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

  1. Both of those things but also efficiency. You’d have a combustion car than ran with less power and range than an equivalent sized standard combustion engine.
    2
  2. Thats what makes the second hand car market a thing. well done.
    2
  3. How?
    2
  4.  @wraithconscience  I am not arguing that you can’t burn hydrogen in a piston cylinder car. I’m also not arguing that you can’t then use that to create hydrogen. What I’m saying is you’ll generate less hydrogen than you used to create the hydrogen you just burnt. There is no such thing as free energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that nothing can have more than 100% efficiency. The zeroth law defines that energy cannot be create or destroyed, only transformed. You are generating hydrogen, using that hydrogen to release energy which produces water, then using that water to make more hydrogen from the energy released by turning it into water. You would need the hydrogen to release more energy when it is recombined into water than you need to split it again if you were to even attempt to drive a car that way. But that would mean you would be constantly creating energy from nothing. Water, to hydrogen, to water, to hydrogen, and somehow every time you do that you get more energy? No. It’s not possible. It’s against the laws of physics. You wouldn’t be able to do it for long because when you start counting energy losses instead of thinking the whole system is 100% efficient, you create significantly less hydrogen than you burnt to get the energy to generate it. You’d be pouring energy down the drain. This is different than LPG substitution in a car. You’re not generating LPG by combing carbon and hydrogen then Burning that LPG. If you wanted something that ran like LPG substitution you’d need to not generate hydrogen but store it as a separate fuel you fill up externally.
    2
  5.  @wraithconscience  most of that for me was TLDR, however I will say this. I did not deny that you can make hydrogen on board in a combustion car. I argued that it was POINTLESS TO DO SO because you lose more energy for zero gain. It takes you X amount of energy to produce hydrogen, you'll get 0.3X energy from that hydrogen you produced. It would be more effective and efficient to use that energy elsewhere rather than making hydrogen. thats been my point from the begining, You COULD do that if you wanted to. by WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO as all you would be achieving is throwing energy down the drain, you might as well point an injector directly into the exhaust manifold to expel X energy worth of gasoline. It would have the exact same net outcome. I'm not saying you cant do make hydrogen on board for use in the motor, I'm saying its just f**king stupid to do so. Hence my earlier comment of "and you think environmentalist waste energy!!" Because that the only outcome of what you are suggesting with on board hydrogen production.
    2
  6.  @wraithconscience  here’s the short version. The only thing you achieve by generating hydrogen on board to burn in the engine is wasted energy. That’s it. You won’t add anything. You’re just pouring energy down the drain.
    2
  7.  @vicariouswitness  ahhhh . Yup. Gotcha
    2
  8. hydrogen itself doesn't. Hydrogen vehicles do. Mostly because 1.) they use lithium batteries as well. and 2.) because the by-product is water.... which freezes... and if it freezes in the exhaust, or fuel cell it can restrict flow through the fuel cell reducing power or entirely stopping power product resulting in your car being dead at the side of the road until it thaws out in spring. Batteries however, their chemical reactions slow down, making the car believe it has less power than it does. And gives less available power. But it takes -40 degree's (C or F, its a convergent temp). to freeze a lithium battery. Not many places get that cold. Additionally as you drive the EV, the internal resistance heats the batteries and you get your power back after some driving. The biggest drawback is that cabin air cant be heated by the engine like in a combustion car so heating the air takes alot of energy. This isn't something unique to batteries though. Hydrogen cars also dont have combustion engines which generate alot of waste heat to utilise. meaning they also have to expend more fuel to generate the energy to heat the cabin air in winter. Similar losses of range abound for both technologies in this regard.
    2
  9. probably hydrogen fuel cell since there are very little if any at all commercially available OEM hydrogen combustion cars.
    2
  10. That’s a myth. There is plenty.
    2
  11.  @blitzsgarage6323  have you seen the hydrogen fuel station explosion in Europe. I’d argue hydrogen has higher risk of mortal injury if something goes wrong with them.
    2
  12.  @blitzsgarage6323  my model 3 chargers from a 10a 240v outlet in my house, and it can go as low as 100V. At 8 amps. Sorry, replying as I read
    2
  13.  @blitzsgarage6323  child labour isn’t from lithium. It’s from cobalt. Tesla had recently announced they’ve discovered a new battery architecture which is cobalt free. In addition they’ve signed agreements with cobalt supplies to only source ethical cobalt. And whilst EV’s are the largest consumer of pure cobalt (for now), the largest consumer of cobalt by mass (meaning including cobalt based compounds not just pure cobalt) are fuel refineries to remove sulphur from petrol and diesel fuels.
    2
  14.  @estradacg  well let’s see. Both hydrogen and BEV’s have electric motors powered by lithium batteries via an inverter. So we can cancel out the motor and the inverter. So here is what we’re left with with fuelled vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells are around 60% efficient in labs but realistically 45%. But let’s call it 60. The lithium battery charging from the fuel cell is around 98% efficient and similar with discharging. So overall that’s 57% efficiency. A battery electrics battery discharge is similarly around 98% efficient. So that’s a total of 98% efficient. So hydrogen, 57% and BEV’s, 98%. If we ignore external losses such as from fuel production and power stations.
    2
  15. 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
  16. Good like building a hydrogen network in Canada or Russia…. Or owning a hydrogen car for a long time… in any country
    2
  17. Did they not mention the part where hydrogen is made using 3-4 times more of the same electricity from the same energy grid per mile, than if you had just put that energy into BEV's which as you pointed out generated using fossil fuels? or the part where the only other way to produce hydrogen is WITH fossil fuels in a process that releases more emissions than if you had just burn the fossil fuels in the first place?
    2
  18. Hydrogen uses fossil fuel plants to produce the hydrogen. This actually requires 3-4 times more electricity from these plants per miles worth of hydrogen than BEV's.
    2
  19. you talkin about me? haha, all good my dude, I dont mind a bit of rib tickling. Keep me posted on your results! very keen to see the outcome.
    2
  20. depends which batteries you're talking about. EV batteries are around 95% recyclable. Infact a few companies producing EV's like Tesla already have a police of recycling all their own batteries.
    2
  21. Yea it has…
    2
  22. Killing it... a lot slower than combustion cars..
    2
  23. Making hydrogen with solar panels would be an incredible waste of solar panels, you’d be pouring roughly 70-80% of your energy generation down the drain for no good reason other than you wanted hydrogen. And natural gas would release a boatload of emissions. So no. Additionally hydrogen is expensive because unlike natural gas, you can’t get it in its pure state naturally. You have to extract it from other elements like water or fossil fuels which require a huge amount of energy to do.
    2
  24. but if you emit more CO2 than the plants can absorb it starts to build up. if you also then start cutting down forests so even less is absorbed you start getting really bad things happen. Like acidification of the oceans cause choral bleeching destroying some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, oceans heating which melts polar ice caps which then deflect less sunlight because there is less white ice. less deflection means more is absorbed by the ocean heating it up more which melts more ice which then deflects less sun.... so on so forth. Just one of many many feedback loops carbon takes a part in. Its all well and good to preach highschool biology, that CO2 is plant food but i'm sure you dont sit there and eat 1,700 big mac meals per day. at some point they start going to land fill dont they?
    2
  25. More efficiency but more than double the emissions
    2
  26. Why
    2
  27.  @BlacXtar32  thats ok. Happy to talk about things. However Tesla's batteries today, and their motors both should exceed the average lifespan of a combustion engine which is impressive. Hydrogen still has a long way to go but you are right in that they will still have their use cases. but hopefully you can see why I would pitty those who were forced to use Hydrogen vehicles over BEV's.
    2
  28.  @BlacXtar32  I agree that those who do not have access to local charging either at their work or at home would ultimately be better off with hydrogen. But if you can charge from home it saves you a trip to the fuel station every week. For the average person this would save you 16-17 hours per year. So I disagree with refueling as an advantage. It just opens it up to use cases BEV's arent suited for. As for self feeding hydrogen fuel stations. You're absolutely right, But they already exist. For example here in Melbourne they just installed the first ever hydrogen refueling station in Melbourne. Toyota installed it in one of their old decommissioned factories. Its designed to produce its own hydrogen for distribution and it uses almost the entire factory floor to do so and to store it. without going into the energy used to compress the hydrogen they use a 200 kW electrolyser producing 80kg of hydrogen per day. sounds good except that even at the scale of a factory, thats only enough fuel to top up 14 hydrogen cars evenly spaced throughout the day. Meaning that it creates enough hydrogen in one day to power HFC cars 9,100km. Using the same amount of energy which would power a BEV 35,500km. It pulls most of that power from the grid, however it does have an 80kW solar array. So in Australian Summer it would produce just enough hydrogen to fill up 4/5th of a single cars fuel tanks in one day. All without considering the inversion losses from the solar array or power required to compress the hydrogen to 700 bar.
    2
  29.  Chop  don’t need. Just want
    2
  30.  Chop  sometimes. Also talking about these things interests me incredibly.
    2
  31. note the term "better" whilst some of the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, even if you had a 100% coal grid (very rare btw, the US's largest grid share is gas power which is still only around 35% of the energy mix). it is produces significantly less emissions per mile than a combustion car, even before you consider the refining and transportation of the fuel, They're better even just from the tailpipe alone.
    2
  32. Fuel cell cars are buy in large heavier than their BEV counter parts. Additionally, whilst they do get their electricity from the grid to charge them, to create hydrogen they also have to take electricity from the grid. More precisely around 3-4 times as much of the same grid energy per miles worth of hydrogen, making them decided worse environmentally than BEV's. Sorry but nothing said was untrue or biased.
    2
  33. Yeah but efficiency loss due to transmission and power generation would also apply to the generation of hydrogen which needs excessive amounts of electricity to produce. The motors efficiency from electric to mechanical energy is roughly 97% if look at the new Tesla motors.
    2
  34. Efficiency. Dirtiest electricity source. Not dirtiest power source.
    2
  35. We can already recycle 96% of current lithium batteries. We just lack the facilities which are already starting to pop up due to increase demand for recycled lithium.
    2
  36. Sure they can
    2
  37. It takes more energy to produce the hydrogen from water than is released by it either through combustion or through a fuel cell. All you would be doing is pouring energy down the drain for no good reason.
    2
  38. What issue? And any inherent emissions from energy production is 3 fold worse for hydrogen.
    2
  39.  @Theyrewrong827  ok. Number 1, hydrogen fuel cells are sold with expiration dates printed on them. They last 20 years. That’s it. Number 2, the warrantee for the batteries is 8-10 years. I’m reality real world figured are matching lab results which show a battery life of 1,500 cycles. For many cars that’s around 500,000 miles to 70% of their original capacity. Which is 30-40 years worth of driving. Number 3, EV batteries are currently <95% recyclable. Most of the environment risk is associated with mining lithium. Not with recycling. They’re not lead acid batteries. Don’t treat them like it. Number 4. Super chargers only take 10-20 minutes to charge your car. A far cry from 2-3 hours. In addition most people don’t travel more than 350-500km in a single trip. 99.9% of the year they only have their daily commutes or local trips. I don’t buy a car based on how many times I’d have to stop if I drove from Melbourne to Sydney all of the 7 times I’ve ever done that in my life. That would be stupid. I buy a car based on what I spend most of my driving time doing. Going to and from work, family, events, shops. If I holiday, I go to the airport.
    2
  40. Big comment. So I’ll reply paragraph at a time. (Possibly not in order.) while hydrogen is more power dense than battery or hydrogen the equipment and added cooling required to run them actually makes them heavier than EV’s. By 0.5T on average. This Is due to needing 3 triple layered, anti puncture, fuel tanks capable of withstand pressures of 700 bar (32 times the stored pressure of LPG). And the material has to be dense. As hydrogen is so small it can leak through solid steel.
    2
  41. Just because they use an electric motor does not mean they could have the same performance as a BEV. Fuel cells power output is limited by the catalyst surface area. A cell small enough to fit in a vehicle does not provide enough energy for adequate acceleration. So you need batteries to store the energy. But the bigger your battery, the higher your power output. A battery than can fit between electric motors, 3 fuel tanks and a fuel cell is never going to provide the same oomph to the wheels. Couple this with the required higher centre of gravity of hydrogen vs BEV, you get a slower worse handling vehicle. You can design around this but to do so you would sacrifice, practicality, comfort and range to do so, where those benefits come naturally to EV which is why most are luxury sedans and SUV’s with super car level performance.
    2
  42. Hydrogen generated at the point of use is never going to be enough to fill more than 3 or so hydrogen vehicles per day with a service station Sized facility. Which is ok if you’re 1 of 5 people in the city with a hydrogen car but not good when you’re one of millions.
    2
  43. actually Modern EV batteries are designed to and showing to last up to around 500,000 miles with 70% of their capacity remaining. Infact after 100,000 miles the Tesla model 3 has an average of 2% degradation.
    2
  44. actually EV's are very reliable, on account of not having many moving parts. Infect, most Teslas have no required regular servicing at all. Not even for warrantee. Most faults that occur with the vehicles are software based in which case you can separate the computers and restart the UI whilst driving the car, if that doesn't fix it you can do a had reboot by pulling over and in the event of persistent faults, an Tesla technician can remotely access the cars diagnostics and he can rectify the problem remotely. I've only ever that to soft reboot the car once, because Spotify wasn't working properly. And i did so while I was driving and 20 seconds later it was fixed. Tesla gets a bad wrap for reliability because consumer reports changed the model 3 from being the highest recommended vehicles and the most reliable vehicles to a month later being rated the least reliable. when asked why it cited that paint quality and panel gaps (both of which aren't issues with reliability but with build quality of which consumer reports has its own category for and the model 3 was the first and last vehicle they applied build quality to reliability for, something consumer reports ignored, when criticised about this)
    2
  45. its not that its hard, its that it.. well just takes alot... for very little gain.... When you generate hydrogen, by the time you convert it back to electricity again, you've lost almost 2/3rds of the electricity you started with. But to do so at home means you need specialized tanks holding bomb scale pressures of an highly explosive gas. You also need compressors to get it to those pressures and you need an electrolyser which is large enough for the power being supplied as they typically operate fairly slowly. All that gear you have to buy and set up and get running, just to flush 2/3rds of you electricity generation down the drain. Meanwhile if you use batteries, then you are extremely unlucky if you lose more than 15% of the energy you generate, and all you need is a battery which can be mounted on a wall or somewhere out of the way. Done and dusted. Thats why.
    2
  46. They’re already researching cobalt free lithium batteries and Toyota have produce a solid state battery which would be more energy dense, have a drastically long life and use less lithium.
    2
  47. The water isn’t what drives cost up for hydrogen. The energy require to make it and the 3 different levels of profit markups is what makes it expensive
    2
  48.  @garymarquett7989  and generators run of fuel. Did you even read my comment genius. I was pointing out that it was more fuel efficient to charge your EV with even a small portable generator, than it is to use that same fuel in a combustion engine. What part of that isn’t making sense to you genius?
    2
  49.  @garymarquett7989  well apparently the wealth of scientific literature is already doing that. That and the fact they have better performance, safety and at a cheaper cost of operation than a combustion car. The Tesla model 3 is the best selling luxury vehicle in any category in the US. Beating out the BMW 3 serious and the Mercedes CLA (the next two runners up) combined in sales. So looks like I don’t have to.
    2
  50. EV’s can be charged from a small portable generator. Which helps. However I wouldn’t say EV’s suffer from a lack of fueling problem, more than hydrogen suffers from a fuelling problem. To explain, very few people have a daily commute more than 75 miles, hell even on a busy day you’d be stretched to even travel 100 miles or so, meanwhile modern EV’s have a range of 300-400 miles. More than enough for daily activities. Meaning you can charge from home while you’re asleep and not using it. Full range every day. This saves the average person between 16-17 hours a year from chasing fuel. Hydrogen, you have to find fuel stations to fill up, even if there were stations around. If you have spontaneous things to do, you might find yourself looking for a fuel station, whilst EV’s have full range at the beginning of every day. The only time a person might spend more than 4-5 hours of driving in a single day is for the rare long trips most people do less than once a year. wasting 16-17 hours per year only to save 20-30 minutes of charging on a trip you might do once per year or less doesn’t make sense:
    2