not reading what I am trying to tell you. The Mirai already uses batteries. CONGRATULATIONS your wish has already come true. It has batteries, but for all that loss in performance, safety, space, handling, all it managed to do is squeeze in an extra 75 miles.
75 miles, over its closest competitor being the slightly smaller model 3. I am trying to get through to you that this has already happened with FC and the results are poor. For all the increased cost of operation, reduced storage and passenger space, reduced performance, reduced handling and reduced safety, and increased weight you only acheive an extra 75 miles.
And you Cant make that better by adding more batteries than is already there. because then your FC wont be large enough to keep the car going. But if you make the FC larger you have to reduce fuel capacity meaning you wont have as much range as if you were in an BEV. Then the only option is you need to increase the weight even more, get a bigger tank, bigger FC and bigger batteries and put that in where you would have passengers sit or where cargo would go.
the end result is you start getting 2 seater performance cars which dont actually perform as well as the BEV does. So then what is the point?
I"M TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT ITS BEEN DONE IN THE MIRAI. IT HAS BATTERIES AND A FC AND ITS ABYSMAL!
its not a hypothetical. it happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
actually, 2 things, firstly, whilst you endlessly refuel a ICE, you cannot endlessly run one. Do not forget you need to service it every 10k miles or so. Replacing parts, all of which have an environmental impact and replacing oils and other fluids.
Secondly, Modern EV batteries have a lifespan roughly double that of a standard combustion engine. 8 years in infact, the industry standard warranty period on the batteries alone. Yet alone their lifespan. If you batteries dies at 7 years and 364 days, guess what, you get a free new battery. But in the meantime, whilst enjoying double the lifespan of a combustion engine, you also have NONE of the upkeep, no spark plugs, timing belts, engine oil, oil filters, fuel filters, fuel pumps, transmission oil, etc etc etc. and all the emissoins that go with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@exothermal.sprocket I mean hell, Scotty thinks that hydrogen cars are the future, based on nothing but his imagination, if you look at the actual details hydrogens cars have a shorter life than BEV’s are actually as heavy if not heavier, have way less boot space and cabin space, are slower, less convenient, less safe, less green and don’t actually get much further than a BEV and in some cases, not even as far. But he wouldn’t know that, he’s never worked on, owned or really even taken a cursory look at hydrogen cars, yet he published a whole video spouting bullshit that they’re the future and are “Tesla killers”. If that doesn’t highlight my point I don’t know what does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually per mile hydrogen requires around 3-4 time the same energy from the grid to produce than if you had just put that electricity into a BEV. Meaning hydrogen would have the greater stress on the grid. Additionally currently hydrogen fuel tanks are only rated to last 10 years from manufacture. With an expiration date printed on the fuel cap, and the average lifespan currently of a fuel cell stack is around 100,000 miles, whilst BEV batteries have a life rated to around 400,000 to 500,000 miles depending on the battery size. Which represents around 30-40 years of driving for the average person. Hydrogen however is 10 years or 100,000 miles, which ever comes first, so for every BEV lifespan you have to dispose and produce 3-5 hydrogen cars.
Additionally hydrogen cars are more expensive to operate as they require a lot more energy, they’re slower thanks to fuel cell limitations, and hydrogen whilst very light, takes up alot of space, which hydrogen cars having less cabin and boot space than smart cars half their size. All for only 20% more range than their BEV counterparts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except there are on-road trial version driving around today. all reports from companies using these trial trucks is that it exceeds almost every one of the specs initially stated by Tesla such as the 500 miles range for example. It also saves companies as much as $100,000 per year, per truck to operate compared to a diesel. And lastly, Nikola was trying to create a Hydrogen Fuel Cell truck whilst Tesla is going for Battery Electric. In case you don't know, Hydrogen Fuel Cell trucks ARE battery electric trucks, they've just taken some of the batteries out and sacrificed a lot of space, performance, range, lifespan, to unnecessarily add a fuel cell and fuel tanks so that the truck can run on one of the most expensive fuels in the automotive industry.... not a good concept from the start. Fuel cells use hydrogen to power a fuel cell which creates electricity to charge a large lithium battery on board which then powers and electric motor. The Hyundai Hydrogen Semi, has a 75kWh Lithium battery which is the same size as the battery in a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. For that the truck has a lifespan of only 150,000 miles, cant reach even freeway speeds, even unloaded, and only has a range of 400 miles compared to Tesla's 500 miles, at shocking speeds for a semi, with a lifespan of over 750,000 miles. So you can start to see the difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenknudsen7902 why would it be expensive? solar requires no fuel, barely any maintenance costs, no operational crew, why do people think solar power is expensive? additionally, I dont care if we're talking net zero or not. If we're talking about a grid, we can assume the energy sources for the grid are identical for either hydrogen or EV. why we ant to go to a place of special pleading that the grid would somehow be different I dont know.
In terms of fleet operation hydrogen is non-sensicle. it cannot get as far a batteries do, due to the immense volume required to store hydrogen. (it might be light weight but it takes up ALOT of space). it has a remarkably low power output meaning the trucks are slower, infact most hydrogen semi's on the road today cant even reach freeway speeds even unloaded. and they last around 1/3rd the lifespan of a modern BEV all whilst using a fuel which costs around 20x per mile.
So not only will your transit times increase, your stops would have to increase and your initial trailer capacity reduced, but you're getting something that isnt going to last as long wasting capital costs, as well as costing 20x more to run per mile. Why would anyone want a fleet vehicle like that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually you have that backwards. Modern EV batteries are designed to, and are showing to last up to 400,000-500,000 miles. twice the average lifetime of modern combustion engine. In addition, Battery replacements only cost between $4k-$7k depending on the battery size, inclusive of labour. Most people confuse batteries, with battery packs. And most media, obfuscate the issue by intentionally confusing the two. A battery pack, which includes all the structural elements to hold the batteries, wiring harnesses between batteries, Battery management systems inclusive of coolants and heating elements indeed cost more than it would be worth to replace. However this is different to the batteries. Most EV's use batteries like the 18650 batteries (do a google image search, they look like big AA batteries). These are easily replaced individually by removing the seats, lifting up the floor and replacing the batteries like you would a giant TV remote. Suggesting you need to replace the battery pack instead of the individual batteries is a little like saying you need to buy a new PS5 controller every time the controllers AA batteries go flat. Which is, to say the least, absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomster7574 as for the comments on batteries. Modern EV batteries have as standard an 8 year unlimited mile warrantee. Currently they last approximately 1,500 cycles to 70% health. Meaning that for a vehicle with a range of 400 miles, it would take you 600,000 miles to reach that point. at which point you still have 100% of you performance and efficiency left and 70% of your original battery capacity, meaning you still have 280 miles of range left. which is still alot.
in other words, Ev's will and are currently showing that they will last twice the lifetime of a standard combustion car or hydrogen vehicle. and I say currently because its not uncommon anymore to find an older generation Tesla Model S (2012 MY for example) which have lasted between 400,000 to 500,000 miles and are still going.
as for fuel cell vehicles there is next to no maintenance other than looking out for rust in areas already made rust resistant. What do you think there is to service? just like EV's fuel cell vehicles have only a few hundred moving parts compared to the hundreds of thousands in a combustion car. You dont have regular replacements of oil, oil filtres, spark plugs, fuel pumps, timing belts, etc etc etc which have to be constantly replaced to keep the car running. So the cost to maintain a fuel cell or an EV is significantly less than a combustion car which runs of fossil fuels or hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
check again. Currently EV batteries are 95% recyclable with modern technology. Meanwhile the pollution over the lifetime of a combustion car from not only burning fuel but also refining that fuel plus all the regular service parts like belts, spark plugs, filters, oil filters, oil replacements etc etc etc. They're significantly worse than EV's.
Then there is hydrogen, the only way to create enough hydrogen for demand even if Hydrogen was as prevalent as BEV's are today, would be to split fossil fuels. As fossil fuels are Hydro-Carbons. chains of hydrogen and carbon. This requires ALOT of energy, also supplied by fossil fuels, and when you get the hydrogen is extremely difficult to capture the carbon left over and often ends up in the atmosphere. This means that hydrogen per mile would be MORE POLLUTING than using a normal combustion car. just you are emitting water so it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You can create hydrogen through electrolysis, called green hydrogen, but this isn't scalable for the required amounts and requires far more energy from a powerplant. Its literally more energy efficient to use that same energy from a power plant in an EV than using it to create hydrogen fuel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArchAngelAzmuel it’s not really. Let me explain why a hydrogen powerplants is, to use the technical term, stupid.
Hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally in its pure form, you need to separate it, either from natural gas (releasing cO2,) coal (also releasing cO2) or water. Either way, It requires a hell of a lot of energy most of which you don’t get back, you then need to compress it requiring more energy again. Finally it has to go through a fuel cell, which wastes almost half the energy that was left. The end result is that you only get around 30% of the electricity you initially put in to create the hydrogen.
As an example a whole factory in Melbourne was converted to create hydrogen. It has a huge 200 kW electrolizer. And a 2,000L storage tank where it stores the hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. Running for 24 hours that 200 kW electrolizer only produces 80kg of hydrogen (enough to fill 14 hydrogen cars). Which means it takes 4,800 kWh of electricty to produce 80kg of hydrogen. (Without even considering the energy required to compress the hydrogen).
If you were to run that back through a fuel cell to create electricity, you’d get 1,584 kWh. You’ve lost 67% of your energy. With only 33% remaining.
It would be better to just use the energy from the power plants for other uses instead of making hydrogens, or even in grid scale battery or pumped hydro.
If you were to convert that
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deathbyunicorn5213 it’s produces at minimum, best case scenario, 2-3 times more emissions per mile than a BEV. As for lithium, hydrogen vehicles don’t last very long. Ironically the lithium batteries they use are the longest lived part of the power train. The fuel cells only last between 100,000 and 150,000 miles and the fuel tanks are only rated for 10-15 years. Infact hydrogen cars come
Off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap. Meanwhile modern BEV’s are rated to and are showing to last up to and exceeding 500,000 miles with new battery tech promised by both Toyota and Tesla taking that number past 1 million miles. So at current, to meet the same lifetime service as 1 BEV, you have to manufacture and dispose of 2-3 hydrogen cars, and in 2022, that could be as more than 4-6 hydrogen cars to 1 BEV. And then considering that they then emit at best 3-4 times as much emissions per mile as a BEV. They’re no where near as green as BEV’s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@LWRC for example, top gear did a review of the model 3 against its direct competitor, the BMW M3. Its a direct competitor in price, performance, class and size. The M3 being the BMW’s flagship vehicle. Touted as “the ultimate driving machine”. Top gear did drag races, model 3 won, handling and agility, model 3 won. Track lap times, model 3 won. The Tesla model 3 won in every single category usually tested by top gear. But this one episode and only this one episode did they invent a fourth challenge. A “driftability” test. To which they found they could fling the BMW out of control a lot easier than the model 3. (Because the model 3 had Better handling). And then declared the BMW the winner because the only category it won agains the model 3 in, a made up category never used to compare any car previously or since, despite losing in every convention category used in every review and episode comparing vehicles before or since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LWRC the US Lost a million dollar satellite because it could correctly convert from metric to their imperial units. The lunar missions were first calculated using metric system and converted to imperial after for show and for the public to understand.
Meanwhile Australia has been responsible for inventing:
-The black box,
-Electronic pacemaker,
-Google maps,
-Wi-fi
-Medical penicillin
-The polymer bank note (still something the US can’t get their head around)
-Cochlear implant (bionic ear)
-The electric drill,
-Permaculture,
-Ultrasound scanners,
-Plastic lenses,
-Inflatable escape slides on aircraft,
-Cervical cancer vaccine,
-Frazier lenses,
-Race cams,
And so much more. Believe me, nothing the US does bewilders me.
1
-
1
-
@LWRC Australia also invested the two stroke lawn mower, latex glove, insect repellent, garage roller doors, ballistic glass, pre-paid postage, the bushmaster armoured vehicle, the first mechanical refrigerator, thrust bearings, floatation separation, self erecting cranes, etc etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deltacharlieecho4732 1.) most home appliances use brush motors, when they burn out they burn the brushes, burn brushes don’t conduct as well or at all. EV’s use synchronous induction motors, no bush, no problem with overheating, and no bushes to wear out over time.
At current Electric motors in EV’s have proven to last over 1 million miles when used as taxis and for domestic purposes, have reached well over 500,000 miles. They are designed to outlast the car. As for cost of replacing the motor, around $4,000. Plus labour which wouldn’t be a lot, if you cracked your block or jammed a piston you’d be up to rebuild you engine block, as such a replacement engine would far exceed that cost. In addition, part of an engine being modular is that you have to constantly replace parts and fluids for the entire life of the car. EV’s don’t suffer this weakness. No mandatory servicing is required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troywardjr1216 do not be so arrogant as to presume what I think. I don’t think me or anyone else is inherently good. But “the simple fact we are allowed to live at all is a teatament to his love” is nonsense. How does that apply to people born into suffering, how does that apply to babies born with congenital diseases leaving them to die months, days, even hours after birth? Where was their love? This all might being knows what’s happening and has the power to change it but condemns them to die regardless. No, that’s not a god I want to worship.
Tell me. If you had the power to stop a baby being with a heart abnormality which would kill it only 3 days into life and all the while leaving it in excruciating pain for its entire, short life, through no fault of its own or the parents, if you were aware of that outcome, and had the power to cure the baby so it lived a normal life like anyone else, and you decided to do nothing but watch that infant die a horrible painful death, would you be accepted into the “kingdom of heaven?”
If the answer is no, take a very hard look at why, and if the answer is yes, again, take a very hard look at why. Either way that’s no god I think deserves anyone’s worship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liahfox5840 thats no. thats not how science works... at all... we dont have to thoroughly interrigate every molecule of oil. are you insane? why the hell would you need to do that. Thats like thinking your need to interrogate every drop water on the planet to ensure it is infact, water. Thats a stupid way to look at things.
throwing a bunch of sciencey sounding words together doesnt make it mean anything "placebo theoretical science" isnt a proper sentence. and paid for by hidden agenda's? no again. thats not how science works. It works off peer review. Meaning outcomes and evidence need to published in full, replicated tens to hundreds of times around the world, verified by other experiments conducted using different methodology and and testing equipment all around the world. And only then, if all that evidence, third party testing, replication of results data and analysis stands unrefuted. then its considered fact.
You cant just say what ever you want and call it science. Everyone around the world from university to basement science enthusiasts, need to analyse your results, replicate them and concede the logic of your conclusions. Anyone on the planet can refute any scientific paper if they have the evidence to back it up, because then their claims will also be subject to peer review process.
so no. very much no, thats not how science works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you havnt thought this through have you? firstly, Modern EV batteries have warranties starting at around the 8 year mark. A battery life span is considered to 80% health (20% degradation). Modern EV batteries are design and are showing to last up to and over 500,000 miles to a lifespan. More than that of a combustion engine.
Next, turns out its more pragmatic to charge from home every evening whilst you're asleep than to drive around to a fuel station to refuel. Turns out this saves the average person 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel! so its actually extremely practical by comparison. You can even charge your EV from your home rooftop solar panels or a small portable generator if you wanted to, neither of which you could do with hydrogen.
As for infrastructure, for electric, the jobs already done. Everyone has electricity. For hydrogen, no. the job isnt half way there. to put in a single hydrogen pump at a fuel station it would cost around $1.2 million. whilst to put in a bank of 4 super chargers it costs $200k. 6 times less. It can also be installed without disrupting and temporarily closing the fuel station for several weeks, unlike installing a hydrogen pump which needs storage tanks underground.
So no, Job isnt half completed, it's not even 1% completed. and no, BEV's turn out to be the more practical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tesla wont likely go to fuel cells. For the above reason, adding hydrogen to an electric car just makes it worse. Not better, in almost every single way. Infact, BEV's have only been around for about 2-4 years longer than FCEV's which in the scale of things is next to nothing. over that time, BEV's have exploded with multiple models from almost every auto manufacturer and every year we are seeing more BEV options entering the market.
FCEV's however.... as of 2020, there were 3 models to chose from after nearly a decade of development and market exposure. After significantly more government and private investment and after significantly more advertisement than BEV's got. 3 models. The Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity and Hyundai Nexo.
But here's the kick, as of 2021, there are now 2 options on the market as the Honda Clarity was discontinued in 2021. Far from being the future it appears to be in severe decline with a whopping 1/3rd of FCEV's market offering being discontinued. Meanwhile Toyota has announced 9 new BEV models for 2022, Honda are rumoured to be announcing several new BEV models in 2022 as they have committed to 2/3rds EV sales within 10 years and Hyundai having 5 BEV models with more rumoured for 2022.
I dont know why people still think hydrogen is the future, its almost entirely faded into obscurity at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rjd72577 oh, sweet naïve summer child. Sorry but no. 3 things to point out.
1.) Most even manufactures, Tesla included, have ethical sourcing agreements for their cobalt (which is what you are referring to since most Lithium comes from Australia. And cobalt has been criticized for child labour)
2.) Modern EV batteries such as the Tesla 4680 batteries rolling out on 2022 models dont use any cobalt at all
3.) whilst EV's are the largest consumer of pure refined cobalt, they are not the largest consumer of cobalt by mass which means not only pure cobalt, but cobalt based compounds, chemicals and alloys. No, by kg of cobalt, (i.e. by mass*) the largest consumer of cobalt are *FUEL REFINERIES which use cobalt based chemicals to remove sulphur from every gallon of fuel your burn in your car every day. Not only that by fuel refineries have never received the public pressure that EV's have on their use of cobalt meaning they have no ethical sourcing agreements
Couple the child mining of cobalt for sulphur reduction with the fact that most of the wars in modern history have been started in one way or another over oil resulting in the accumulative deaths of millions of people, mostly civilians and ecological disasters such as the deep water horizons or the BP oil spill incidents bringing once thriving eco-systems to the brink of collapse and extinction,
It would probably be more appropriate to call petrol and diesel blood oil rather than calling EV's "blood batteries"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larsejgaardbissenbackerjrg6575 you can’t run a diesel on vodka. But even if you could, it would burn out the seals and tank the engine due to the sugar content.
EV’s today last much longer than combustion engines. Addition you don’t have to service them at all. Tesla’s having no mandatory services for the lifetime of the vehicle. That’s because the electric motor is a self contained unit rated to last 1 million miles. EV’s also don’t have a gearbox to service and maintain. and the batteries too are self contained unit rated to last around 500,000 miles to 70% health. Meanwhile diesel average a lifespan between 250,000 miles to 300,000 miles and only with persistent and regular maintenances on the vehicle including oil changes, belt changes, replacement parts, fuel pumps, engine bushing, filters, etc etc etc.
And yes, it’s far more fuel efficient to run a Tesla on a diesel generator than to use that same diesel in a car. Even an efficient one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlacXtar32 I am a Mechanical Engineer yes. There are many reason hydrogen are worse than BEV’s. Of course they’d have their use cases but I pitty those people.
As noted before the Mirai could not have bigger batteries on board as it does not have the space. Hydrogen cars are heavier, they cost far more per mile, have very little cabin and cargo space and are slower than BEV’s all because of physical restraints in dealing with hydrogen.
So let’s compare two similar vehicles, one hydrogen and one BEV.
Model 3, range: 325 miles
Mirai, range: 400 miles (only 75 miles more)
Model 3, 0-60: 3.2s
Mirai, 0-50, 9.2s
Model 3, much cheaper per mile operation
Mirai, very expensive per mile operation
Model 3, near class leading cabin space. Rear seats fold.
Mirai, not even enough space to fold the rear seats
Model 3, class leading boot space with front trunk.
Mirai, less boot space than a car half it’s size and no front trunk.
Model 3, battery life to 70% health estimated 500,000 miles (30-40 years of driving for the average person)
Mirai, comes off the assembly line with an expiration date limiting the life to only 10 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bassmanjr100 well the average rootop area of the US per home is 54 m2. There are 10.94 million homes in Texas, which means there is a potential for 629 million m2 of rooftop area for solar panels at the average power production of 1kWh per m2, that's 629 GW potential just from rootop solar. Texa's power demand is only 41.7 GW. Lets presume a utilisation factor of 30% due to night times, cloud cover, winter, etc, that 629 GW becomes 188.7 GW of power. More than enough to supply Texas. The only problem now is that its not generating during night time you'd need some 14 hours of storage for any power that cannot be covered by sources such as wind, or geothermal. Pumped hydro and kinetic energy storage are 2 solutions which have the capacity to fill this need.
Moving on to Nuclear, whilst nuclear is a clean energy, it isnt. Nuclear produces tons of radioactive waste with in low level or high level waste. At current we have no real way to deal with this waste other than to bury it, and at current we have no where to bury it so its sitting in warehouses in containers which will eventually erode. If you think that is a sustainable solution then please look a little harder. Additionally it takes almost and sometimes more than a decade to build nuclear power plants, Installing rooftop solar takes a day or 2. a solar far can be installed in months, wind farms can be installed in a a year or 2. Timing is another factor as we rapidly approach a climate tipping point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
making hydrogen is not pollution free. far from it. In general, Hydrogen cars are more pollutive than BEV's. They also have worse range than BEV's due to their restrictions in volume (because hydrogen takes up so much volume) and they are worse in low temperatures. (if you havnt noticed, hydrogen releases water as a byproduct. what happens to water when its below freezing?)
Diesel is not more efficient than electric. unfortunately its more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a cheap portable diesel generator than it is to use that same diesel in a even a modern diesel engine. The reason people prefer electric over hydrogen is because battery electric cars offer a better car in almost every aspect. convenience, range, lifespan, cost of operation, greener, safety, cabin space, boot space. etc etc etc.
you dont collect hydrogen from the atmosphere. its almost non existent unless you get to the very upper and outer reaches of our atmosphere, well above the Karmen line. We get our hydrogen from fossil fuels or water. (mostly fossil fuels) so all we'd be doing is release more hydrogen into the atmosphere from leakages. not removing hydrogen from the atmosphere. In addition, creating hydrogen from fossil fuels produces more emissions than if you had just burnt that as fuel in the first place. And unfortunately its the only currently feasible way to run a large scale hydrogen economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garymarquett7989 just to get this straight. Coal fire power plants produces, at worst, 1000g of CO2 per kWh. EV's get around 0.13 kWh per km (for the Tesla model 3 for example). which is 130g per km of emissions. On a coal only grid which almost every grid on the plant, isnt.
in every L of fuel, when you burn it you release around 2300 grams of fuel. If we take a similar size and class car, like the model 3's biggest competitor, the BMW M3, we get 11.6L/100km. or 0.116L/km. So thats 266.8g of emissions.
Then lets consider refining fuel, Fuel refining. Which is around 700g per L of fuel. So for the 266.8g/km mentioned above it becomes 348g per km. Which is a little more than the EV's 130g per km on a coal only grid. Which also becomes closer to 80g on the standard US grid mix to give you context of how worst case that is.
But lets comes to a car that doesnt have similar trim, performance or market as the model 3. Lets assume a relatively efficient 8L/100km car, that will produce 240g per km.
are you getting my drift here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mtube54 I didnt say that they needed any repairs. I said they needed no servicing. as in, regular required servicing. Such as ICE cars requiring air filter, spark plug, oil filter and oil changes every 10,000 km.
as for suspension and bushings in the arm linkages, these parts are extremely long wearing. have you ever had to replace any suspension bushings? i doubt it, I am yet to meet anyone who has. I'm no saying it doesnt happen. Im saying its not regular.
as for moving parts, ICE cars have hundreds of thousands of moving parts. EV's have hundreds. and the parts that do move, with the exception of 3, have been refined in the automotive industry for as long as the industry has been around. for example, doors and suspension. to certainly there is nothing new there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mstnglvrr Hydrids which arent EV's firstly Hybrids dont have battery management systems to monitor their charge and discharge and keep them at idea temperatures. Secondly they are very small, an EV has a cycle life (to 70% health) of 1,500 cycles, for a car with 325 miles thats 1,500 x 325 = 487,500 miles. For a 400 miles battery thats 1,500 x 400 = 600,000 miles. Meaning battery size matters. A hydrid usually only has 25 miles, so thats 37,500 miles of battery driving.
EV's arent hybrids, that should be fairly obvious. Im still confused. Do people not think that EV's and Hybrids are different?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hagerty1952 there is around 139.64 million houses in the US with an average surface area of 150m2. Current solar panels output 1kW per square meter. I’m saying that, the available space not currently used for solar generation on people’s homes is around 150x139,640,000=20,0946 Gigawatts which we could round to 21,000 Gigawatts. Given a 30% utilisation rate that becomes 6,300 GW. Assuming an average 2549 hours of direct sunshine per year (from data at current results / weather). Which means you’d have a yearly power production of around 16 peta watts per year.
For storage you could put in a small 10kWh storage per home, and couple it with big battery and hydro storage. That capacity would need to be your 450GW for the hours the sun isn’t shinning
There are 8760 hours in a year. The sun shines an average of 2549 hours. So we need 8760-2549=6211 hours, at 450Gw which is 2.7 PWh. If we had 10kWh storage in 139.64 million homes that’s 1396.4 kWh storage would have a capacity of 0.0013964 PWh. So big battery and hydro would have to share the rest.
However with diversification using wind nationally, as well as geothermal and nuclear, you could easily achieve the 450GW overnight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexdockery6003 you say You’re annoyed and false statements then immediately make a false statement. Modern EV batteries have warrantees alone for 8 years and 100,000 miles (and some unlimited miles). Older Gen EV’s such as the 2012 Model S are commonly now surpassing 300,000 and 400,000 miles and some well over 500,000 miles and modern battery cycles life for modern battery packs are 1,500 cycles.
In addition it was found by numerous wells to wheels studies comparing similar size, class and trim vehicles that whilst EV produce approximately 15% more emissions during manufacturing, (which equates to about 1 ton) over their service life (of a classic combustion cars 250,000 miles life) a combustion car will emit 20-30 tons more emissions that an EV when including oil changes, regular replacement parts, fuel to well, etc. they almost always find the hot end of life impacts are roughly equivalent as more than 95% of current lithium ion batteries are recyclable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boowiebear well to go into more detail, hydrogen is less safe than BEV, as less performance or lifespan, they are more expensive than BEV’s to operate, and they waste more time refueling, because if we’re use case and behaviour, moats people don’t have daily commutes even approaching half of a typical EV’s range on today’s market. So they have no use for charging at super chargers or destination chargers and can instead charge either at home when they’re sleeping and otherwise not using the car or at work when they’re not using the car.
Either way, 0 hours typically wasted getting fuel, hydrogen, like combustion, will have to refuel once a week, wasting time driving there and back and refuling. The average person spends 17 hours a year in the pursuit of fuel. 17 hours not spent if you use an EV.
So by average use case for the average person, BEV, offer better safety, performance, lifetime, operating costs and convenience/time management.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyromcr Yeah, the Hyperion. Which had to maximise its battery banks and catalytic area to get the power from the fuel cells required to drive the thing. As a result it has to sacrifice cargo space and cabin space. It is a purpose built 2 door no boot 2 seater cramped performance car. the result is 221 mph max speed and a 0-100 of 2.2 seconds. Its as practical as a daily driver as a Lamborghini aventador
remember those specs. Because the Tesla Model S plaid, which goes for less than a half the price or even more is a 4 door, 5 seat, luxury family sedan with 2 boots, large cabin space, and all the heavy luxury features such as heated/cooled seats, steering wheels, sun roof, etc.
It is a 0-100 of 1.99s, and a max speed of 200mph.
so for less than half the cost you get a car that has better performance and can be used a family car and daily driver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyromcr I’m not saying a Tesla sedan is a better track car. But a Tesla sedan can achieve similar and in some categories better performance without needed to sacrifice comfort and practicality to do so. I would have thought that as a pretty clear point.
I’ve seen someone win the lottery. Doesn’t mean it happens often. According to the ANCAP safety board, the NTHSA board, NCAP safety board, the beuro of statistics and others, EV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident.
However the bias remains because, as proven by several social science studies from numerous university and organisations, the only time car fires are reported is when someone famous dies, or it’s an EV.
And yes, puncture test is different to a breach. And whole time diffuses quickly in atmosphere but hydrogen is also extremely explosive even in minute amounts. Small punctures such as a bullet hole don’t pose much threat due to the press ejecting the fuel. A tear due to a collision hard enough to tear the car in 2, (which isn’t an uncommon occurrence on freeway speeds) will cause an explosion. This isn’t a hypothetical. Test results prove this. That’s why they only show footage of hydrogen tanks being shot. Not torn in two, also why you never see high speed collision tests, and why they say tank puncture not large scale tank failures. The wording is very specific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Currently there are only around 5 or so cars on the market, all plug in hybrids, which would be more emissions friendly than a pure EV, when based of the national average US grid mix, which works out to be around 500g/kWh of emissions. This means for a diesel, it would have to surpass 98mph (2.4L/100km) or for petrol 84mpg (2.8L/100km). This is based off the energy consumption of a Tesla model 3. All 5 cars of which I could find which equalled or exceeding those fuel efficiencies were significantly smaller than the model 3, so its not comparing apples to oranges. IF you're looking for a mid-sized sedan, there is no Hybrid or ICE competition out there which would exceed the efficiency of the model 3.
This is based off an energy consumption of 130Wh/km for the model 3, 1kg of emissions per kWh for coal, 500g/kWh for Gas, 800g/kWh for petroleum/oil generators, 2.3kg/L of petrol fuel and 2.7kg/L for Diesel Fuel.
From that you can find the average grid mix for the US for 2020, find an average emissions per kWh to be approximately 500g/kWh. Then use the Model 3 efficiency to find the fuel efficiency required to emit the same emissions per km, from either petrol or diesel.
NOTE: This does not include the VERY emissions heavy fuel refining and transportation process. If that was include EV's win out by a significant margin every time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MBarram Again I disagree, You can fit far more than 200kWh into a truck body. For Example, the Tesla Semi has a 500kWh+ Battery pack. Which under load gets the truck 500 miles (around 800km) found through real-world testing. Without sacrificing space and keeping BEV's incredible torque and power characteristics which are very beneficial for trucking.
Hydrogen Trucks on the other hand. The only ones on the market at the moment, Much like the Tesla Semi, are Hyundai's prototype trucks. Currently being tested in a range of locations. These trucks have not one but two massive fuel cells (95kW, by comparison the Mirai has an engine sized 50kW fuel cell) Hyundai's prototype also only goes 250 miles (400km) and stores 32kg of hydrogen fuel (requiring 851L of fuel storage, a typical Semi only holds 450L to 550L of diesel). It also holds 72kWh of batteries, the same size as is found in a Model 3 Long range. Looking at photos of the Hyundai Xcient, you can see all that extra space takes up some of the vertical height of the trailer, whilst in length being almost the full length of the first part of the trailer. Which would have a hell of an impact on turning circles.
Meanwhile if you need more than 800km of range from an Electric Truck, you can like the bottom of the trailers with batteries, more than doubling it range whilst reducing the gross weight limit of cargo it can legally carry in some countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually hydrogen is extremely unstable. Large lithium batteries are around 95% recyclable, and whilst you might not thing efficiencies dont matter, a typical home solar array (the larger kind you can have on the roof of your home) would take 2-3 months of non-stop, sunny summer days to produce a single tanks worth of hydrogen. you would also need a large industrial set up to store the hydrogen as it can leak through solid metal and weakens the metal as it does so. You would also need to have a compressor an odd 200 x larger than a typical domestic air compressor you see trades use at worksites. all that is VERY expensive, for a car that lasts 1/3rd the lifespan of a BEV, which you'd only be able to fully refuel once every 2-3 months, that only gets around 400 miles, when you could charge your EV with a single days solar, have none of that equipment set up or cost, that will last 2-3 times longer, is faster, has better cabin and cargo space...
its not practical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeBlack1108 it is also more fuel efficient to charge your EV off a portable diesel generator than it would be to use that fuel in a Diesel engine, meaning that $110 a month would get you further with an EV. as for pulling capacity maybe try looking at the adverts for the electric F150 or the Cyber truck. Electric motors are known for their torque. Cranes don’t use Diesel engines, they use electric motors.
Any mine in Australia has to meet the minimum requirements of the minors unions. Miners are paid better than almost any other profession in Australia. I can’t speak for Africa however the majority of lithium comes from Australia.
Also the batteries are absolutely recyclable. A quick google search will clear that up for you.
As for lifetime. Modern EV batteries are designed to last around 500,000 miles with no regular services required. No oil replacements, spark plugs, belts, fuel pumps, oil filters, injectors. Infact it’s not uncommon to find an older generation Tesla which he done over 400,000 miles or more.
That’s because of modern battery management systems and the fact that EV’s only have a few hundred moving parts, Combustion cars have a few hundred thousand. There aren’t many parts because they aren’t needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because it does not occur naturally in its pure form on earth. You HAVE to split it from something else, like water, natural gas, coal, oil, ammonia etc. And splitting it requires infrastructure to transport it to the hydrogen plants and then to the fuel stations. And splitting it, itself takes alot of energy as you need more energy to split the chemical bonds that hold the hydrogen in, what are called "carriers" (water, ammonia, etc), than you get out by recombining it to create electricity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fossil fuel companies and legacy auto makers have made huge pushes to move towards hydrogen because if the world moves towards green energy that’s how they keep their income. The easiest way to produce hydrogen, and the cheapest way, is through splitting hydro-carbons (aka, fossil fuels like oil and gas). They keep the hydrogen and release the carbon.
Further to that, if the world went battery electric, there would be no use for fuel stations anymore, or fuel transportation infrastructure. And guess who owned most of the fuel stations? Shell, BP oil, Caltex, oil companies do. But if they push hydrogen, their fuel station business model remains in tact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It really shouldn’t. He ignores the most fundamental problems with hydrogen, performance, safety and cost.
Hydrogen is extremely expensive. It will never ever reach cost parity with battery electrics.
They’re slower, because power output is low. The only way to make them fast is to make them as practical as a daily driver as Lamborghini aventador, meanwhile Tesla has a large family SUV verging on supercar territory performance.
And safety, hydrogen is extremely, EXTREMELY explosive and can leak through solid metal.
There are more problems but those are the biggest. He’s quick to say steam reforming is cheaper than electrolysis, but neglects to mention it requires splitting fossil fuels into carbon emissions and hydrogen, and whilst you’re polluting using fossil fuels in a less efficient way than just putting that fuel into a car, it’s still double the cost of fuel.
He’s quick to mention that the Hyperion is a hydrogen super car, he neglects to mention the only reason they could pull it off, is by getting rid of all but the drivers seat and removing any cargo space to pack on more batteries and more fuel cells. And even then it only just manages to come close, not even surpass, the performance of Tesla’s large luxury family sedan which has not one boot but 2. (Front and back).
This shouldn’t go viral it should be shot down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well no. Per km, you do need around 3x the amount of electricity to produce the hydrogen than if you used that same energy in a Battery electric car. The problem with grid infrastructure is tripled with hydrogen, not helped. Moreover, charging times are actually a benefit for battery and not for hydrogen, especially with domestic passenger cars. With ranges between 250-400 miles, there is more than enough range for almost any daily commute. Meaning 99% of the year the average person only needs to plug in at home and get up in the morning to a full charge. 0 minutes wasted driving to, fueling up and driving back to get fuel which is 10x more expensive than electricity.
Also you can’t retrofit an Battery electric into a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The large battery packs of battery electric vehicles make up the cars chassis. Removing batteries would be like taking out half your chassis. In addition, it changes the weight dynamics. You have to install a fuel system, and electronics and fuel cell, most of which has to sit above the chassis, in a vehicle which is designed to optimise the space provided. By having a flat battery pack at the bottom. Which means you’d have to replace everything except the shell of the car, the chassis, electronics, computer systems, safety system, suspension, etc etc and keep some of the batteries and motor which you’d have to take out and re-mount some other way. It would literally be cheaper to buy a new car
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1