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