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

  1. Well they’re 20-60 times less likely to spontaneously combust compared to an ICE car doing the same. They are 5 times less likely in a crash, and when they do combust the onset is much slower, usually travelling down the thermal runaway spiral for 0.5-1.5 hours before visible flames appear. A combustion car usually takes on average 45 seconds for engulfment of the cabin. And while EV’s do rely on fossil fuel power. As the grid becomes cleaner, so do the EV’s. Green hydrogen on the other hand, relies on the same damn grid. So they share that problem. Except green hydrogen requires 4 times more electricity per miles worth of hydrogen than an EV needs to go one mile. So the emissions from the grid would be 4 times worse. Except because of that reason, and the size of the facilities required to make and store even a moderate amount of green hydrogen, it’s not feasible to do on a large enough scale. As a result hydrogen will have to be derived from fossil fuels which are hydro-carbons and very dirty, but is the only scalable option for hydrogen.
    4
  2. Funnily enough in Australia the states with the highest grid stability also have the highest share of renewables. Take South Australia for example. It started as the least stable grid in the state, with the dependence on other states as they were net energy importers and had the highest wholesale energy prices in Australia. Fast forward to today and their grid is over 75% renewables (wind, solar and geothermal) And they’re now the most stable grid in the country, have the second lowest whole energy prices in the country and have become net exporters of energy meaning other states are now dependant on them. Not bad for state with the area more than double the size of California…. And who’s to say that battery or hydrogen power trucks and processes and equipment can’t be used mine and machine all the parts needed for the solar panels and wind turbines. Lastly, a power transmission tower, a cell towers or a sky rise building all kill more wildlife than an entire windfarm. That’s because animals don’t like to go near moving things, especially when it’s making a lot of noise when you’re close to it. It tends to make them steer clear. Additionally far less land must be cleared for wind farms than a powerplant of the same size needs. Especially considering that you can still have shrubland habitat or grazing paddocks under the turbines….
    4
  3. Its ironic that so many people comment on an Real Engineering video saying that hydrogen should be produced in the car. As if going from water to electricity to water to electricity and on and on and on is the same thing as plugging a power board into itself and expecting infinite electricity. The thought is pseudoscience at best. But there are SO MANY people in the comments suggesting it like the video poster is an idiot.
    4
  4. Risk of explosion no more serious than LPG but the results of the explosion being wayyyy more dangerous. If you google LPG car explosion. Usually just from the tank exploding due to pressure without ignition of the fuel, it’s not a little bit of damage or danger. It’s a lot. Then you have to come to the realisation that Hydrogen needs to be stored at 32 times higher pressure than LPG and that hydrogen actively degrades the materials containing it.
    4
  5. You can’t produce it in the vehicle.
    3
  6.  @ranjeetkapse  Yes and no. if you had to recycle them simultaneously, they are fairly similar between BEV and FCEV's. However there is one more consideration. A FCEV vehicle is expected to last little over 200,000 miles (320,000 km). a BEV such as the Tesla Model 3 is expected to last well over 500,000 miles (800,000 km). Based on the rated lifetime of the battery which is 1,500 cycles. And that rating is to 70% capacity. So after 1,500 cycles your battery still has 70% of its original range which is well over 230km range which makes it still very useful domestically. So by the time 1 EV reaches its technical end of life (of which it could still be used for double that time before it reaches the motors rated lifetime of 1 million miles), you have had to recycle 2 FCEV's. and will be on your third. So whilst the individual vehicles recyclability are approximately equivalent, when factoring lifetime of the vehicles FCEV's have just over double and potentially 4-5 times the impact of a BEV. (if you continue to use it past the Battery lifetime benchmark of 70% capacity). That's not even factoring in the wasted energy due to the creation of Hydrogen, the compression and transportation of that hydrogen, and then the loss of energy in the fuel cell. recourses will be used to generate that wasted energy. which needs to be accounted for as well. The only advantage Hydrogen brings to the table for domestic vehicles is speed of refuelling. But only if the infrastructure is there. Which it isn't. By comparison every household in a developed country has electricity supplied to the home. Most EV's can easily be charged off regular power points. And whilst that wont charge you in a hurry, most days you don't travel over 300 miles. Meaning that it can charge while you're at home watching TV, eating dinner, and sleeping and every morning you wake up with a full tank. The infrastructure of EV's is there already for 90% of your regular domestic use. most of the infrastructure is there for the 10% of long trips you'd do each year. and that infrastructure is already expanding rapidly. BEV's have the lifetime, the efficiency, the performance, the infrastructure, the ecological impact, the safety and lower running costs, all over and exceeding that of FCEV's. As I stated FCEV's only advantage domestically is refuelling speeds. However industrially they have 1 other significant advantage. Potential range. It takes far less volume to pack more hydrogen in a tank than it does to pack more batteries. As a result hydrogen trucks will hold a significant advantage over BEV trucks due to range and stopped time refuelling. (given adequate infrastructure for either). That is also to say that BEV trucks will still have an advantage is performance and safety. A fully laiden Tesla truck for example is shown to out run most modern cars outside performance vehicles off the line. Something to consider with traffic impacts in cities or places with regular steep inclines to navigate. However into city or interstate or even international freighting, this is hardly a consideration. So the only advantage there to BEV's is safety
    3
  7.  @ranjeetkapse  That went a little off topic but you get the gist of it.
    3
  8.  @fastertove  I agree. I use mills, and K's all the time. Measure a piece of timber, tell the guy its 2,700 mills and he knows what i'm saying. Even if I say 2700 he knows because the units are all standardized. When asking how far something is I might say, "oh, 6k maybe?"
    3
  9. 1.) both cars require rare earth metals to produce and both cars use lithium batteries. Making a fuel cell is not an easy task. Nor is acquiring the materials inside it. But seeing as an EV can last up to or exceeding 400 miles per battery and the lithium is 100% Recyclable from the battery afterwards, while a hydrogen can only lasts 150k miles before the fuel cell packs it in. I’d say the EV is ahead. 2.) the average battery replacement today costs $12k. A fuel cell replacement reportedly costs around $90k and upwards. Inclusive of labour and certification. Seeing as fuel cells are only rated for 150-200k miles and EV batteries today are rated for 400-500k miles. I’d say that’s a bad deal. 3.) nuclear has a low to no carbon footprint. But it does have a different footprint. Nuclear powerplants produce high and low level radioactive waste. Which we have absolutely no idea what to do with. At current we put it into barrels and store it in massive wear-houses. Considering the material will stay hazardous for at least the next 500 years, and the barrels don’t last that long, pumping out more of the stuff isn’t a good long term solution. 4.) a fuel cell is 60% efficient. Whilst a combustion engine is 25% efficient. The mirai with its fuel cell gets 400 miles with hydrogen fuel almost stacked to the roof. Swap that out for a combustion engine and that 400 miles becomes 120 miles. For the same very very high price of refueling the car. Hydrogen also embrittles metals, making it extremely weak. The engine wouldn’t last longer than 50-80k miles before it needs to be scrapped.
    3
  10. well no I disagree. You think its intuitive because you've been raised on it. A foot, isnt actually the size of a foot. You find it easier to measure something in feet away because you're more familiar with feet. Go to somewhere like Australia or Europe and you ask someone to approximate a distance in feet and they'll give you a funny look. They approximate things in Meters. It also makes doing every day thing in your head much easier. Instead of working out which fractions of an inch is more or less or how large, in metric you just say 10mm or 12mm instead of 3/8th or 7/16th. If you're working out distances, you know that there is 1,000m in a km, and 100cm in a meter and 10cm in a millimetre. So if someone says they have a piece of wood 2700mm long, you know right away that its 270 cm long or 2.7m long. If someone says the track goes for 1,500 meters, you know right away that its 1.5km long. and from the temperatures you know that 0C is the freezing point of water. you know immediately if there is a chance of snow or ice. 100c is boiling point of water so you can tell immedately that a 40c day is going to be hot. If working out weights you know that there are 1,000 grams in a kg. So if someone tells you something weighs 500 grams you know immediately that its 0.5kg. or if its 300 grams its 0.3kg. its immediate, just shifting zeros. you also know there are 1000 milli litres (ml) in a litre. So if you get a 1L container of milk and you need 250ml of milk for your morning coffee you know straight away that, the milk container will be able to make 4 coffee's for you. But you are trying to say that figuring out if 3/8ths is more or less than 7/16th is more intuitive than working out 10mm and 12mm? or that 2ft is 0.66 yards rather than 2m is 2,000mm? or that 2 feet is 0.167 inches rather than 2m is 20cm, or that 1.5 miles is 7920 feet rather than 1.5km is 1,500 meters is easier and more intuitive? i'd say you have a screw loose.
    3
  11. oh to be naïve
    3
  12. This is actually worse for hydrogen than EV’s as EV’s batteries have a lifespan around 3 times longer than that of a fuel cell.
    3
  13. It’s not the heating which makes it combustible you run an electric current through it to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water to get the combustible gasses. Problem with that is, the process is only about 70% efficient. And a combustion engine is only about 20% efficient. You’d also have to compress the gas which is about 80% efficient. So overall the for every 100kWh you put into making the combustible gas, you’d only get 11kWh of work out of it, which would then have to be divided between driving and making more gas, so let’s say half is put towards making more gas, 5.5kWh of energy now goes in, you get 0.6kWh out, half of that again to more gas this time you only get 0.07kWh out. It’s a diminishing return, you have to expend more energy to produce the fuel than the fuel itself can provide.
    3
  14. Not really no. Nothing significant
    3
  15. Electrics also have regenerative braking where they can switch the polarity of the electric motors to turn them from motors to generators. This can rapidly and effectively suck kinetic energy out of the vehicle and store that energy as charge in the battery. If you've driven an EV before, you'd know that regenerative braking can be very effective. Most Tesla's operate on a one pedal driving system. you have your brake there if you need it but the regenerative braking is so effective that you dont need to use the mechanical brakes. The Tesla semi having far more motors would be able to quite effectively use regenerative braking to more effect than engine braking provides.
    3
  16. hope that helps.
    3
  17.  @stickmouse5002  Maybe thats the real purpose behing the Boring company. Put all the cows underground and collect all the Methane! But you're right. there really isnt any practical way of collecting methane from agriculture.
    2
  18.  @santiagocortez9554  if you can use solar for hydrogen you can use solar for EV. It’s a moot point.
    2
  19.  @santiagocortez9554  all true. Except that you lose about 30% of the electrical energy in electrolysis to produce hydrogen. Then you use 20% of the remaining energy compressing and liquefying the hydrogen. Then you lose 80% of what’s left combusting it for power to the wheels. Meaning you only use 11.2% of the electric energy you supplied as useful work. Compare that to an EV. Charging is around 98% efficient. Tesla electric motors are 97% efficient. Meaning of all the electricity supplied to the car, 95% of is available for useful work.
    2
  20. Hurdles like what?
    2
  21.  @TheTheshadow32  the 250L of hydrogen they produced was at atmospheric, meaning they only produced approximately 22 grams of hydrogen, (0.022kg) whilst a toyota Mirai needs 5.6kg of hydrogen to fill its tanks. (in other words, 254.5 times more hydrogen). So if they had the same sunny day of 256 days running they would have JUST ENOUGH to fill 1 hydrogen car. But thats at atmospheric pressure. You still need energy to compress it to 700 bar to store it in a hydrogen car, thats roughly 15% of your energy you need to use to compress the hydrogen, meaning it would actually take 300 days to generate enough hydrogen to fill 1 car. or just shy of 1 whole year. with that solar panel. whilst its cute that you're impressed by large numbers, when put into context, its not so impressive.
    2
  22.  @jensen365  that doesn’t change how recyclable they are. As EV’s become more popular, the demand for recycled Lithium and batteries will go up. More battery recycling plants will pop up. We’ve already begun to see this happen.
    2
  23. Put it this way. Not only will you have to pay for the 9 times more electricity it takes to produce hydrogen vs charging a BEV per km, you also have to pay for it to be compressed and liquified, tricked out to depot’s, and then finally buying it at a mark up from the service station. It will be much more expensive than petrol or electricity.
    2
  24. That’s a very flawed way of looking at it. The only think weight affects is rolling resistance. Which is actually not that large and is more related to your speed. What happens in an EV with weight? It takes more energy to accelerate. But as we all know, EV’s utilize regenerative breaking to convert kinetic energy (0.5mv^2) into electrical energy. This process is around 90% ish efficient in EV’s. So that extra energy required to accelerate you is almost entirely reclaimed when you slow down, minus rolling and wind resistance. The only time that energy is wasted is when you use the mechanical brakes. This is why EV’s are more efficient in stop start traffic whilst ICE cars are less efficient. Every time they accelerate, the energy in their momentum is wasted when they brake. In EV’s it’s reclaimed but the slower average speed means less overall rolling and wind resistance. Try to avoid talking bullshit online buddy.
    2
  25. Anything made has to be dealt with as waste eventually. That means the engine, gear box, regular engine oil and gearbox oil replacements that hydrogen cars will produce, as well as the heavy gauge high pressure tanks and high pressure lines required to contain the hydrogen in the first place in the car. All has to be disposed of. In an EV they are li batteries. No engine, gear box or oils. The batteries and electric motor in EV’s will also last more than double the lifespan of a combustion car. When the batteries have done their dash in an EV they are then re-used in less power dense applications such as domestic or industrial energy storage, doubling their lifespan again. Before ultimately being recycled. Of which more than 90% of the materials in a li battery are recyclable as the only degrading material in them is the chemistry of the electrolytic fluid inside them. All the lithium and other rare earth metals and materials in the battery don’t degrade from use and are readily recycled into new batteries.
    2
  26. This wouldn’t be as workable as you think it would be. Electrolysis on a large scale is only around 70-75% efficient. On a miniaturised scale, it would be optimistic to assume 60% efficiency. If you then used that hydrogen hydrolysis, (the most efficient way to use it) it would only give you 40% Efficiency. Which is an overall efficiency of 24%. So if your car had a full sized EV battery of 100kWh to produce the hydrogen, you would only use 24kWh of it as usable work. The rest would be wasted. An BEV, however is more efficient. The motor which draws from the battery is around 97% efficient for permanent magnet motors. Meaning of the 100kWh you would get 97kWh of useable work. For otherwise identical cars, 85% further than your electrolysis concept for the same electricity and none of the water. It would also be lighter and the components would take up less space as it wouldn’t have a hydroliser, on board electrolysis, hydrogen storage or water storage.
    2
  27. The names are sorta explaining the unit. kilo means 1,000. So a Kilogram, (sometimes called K-G), is 1,000 grams. kilo-gram. A kilometre is 1,000 meters, kilo-meter. Centi 1 one hundredth, there are 100 centi-meters in a meter. milli means one one thousandth, there are 1,000 mm to a meter. a milli-litre is the same, there are 1,000 mL to 1 L. Centi meter, one, 100th, So the boiling point of water is 100c and the freezing point is 0. Otherwise known as a centi-grade. you want to have a gripe about names that actually describe what they are instead of throwing around words like chain, furlong, gill, peck, rod, fathom, acre-foot. I'd hardly be able to tell you if they were measuring length, volume or weight. meanwhile for metric, anything with meter is length, anything with gram is weight, anything with Litre is volume. and what ever is infront of those is how much of them they are. 1 kiloMETRE, 1,000 meters. 1 milliLITRE, 0.001 Litres, 1 kiloGRAM, 1,00 grams. 1 CentiMETRE, 0.01 meters.
    2
  28. if you think that is more inconvenient than trying to remeber 60 different words without any ques as to what its measuring and then trying to remember how it relates to every other unit like Furlong being 660 feet and a fathom being 72 inches, then trying to find out how may fathoms there are in a Furlong.... just because "Kilometre" has 1 extra syllable, I think you might have your priorities backwards.
    2
  29. the energy required to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen.
    2
  30. air powered would be silly
    2
  31. No. The charger plugs on most vehicles are typically locked in to prevent this. You can’t simply unplug them. You need to have the keys to the vehicles
    2
  32. you should calm down. Batteries themselves, independant of external events such as power generation and transmission, are approximately 95-98% efficient. Wind and Solar can be used reliably through diversification in geography and source. Many places are doing this. For example the state of South Australia was able to supply 60% of the grids energy from solar and wind. 70% if you include geothermal. and that number is rising. Read some scientific articles. Understand what you're saying. The grid is not at capacity. Some are, but in general most are not. Projects actually show that because EV's are charged typically during offpeak times, that power generation will become cheaper and more efficient before it begins to become strained. That is because shutting down a generator due to lack of demand, wastes alot of energy, fuel and cost. To prevent this power companies offer "off peak rates" designed to offer cheap electricity to entice more people to use it. This is where most EV's are charged. PNNL did a 124 page study on this very topic and concluded that under the worst case scenario, the CURRENT us national grid could handle an EV population of around 24 million EV's. Currently the US has a population of 1.5 million EV's. Additionally the grid improves year on year every year. As demand for electricity has never stopped increasing since the 1930's, neither had grid capacity upgrades. The energy grid capacity on average doubles every 20 years. So by 2040, you'll be able to have 48 million EV's on the road. Even optimistic estimates done predict full EV penetration in the market until 2050. Most more realistic estimates put that around 2080 or 2090.
    2
  33. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out that hydrogen is a dumb idea for domestic passenger vehicles
    2
  34.  @gilbertrehling3928  except converting water to gas, then back to water again, and expecting to get excess energy from that is like expecting that plugging a power board into itself will give you unlimited energy
    2
  35. I dont see lies. I see facts and numbers. Do tell if you think there is a lie there somewhere.
    2
  36. Actually hydrogen has a shorter life than Batteries. This is due to hydrogen-embrittlement and fatigue stress in the fuel tanks. Most FCEV’s like the Mirai come with an expiration date on the fuel cap saying “do not refuel after xxxx date” usually for a lifetime of 10 years. Current battery technology is promising longer lifespans for the batteries than combustion engines. As for charging. That really depends on your grid mix. Wine and solar aren’t the only for of renewables or clean energy. Or even energy storage. You also have hydrogen electricity, Geothermal, ocean wave energy, ocean current energy, tidal energy. You can also store vast amounts of that energy for use later with pumped hydro, Kinetic storage, lithium storage, liquid salt storage, etc etc etc. so it’s not that black and white there.
    2
  37.  @AzureViking  you can have appoximations like that for metric too. It isnt something unique to metric. the length of your nail bed is approximately 1cm, a long step is approximately 1 meter. If you were to stand and raise one hand above your head that hand would be approximately 2m from the ground, if you reached your arms out to your sides in a T, the distance between your elbows would be around 1m. 1L of water will weigh exactly 1kg, so water like fluids, will approximate 1kg per litre, such as milk (1.035kg/L) or fuel, (0.85kg/L) So if i were to fill my tank with 10L of fuel I would assume I have added 10kg of fuel to my car. (8.5kg in reality but it can be approximated to 10kg). Typical buckets now come in L capacities such as a typical 20L bucket (like a plastic backyard bucket). If I want to know how full that will be full of water, I know that its going to be 20kg. 1L of water is 1kg. You can find intuitive ways to approximate units from any measurement system. that doesnt make them better or worse. it just means you're used to that measurement system. You find measuring fathoms or feet intuitive against different body scales because that's what you're used to. Thats not something unique to Imperial, it just means you grew up with it. Ask any Australian to approximate a meter and they will have no trouble doing it fairly accurately. You ask them to measure an area, they'll start marching around and give you an approximation in meters according to their steps. its not unique to imperial.
    2
  38.  @AzureViking  im not saying you dont find imerpial more intuitive. I'm saying you're used to imperial and that approximating units intuitively isnt something unique to imperial. Let me gives some more examples. Lets say you want to work out the size of your backyard so you know how much fencing to order. With metric, you just take wide steps, you take 10 steps out to the edge, then you take 20 steps along that edge, then 10 steps back to the house. the two side edges are therefore approximately 10 meters and the back edge is approximately 20m. So you need approximately 40m of fencing. Then lets say you want to work out the area. well its 10m x 20m which is 200 square meters. Done and dusted. Then lets say you have to buy a new down pipe on the side of your house. instead of going on, measuring the diameter in inches, then converting to fractions before going and getting the pipe. for example, measuring 1.25 inches to get 1" 1/4" pipe. I can go with the tape measure, measure that its around 40mm and go to the store and ask for a 40mm pipe. If they ask how long I want it, I dont have to measure in inches then work out how many ft then inches I need having to do mental conversions between 12 inches to a foot. i can just say I need 1,700mm which is 175cm or 1.75 meters. If I am going to measure a bolt so I can get a replacements its alot easier to measure and buy a 12mm bolt than it is to measure 0.4375 inches and convert that mentally to fractions to get 7/16th of a inch.
    2
  39. It’s worth pointing out that the majority of the weigh in a battery is the electrolytic solution. (Battery fluid) and there is definitely plenty of that to go around. Your analysis is understandable but simplistic to the point of inaccuracy
    2
  40. Batteries are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust than ICE cars, 5 times less likely to combustion in a serious collision and when they do are safer than a combustion car due to batteries smouldering for hours before showing visible flames.
    2
  41. boiling water does not produce hydrogen. What is causing the flames is the oil used to lubricate the pan is igniting. as it crackles and pops as carbon is released from the cooking meat, it atomizes the oil which makes it very combustible.
    2
  42.  @popongomac3540  ..... you dont understand much about science do you kid?
    2
  43. Hydrogen, one of the most readily explosive gasses known to man? Vs a battery? Let’s put it this way. Most scientists are afraid to handle hydrogen. Just ask thunder foot. And for very good reason. It’s excessively volatile. Battery cars have already proven to be much safer in serious collisions than petrol or diesel. According to the federal highway authority (I think that’s their name, I’m not American) the aancap safety board, beuro of statistics and many other road safety agencies.
    2
  44.  @niniv2706  When I say that even on a Coal only grid. I am not talking green coal or clean coal. Im talking dirty dirty 1980's coal. EV's still produce far less emissions per mile than ICE does even before you consider the massive emissions and energy impact of refining the fuel you need to burn each mile of driving. Coal being far more dirty than natural gas. By a factor of 2. Whilst producing EV's is a more emissions heavy process, since the cars themselves produce so little emissions over their operational life and since ICE vehicles produce so much emissions over their operational life, you only have to drive an EV between 6 months to 3 years before your emissions footprint is lower than that of a similar ICE car. (time frame varies depending on how much driving you do and what your local grid mix is.) unlike flying cars you can buy Battery agricultural equipment. whilst the set up around these machines isnt quite there yet, such as charging infrastructure on the farms themselves. They are promising, especially from an economic standpoint. The power that the electric motors can deliver can in alot of cases out perform traditional diesel equipment. Thats why freight trains use electric motors. Not sure what you mean by weak amp reserves. As you said, you're not an Engineer. I dont think you fully understand what you mean by that comment. amps arent power. Neither are volts. Amps x Volts is power. Most domestic homes have low voltage and high amps. But through transmission lines they have high voltage and low amps because this reduces line losses greatly. talking about amps is only talking about half the equation. literally. Work delays depends mostly on 3 things. 1.) what equipment you have 2.) what charging infrastructure you have. 3.) how you're using it. Take an Tesla model 3 for example. Not agriculture I know but lets look at its charging case. from a wall point it takes 24 hours to charge fully fomr 0%-100%. But thats if I drive 400km in a single day and came home rolling in on the very last electron. This never happens. people only drive maybe 100km in a day at most, meaning they'd roll in with 65% Because most people only charge to 90% (because they dont need the full 400km every day.) Now from a wall point that only takes around 7 hours to charge. If you have a cheap home charger, you can charge that in just over 1 hour. and a full 0%-100% in 4 hours. Now some people might thing thats too long to wait but consider this. You dont use the car when you're asleep. In fact, in most cases, cars are left unattended for an average of 10-13 hours every evening/morning. And unlike fuel, you dont have to stand there holding the plug. You plug it in and walk off and in the morning you have your full range. Now looking back at farm equipment. If you had something with sufficient battery capacity to do a days work. its downtime overnight would also be considerable (10-13 hours) unless you're a rare case that you operate your machinery 24/7 like big industrial farms do. It might take you 5-8 hours to fully charge your machinery overnight with a standard home charger which can operate off a domestic electrical system. This not only saves you money on fuel, and on parts and servicing. But it also saves you time from having to refuel your vehicles and from having fuel delivered so you have reserves on-site. You can also curtail your own electrical costs using rooftop mounted solar, and in some cases, like those who have large farm sheds, you can remove that cost entirely. So think about that use case for battery electric agricultural equipment. But I do realise that the offerings in this category at the moment are very very slim. but it wont always be that way. Final note though. I am not cheering to remove fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be a big part of the world for the long term foreseeable future. Not even considering the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, they have far more to offer than most people realize. From an Engineering perspective (and I am happy to explain further if you're interested) EV's are: 1.) safer to operate than ICE 2.) faster than typical ICE's 3.) Cheaper both in fuel and maintenance than ICE 4.) save you more time than ICE's 5.) Offer better features than ICE's 6.) Last longer than ICE's Many of those seem counter-intuitive to the current narrative. However legacy automakers and big oil has done a fantastic job at seeding misinformation about EV's which becomes plainly apparent when you look at numbers and Engineering of these vehicles. From Australia - Have a good day.
    2
  45. True, but it’s still vastly lower emissions than combustion cars. For example, a diesel midsized sedan usually gets around 6.5L/100km. If you used that same diesel in a little 8kW diesel generator to charge you Tesla Model 3 (also a midsized sedan) you would have a fuel efficiency of 3.2L/100km. Less than half.
    2
  46.  @captainjosue  whilst hydrogen will definitely be on top for long distance trucking and freighting. It won’t be able to compete with domestic BEV’s. Because the advantage of refuelling you are talking about (in most cases. Certainly not all) is actually a disadvantage. Most modern EV’s have ranges well over 150-200 miles. The Model 3 for example has a range of 325 miles to a charge. However the average daily commute is much much shorter than that. Usually about 70 miles or less. So you can just charge it back up easily at home when you’re not using it. Eating dinner, watching TV, bathing, sleeping. All the while you can charge it. Meaning you get have zero down time day to day. Meanwhile with a hydrogen car you’d have to leave time one day a week to detour to a fuel station and wait outside for 5 minutes while it fills up then have to drive back onto your usual route. On average fueling takes up 16-17 hours of our lives per year. With a BEV that’s close to 0. The other advantage is efficiency. A BEV is vastly more efficient. So costs are saved. Significantly. It takes 3 times the same grid energy to produce 1km worth of hydrogen as it does to charge an BEV with 1km worth of electricity. And a BEV purchase that straight from the grid. A hydrogen car has to get the fuel from a service station which has a profit markup on it. Who then buys it from a hydrogen supplier who has their profit markup on it. Making hydrogen very very expensive by even today’s fuel standards yet alone a BEV. Then there is the higher safety ratings which the BEV’s achieve and higher performance. That being said people who don’t have garages or power to car ports or even driveways won’t be able to charge at home during down times. Meaning it would be much better to have hydrogen. There is always going to be a future with both. But batteries don’t have the power density to break into Long distance trucking and freight. So there hydrogen will be dominant. However, for domestically owned vehicles, Battery electric will be the favourite option.
    2
  47. Hydrogen fuel cells have been around and used for some time now. Infact they’re regularly used by NASA as early back as the Gemini missions in 1966. As for efficiencies, whilst the performance of the vehicle may be improved considerably with time as well as their lifespan. The efficiency between conversion from water to hydrogen and from hydrogen to electricity doesn’t have a lot of room for improvement thermodynamically speaking. It is feasible that hydrogen electric vehicles can achieve the same performance as BEV’s but only with considerable complications to design. Much like developing performance in a combustion engine. The only way is to get more complicated. Battery electrics are lucky in their simplicity when it comes to performance. Before you ask why hydrogen can’t have the same performance as a BEV despite their both being electric. The limiting factor of power output for a hydrogen car is the surface area of the fuel cell. Larger fuel cells take up more weight. Generate more heat, raise the centre of gravity, and reduce either cabin compartment space or fuel storage space. They will also need larger air intakes, meaning you’d have to sacrifice power to force air in while at low speeds. You can overcome all these things but with considerable effort and sacrifice in other areas (such as space or range). Which is why BEV’s will always be the dominating vehicle type in alternate energy type vehicles. (In the domestic passenger vehicle market that is.)
    2
  48. Its more of a cultural issue for them. The way their society is set up, most people don't own garages or driveways in which to charge EV's. as a result hydrogen is their only green option without significant compromises.
    2
  49. That wouldn’t work. I’d you’re using energy to turn water into hydrogen, and then recombining it back into water to get energy out. You’d never get more energy out as you put in the make the hydrogen. That would be like plugging a power board into itself and getting infinite electricity
    2
  50. How exactly do you think hydrogen is produced?
    2
  51.  @markscull4255  uhh, not quite. The law of entropy stops you there. Electrolysis is at best around 70% efficient. That is to say you only get 70% the amount of potential chemical energy worth of hydrogen, than the electricity you put in to make it. Whilst a combustion car is inefficient, due to the lack of gear trains, differentials and auxiliary systems, generators can run at up to 40-50% efficiency. Converting about 40-50% of the potential chemical energy released during combustion into electricity. What all this means is that 1L of hydrogen can produce roughly 0.35L of hydrogen. That 0.35L of hydrogen can produce roughly 0.12L of hydrogen. And so on and so forth. Unfortunately the law of entropy is at play here. To make something a higher energy state, you must lose energy. Fuel refineries are also victim to this. They need to boil crude oil in order to create fuel. It would be far easier and cost effective to burn the diesel because it’s at a higher energy state. But they come up against the same problem as hydrogen with diminishing returns. As a result they have to resort to burning the crude oil in order to do this. So some crude oil is siphoned off to boil the rest of the crude oil.
    2
  52. Are you suggesting that hydrogen car use water, to produce hydrogen, then use the hydrogen to make water and power the vehicle plus splitting that water back into hydrogen and oxygen?
    2
  53. Not quite how that works
    2
  54. Well that’s a big bag of cats there. Every grid has a different mix, even locally. And grid impacts can change depending on overall demand. A power generator running slowly will be less fuel efficient than one running quickly, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, geothermal, bio thermal, solar, wind, hydro all have different impact footprints and change drastically from location to location and even time of day. It would therefore be suffice enough to say (which he does) that hydrogen uses a percentage more electricity per unit distance than Battery Electric. So you can scale up those impacts for what ever locality you are in under the assumption the same grid supplies the energy in both scenarios.
    2
  55. actually a meter was originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle.
    2
  56. such as?
    2
  57.  @orlovskyconsulting  Comment 1/? well no. firstly, drive for long distance? not much more than EV's. I'll go over like for like specs but the mirai and the Tesla model 3 are both 4 door midsized sedans with similar areodynamic frontage. The Tesla gets 325 miles. The Mirai gets 400 miles. and I will go over what you trade off to get that extra 75 miles of range later. But they hardly travel much further than BEV's. As for space. Yes there is a problem with space for Hydrogen. Firstly lets look at BEV's, They have no engine, no transmission, no exhaust and no fuel tanks. That means they have very deep boots and have converted the front engine bay into another storage compartment. They also offer generous amounts of space in the cabin, especially for the rear seats as they're not crammed and raised to go around the fuel tanks and the transmission like ICE cars. EV's have some of the largest storage and cabin spaces for cars in their respective size classes. As for hydrogen, sadly thats not quite the case. You see hydrogen whilst being very light, is also takes up alot of volume. The Mirai takes 5.1kg of hydrogen in its fuel tanks. Which doesnt sound like alot until you realise that fully compressed, 5.1kg of hydrogen takes up 141 L of tanks space. Thats more fuel tank space than a ford F150 crammed into a mid-sized sedan. It also has to bounce this around a 1.6 kWh battery pack, a fuel cell, and exhaust system, coolant system, impact protection and an electric motor. What this means is that the Mirai, far from having no problem with space, has less storage space than a Toyota Yarris. 100L less boot space infact. And the yarris is a car less than half its size. It has no front trunk like the Tesla either. In relation to the cabin, there is so little cabin space in the Mirai that you cant even fold the rear seats down if you want to extend the boot. Something very easily achieved in the model 3. This, despite the Mirai being 1 inch wider, 1inch taller and 11 inches longer than the model 3. so yes, hydrogen vehicles have a problem with space. to suggest they dont is pure denial.
    2
  58.  @orlovskyconsulting  Comment 2/? Safety is an issue in hydrogen vehicles. Not because of explosive risks. they've more than mitigated that risk. Not zero, but very mitigated. However thats not the issue, in my last comment I noted that the Mirai has a boot space significantly smaller than even a car half its size. It also does not have any storage space in the front engine bay as that is where they've fitted the fuel cell. In terms of safety the best way you can protect the tanks from puncture is to protect them from collision. The entire car is reinforced to prevent any collision from crumpling up near the fuel tanks or the fuel cell. The car is so reinforced infact that the Mirai is heaver than the Tesla model 3. This is Bad for survivability because crumple zones matter. They absorb energy and reduce the impulse of energy to an occupant. If you're travelling in a car, what is more uncomfortable, a short sharp slam on the brakes or a slow gradual deceleration? Crumple zones matter because if you can increase the time it takes to go from moving to stationary in a collision you significantly increase the chances of survival for the occupants. What the Mirai does is protect the fuel tanks over the occupants. You cant have you cake and eat it too. The front crumple zone is compromised to protect the fuel cell whilst in a Tesla its extended because there is nothing there. In the Mirai the rear crumple zone is compromised to protect the rear fuel cells whilst in a Model 3 its extended because there is nothing there and in a side collision the Mirai's crumple zone is compromised to protect the centre line fuel tank, whilst in a Model 3 its, again, extended. Coupled with the fact that out of pure physical contraints the Mirai, like all hydrogen vehicles will have a higher centre of mass than an EV with a skateboard battery pack, meaning the likelyhood of a roll over is increased in the mirai compared to the the model 3 which again, reduces survivability. Dont get me wrong, the Mirai is a safe vehicle to drive. But its not as safe as an EV. pure and simple. Designers had a choice, protect the occupants, at risk of the fuel tanks rupturing or protect the fuel tanks at the detriment of the occupants. The fuel tanks won out because an explosion from them would not only kill the occupants anyway but also anyone nearby. And i say rupture instead of puncture purposefully. The tanks are designed to vent safely when punctured. When I say ruptured I mean the vehicle had had a collision significantly enough to tear the car apart (happens all the time in high speed collision). In that event the breach in the fuel tank isn't a small controlled hole but a large tear which could be almost the size of the fuel thank. coupled with the inevitable sparks and other ignition sources likely to be occurring in that sort of collision, the result can be catastrophic. The Mirai is design to prevent that from happening by reducing the survivability of the occupants in a collision. Them is the physics. like it or not.
    2
  59.  @stickmouse5002  I've done alot of work in relation to this area as a Mechanical Engineer. I'd be happy to give you more information of you have any questions in relation to the two types of vehicles.
    2
  60.  @stickmouse5002  In that area the Pro's and Con's between the two start to become less black and white. Hydrogen vehicles suffer from a critical lack of power. Fuel cells output very low amounts of power and need to use batteries to adequately accelerate. The limitation there is the surface area of the catalytic element in fuel cells, meaning to have more power you need to take up more space. which means less fuel. So hydrogen trucks would be underpowered compared to their EV counterparts without making the truck prohibitively large. The Tesla Semi can carry 40T. (6T is the Cyber Truck Ute carrying capacity which again, is on-par for its size category) which for its size is pretty on-par. However there are limitations in legislation in different parts of the world which limit the amount an electric truck and tow (I am not familiar with why). The Tesla Semi has a few advantages. First is that thanks to the power available in the batteries, the acceleration of Semi's even under load is very fast. Reducing traffic impacts, and reducing transit times which is appealing to trucking companies. They also have better turning circles and a longer lifespan than their hydrogen counterparts noting the fuel tank space requirements mentioned previously, causing the hydrogen semi truck to be larger than the Electric Semi. EV semi's such as the Tesla Semi, also have a significant advantage that the cost of electricity is significantly cheaper than the cost of hydrogen. Meaning lower operating costs, especially with the longer lifespan. Which is also very appealing to freight companies. So EV's make a good argument for freighting semi's. However hydrogen has its advantages aswell. Hydrogen will likely be able to travel further on a tank. Which can matter in some niche circumstaces. However more broadly it would be faster to refuel a hydrogen truck than to recharge it. Suggesting that long distance freight instead of same city freight would favour hydrogen over EV as saving time would save costs, but that has to be balances with costs of operation per mile in fuel. Another advantage is that hydrogen Semi trucks have is weight. There is an upper limit to the gross weight allowed on truck which varies between areas depending on road conditions and local/federal laws. EV's at this scale will be heaver than Hydrogen due to their scalability. (whilst in the private car scale hydrogen is only barely heavier than EV's). This means that potentially a hydrogen truck could transport more cargo before it max's its gross weight limit. In every instance, the freight companies buying the trucks will have the weigh up the cost per mile, cost per minute, cost per kg of product, for what ever they transporting and how far they are transporting it. So it becomes very case by case as to which would be better suited. However I predict in the future, local couriers and semi's delivering within the same city, say 400 miles radius, will most likely be Battery Electric trucks. However long distance freight will more than likely be Hydrogen, mostly due to refuelling times. Another split would be that less weight dense products will lean towards BEV trucks whilst more weight dense products would lean towards Hydrogen trucks, due to gross weight limitations. Hope that sort of clears things up a little bit, anything bigger than a domestic car and smaller than Train or Aircraft, and the line between EV and Hydrogen becomes kinda blurred. Similar could be said about agricultural machinery.
    2
  61. I didnt know platinum and palladium were renewable... I also didnt know that we can find 3-4 times more renewable energy when making hydrogen but that same renewable energy cant be used to charge an EV by some magical reasoning. You learn something new every day.
    2
  62. That’s because EV batters are greater than 95% recyclable.
    2
  63. You do realise that hydrogen vehicles also need batteries right. Much like a hybrid but slightly more batteries.
    2
  64.  @stonetoolcompany3649  also current EV batteries with their BMS are lasting real world around 1500 cycles which gives most EV’s of lifespan of more than 500,000 miles. And by lifespan I mean to 70% of their original capacity.
    2
  65. Does it matter, if you're making hydrogen from water or charging a battery for an EV the electricity for both come from the very same source. Any inefficiency with power generation would be shared by both technologies, making exactly 0 difference to the end results.
    2
  66. Not strictly true.
    1
  67. Actually modern EV batteries last around double the lifespan of a combustion engine and hydrogen lasts less than half the lifespan of a combustion engine. Combustion hydrogen is significantly less efficient than fuel cells meaning less range and less power for the same amount of expensive fuel.
    1
  68.  @samr.england613  modern makes of both last closer to 30 years. Maintenance of wind farms is a fraction of the cost per kWh than a giant coal, gas or nuclear power plant. The grid can easily become green and sustainable if you implement the right measures. South Australia’s energy grid used to be the most expensive and least reliable in Australia and was dependant and neibouring states for a lot of its energy. Today the South Australian grid is over 75% renewables and is not only THE most stable grid in Australia with the second lowest wholesale energy prices in Australia but also is a net exporter of energy to other states. It takes a combination of technologies and storage, but it’s possible and proven to be possible. If politicians don’t interfere for pitty points for votes. Otherwise you end up like California.
    1
  69.  @samr.england613  nuclear isn’t clean. Fushion maybe, but fission? No.
    1
  70.  @samr.england613 also yes. 20-60 times less likely. And those numbers are from insurance companies who’ve done independent studies. The Tesla website is much more humble at 11 times. A quick google will confirm this.
    1
  71.  @logitech4873  yea. Because insurance companies love to make up numbers that could negatively affect their income. Makes sense. Except, wait. Not only did they also use data compiled by BTS and Recall data. But they provided links in the article to exactly where the information is so clearly car and driver didn’t bother to even read past the headline. If you click on the link, the aren’t referring to statistical data published by the NTSA, but they’re referring to the publications from the NTSA’s Highway Special Projects Board. One of the publications being “electric vehicle fire safety survey of fire departments regulation number 20” as well as a dozen more of EV safety and fire. Infact. Why didn’t YOU follow the links if you were so sceptical?
    1
  72. actually renewables per MW can be built much faster than fossil fuel stations. For example it takes only a few months to build a solar farm and around a year to 2 years to build a wind farm. By comparison a coal fire powerplant takes around 8 years to build.
    1
  73.  @AGGELIAFOROS  most of it is due to lack of investment. There are ways you can stablise renewables, diversification in both geography and generation type, as well as fairly minimal storage. For example the state of South Australia in Australia went from being the most unreliable grid in the country, with the highest wholesale prices and was dependant on other states for the majority of their energy. They invested heavily in renewables with a science based approach (not a virtue signalling approach like California). Now they 70% renewables grid with out a single 150MW big Battery storage farm, They are not the most stable grid in the country consistently remaining operational and even keep other states above water during nation gird events, they have the second lowest wholesale electricity prices in Australia and are net exporters of energy to other states. Its not that it cant be done, or we don't know how to do it, or that it cant be done rapidly (in SA, we're talking 10 years to do this). The problem is politicians wont do it. In almost every major economy, you will find oil and fossil fuel companies being some of the biggest political donors out there. Especially in Australia, the Federal government ran a smear campaign against the shift, especially the big battery even going as far as the now priminister of the country saying the state government was stupid and, on live TV, spewing blatantly false information as to what the battery actually does. Thats the only real hurdle here.
    1
  74.  @stickmouse5002  you put plastic bag diapers on cows to capture the farts I guess?
    1
  75. H2 is not green though. not in comparison to BEV's. Also the fuel is always going to be wayy more expensive than re-charging a BEV and ontop of all of that there really isnt any way hydrogen can compete with BEV's in the market. due to substantial drawbacks which stem from the physical properties of hydrogen itself.
    1
  76.  @kacper3586  H2 power station would be pretty useless. Additoinally whilst it costs $1.2 million to retrofit a fuel station to dispense hydrogen it only costs $0.25 million to build a bank of superchargers. But thats not the only costs. There is the fact that it takes ALOT of electricity and resources to make hydrogen in the first place. Thats why the cost of hydrogen is around 20x per mile than it is for a BEV to charge per mile. Thats not inconsiderable either. The reason why a hydrogen powerplant would be fairly useless is because its not a power plant, and its inefficient. You are storing energy as hydrogen, you lose around 40% of your energy converting energy into hydrogen. Then you have to turn it back into electricity, in which you lose a further 40% of your remaining energy. The end result is that for every 100kWh of electricity you put into making the hydrogen, you get out only 35 kWh. Thats a loss of 65kWh, almost 2/3rds of your energy is wasted down the drain. Why on earth would you do that when you could just store it in batteries, kinetic storage, liquid salt storage, pumped hydro storage, gravity storage, and more. All of which are far far more efficient than storing it as hydrogen.
    1
  77. I would be very surprised if they achieved $2/kg. Also worth noting that most EV charge during off peak where they make energy prices cheaper to trying and get people to use more energy such that they don’t have to shut down as many power plants which is very expensive to do. Forecasts show that up to about 30% EV adoption would result in cheaper energy prices as power companies have less operational costs from not shutting down and keeping other plants in their most efficient operating speeds meaning less fuel per kWh
    1
  78. Probably also worth noting that hydrogen uses 3-4 times the electricity per mile than BEV’s from the same electricity grid. Making all the issues you are worried about, 3-4 times worse. That is unless you want to make hydrogen from fossil fuels in which case it would be more eco friendly to just stay with ICE vehicles.
    1
  79. Lately, the US grid overall is not 60% coal. It’s around 36% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, 1% diesel and the rest are various forms of renewables. So not quite kiddo.
    1
  80. It’s clearly worse. Fuel cells don’t last as long as batteries, they have notoriously low power output making the cars themselves slow and needing lithium batteries anyway just to accelerate, the fuel takes up a huge amount of volume meaning no, they can’t get further than EV’s because you don’t have enough physical space to put the fuel to do so. That also means you have drastically reduced cabin space and boot space making them vastly more impractical to own. Infact, if you were a taxi driver, it would be more practical on space constraints alone to buy a TOYOTA YARIS than a Toyota Mirai as it has both better passenger space AND boot space. Additionally due to the energy and logistical requirements, the fuel will always cost significantly more per mile than it costs to charge a BEV per mile. Where’s the competition? BEV,s last longer, go further, have far better cabin and boot space, cheaper to operate, have better performance, and are generally safer designs. I see no competition.
    1
  81. Other than the Hyperion XP-1 that nobody owns yet, what hydrogen race cars are on the roads today? not many. As for BEV's no, modern BEV's come with a standard 8 year warranty on their batteries alone. That along longer life than 5 years. Infact BEV's batteries today are designed and are showing to last over 500,000 miles to a lifetime. Much further than a ICE car will ever last. meanwhile Hydrogen cars come off the production line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps limiting the life of the car to 15 years from manufacture. If its a fuel cell car its also limited to 150,000-200,000 miles of life for the fuel cell. It gets worse with combustion as hydrogen has a nasty habit of embrittling materials it comes into contact with. Embrittling your pistons is a very fast way to brick your engine.
    1
  82.  @jM-ei6bd  actually modern EV's using heat pump systems for battery management only lose less than 15% of their range in below freezing weather. additionally most people charge at home. Charging is around 90% efficient, so not really alot of wasted energy, even in the cold. And there is no wait for a charge at home when you average daily commute is less than 250 miles or less than 4 hours of driving to get to work and back. If you're driving 4 hours of your day just to get to work and back I think you need a new job.
    1
  83.  @jM-ei6bd  they mostly likely will as long as there are people who are unable to charge from home. But know that EV's will predominantly dominate for trucking and domestic vehicles except in niche circumstances such as not being able to charge from home. There are just too many disadvantages.
    1
  84. how compresed? because that changes how many gallon the same amount of hydrogen takes up. also there is no such thing as a cubic gallon. That would be like saying cubic Litre. (which is 1/1000th of a cubic meter). This is the reason hydrogen is measured in Kg rather than gallons.
    1
  85. But if its compressed to the standard 700 bar, a Toytoa Mirai to travel just 400 miles will need 37 gallons worth of fuel tanks (more than a Ford F150). However, this would only weigh around 5.6kg. In California the price of hydrogen is around $16.51 per kg. Meaning to go 400 miles it will cost you $92.47. Or a cost of 23 cents per mile. By comparison in California petrol costs around 15 cents per mile for something with a 30 mpg efficiency.
    1
  86.  @patrickluby4019  range isnt that great. The model 3 only gets 75 miles less range but does so at 10 times less cost per km. It also offers better performance with a 0-60mph being a full 6 seconds faster than something like the Mirai. In addition it has alot more space. Gratuitous amounts of cabin space, more than enough to fold the rear seats down. Meanwhile the Mirai cant fold the rear seats down to extend the boot. Which is a problem because unlike the model 3 the Mirai has a tiny boot. And no front boot. Infact the Mirai has a smaller boot than a Toyota yarris, with the yarris winning out by over 100L of space. There simply isnt enough space to put more batteries. and for all that compromising in space, storage, performance and cost per mile, you only get an extra 75 miles over the model 3. I dont see it as worth it. especially when hydrogen cars dont last more than 10 years.
    1
  87. There is no such thing as free energy. It takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than is released when it is burnt or run through an electrolyser. You'd just be pouring energy down the drain for no reason.
    1
  88.  @turboimport95  umm no. Lets say you engine produced 1.2kWh. with that you can produce around 20 grams of hydrogen. That has the potential energy of 0.672 kWh. You put that into a combustion engine, lets say you get you have an extremely highly engineering engine achieving 40% efficiency. From that hydrogen you only capture 0.269 kWh. Put this into the alternator (not even into driving the car) and you can produce 5 grams of hydrogen. Much less than your 20 grams of hydrogen you started off with. And you haven't even put anything towards running your car, all you've done is waste 1.03 kWh of your initial 1.2 kWh, gaining literally nothing.
    1
  89.  @turboimport95  you. cant. get. more. energy. than. you. put. in.
    1
  90.  @turboimport95  That is what i'm saying. And a 100amp alternator running at 12 volts will produce 1200 watt. over 1 hour thats 1200 watt hours, which is 1.2 kWh. Not 112. Taking that electricity to run through electrolysis will only produce 20 grams of hydrogen. Burning that hydrogen in a combustion engine will only release 0.672 kWh of energy. Only 0.26 kWh of that energy will be capture by the actual engine itself. When passed to the alternator I am still ignoring alternator efficiencies or the 15% loss due to the belts running the alternator. It still is only enough energy to produce 4 grams of hydrogen. No matter what you do, you are just wasting energy.
    1
  91.  @turboimport95  So, in summary, its going from alternator, to electrolysis, to hydrogen, to engine, then back to alternator through electrolysis and finally back to hydrogen and all you've done is waste 86% of the electricity which could have been just kept for power to the wheels. You've added no energy to the system, just taken it away through pointless energy vectors.
    1
  92.  @turboimport95  what you are thinking should happen is like thinking that plugging a power board into itself will give you unlimited energy.
    1
  93.  @turboimport95  Congrats. at 1 atm, hydrogen has a density of 0.08 g/L. Hydrogen also has an energy density of 33.6 kWh/kg. You produced 0.5L min, You did that for an hour you would have 30L. That would weigh 2.4g. Which would have the energy density of 0.081 kWh. In turn you would have used 12V x 30A x 1 hour = 360 wh, 0.36 kWh. you've lost 78% of you energy. well done. Then it has to be burnt to release that 0.081 kWh. A combustion motor at best will only capture 40% of that energy the rest is heat and gas. so that's 0.032 kWh you've gotten out of your original 0.36 kWh. (you've lost 91% of your energy now.) Put it this way. it is more energy efficient to put that electricity into an electric motor to help turn crank shaft faster. Do you really expect the electric motor to put in more energy to turn the crank shaft than you'd get from the motor turning the magneto? its exactly like plugging a power board into itself. it doesn't work. you're just wasting energy. Sure there are more efficient technologies out there. but you're talking about something that is more than 100% efficient. which doesn't exist because that would break the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
    1
  94. it does come from water if you make green hydrogen but the vast majority of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels (which are hydro-carbons) meaning they take the hydrogen and the result is carbon emissions. The really bad part about this is that the energy used to do this is often taken from the fossil fuels themselves. For example for steam reformation, they heat the steam by burning gas, producing emissions, they then split the hydrogen from more gas, releasing more emissions. The process of generating hydrogen from fossil fuels is significantly cheaper than making green hydrogen, however it produces more emissions than if you had just burnt the fuel in the first place.
    1
  95. Firstly, no, batteries last much longer than 8 years and have done so for the last 10 years. Infact the industry standard warranty for EV batteries today IS 8 years alone. However modern EV batteries are designed to last twice the average lifespan of a traditional combustion engine. As for the grid, also no. Buy in large in most places the grid can handle a lot more demand. Especially from EV which are mostly charged almost exclusively when demand is lowest, at night. Some places like California have had disasters of policy made by people who don’t understand grid integration and apparently refused to listen to people who did and are world marvels of incompetence. But places like California are the minority. Not the majority. So assuming everywhere faces those problem, because one extraordinarily stupid place does, is faulty logic.
    1
  96. Batteries these days last twice as long as a combustion engine and they are around 95-97% recyclable. That includes the lithium.
    1
  97.  @johnmac4769  the biggest determinant is battery size. Battery life is measured from equivalent cycles, total accumulative power charge and discharge. For modern batteries it’s 1,500 cycles. So if your original range at your original capacity was 325 miles like the model 3, 1,500 cycles would take you 487,500 miles. This 1,500 cycles though is to industry end of life. Which for BEV’s is 30% degradation. Meaning at that 487,500 mile mark, you will still have 70% of your original capacity/range and 100% of your performances. For the Tesla model 3, that means your 325 miles becomes around 230 miles of range. Still very useful and more than enough for daily commutes still. The motor however is rated for 1 million miles. So the major limiting component of lifespan in BEV’s is the battery life.
    1
  98. Someone has been feeding you lies. Current generation EV’s are set to last well over 5000,000 miles, double the average lifespan of a combustion engine. Infact it’s almost an industry standard these days to have a battery warranty on an EV of a minimum of 8 years. The batteries are also 97% recyclable and once used up in an EV can still be re-used in less power dense applications such as home and industrial energy storage for another 20 years.
    1
  99.  @WillyChan-h8k  also they are better for the environment. They do generate approximately 1 metric ton more emissions during production but more than 30-40 tons less emissions over the entire lifespan. Not to mention using less cobalt and the cobalt they do use is ethically sourced unlike fuel refineries who use it to remove sulphur
    1
  100.  @WillyChan-h8k  which reminds me. That jab about child labour is about cobalt. 1.) most EV producers including Tesla have contracts meaning their suppliers can only sell them ethically sourced cobalt and are spending big money to develop a cobalt free battery type.
    1
  101.  @WillyChan-h8k  2.) The largest consumer of cobalt in the world, with no ethical sourcing contract, are FUEL REFINERIES who use it to remove sulphur. so if you are so morally outraged by child mining then you should swap out your ice car for an EV
    1
  102. Also charging times aren’t an issue for domestic passenger vehicles. Infact it’s a benefit over to ice or hydrogen refilling. As for busses, it’s probably better for those purposes to use hydrogen.
    1
  103. That’s now what that saying means.. also it’s worth noting that the energy grid has been expanding year on year since the first power line was installed to meet an ever growing demand in energy. The energy grid doubles in capacity on average every 20 years. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the energy grid, fully away of the graduate uptake of EV’s would for some unknown reason, stop expanding its capacity to spite EV’s.
    1
  104.  @santiagocortez9554  so for every 1 kwh of energy used by a hydrogen car, it took 9kwh of electrical energy. For every 1 kWh of work produce by an EV you only had to supply 1.05kwh of electricty
    1
  105.  @santiagocortez9554  another drawback with hydrogen is power. Despite hydrogen being incredibly energy dense you need to keep it compressed. Which mean heavy duty compression takes, high pressure lines and high pressure pumps which makes them in some cases heavier than their EV counterparts. EV’S will always have a performance advantage over hydrogen or any other combustion engine.
    1
  106. he didnt mention it because it doesnt make a difference. Green hydrogen is made with... well grid electricity. the same grid electricity that charges a BEV. So to include the production losses of the electricity that charges a BEV, you would also be required to do the same for the 3-4 times more electricity required to make green hydrogen. Ultimately since the electricity is both coming from the same source, the net impact on the outcome is... well... 0. As such it isnt included because... well it has no impact on the results. why waste the time? Getting upset that BEV's dont include power generation losses whilst simultaneously ignoring the same power generation losses for hydrogen is called cherry picking. it is also akin to getting upset and claiming a drag race was unfair because both cars had to start at the same starting point.. It doesnt take a genious to workout that in the analysis, both hydrogen and BEV's are assessed with receiving the same energy from the same source to determine how much is utilised at the wheels. In other words, they both got 100kWh from the same source.. they both have the same starting point for the analysis. Why do you think that is unfair is misleading of the video poster?
    1
  107. Good luck getting hydrogen delivered out there. It would be cheaper to install rooftop solar. In reality hydrogen cars last less than half the lifespan of BEV’s, don’t get as far and are slow as ass. Not exactly outback material.
    1
  108. The same way you watch TV at night
    1
  109. like what?
    1
  110. Not by much
    1
  111. Technically BEV’s are more energy efficient than diesel.
    1
  112. all of which hydrogen doesnt offer over Battery Electric. Similar sized BEV's get much further to a charge, are far more convenient to charge/fuel and operate, last longer on the roads in terms of lifespan and are significantly cheaper to operate. They also have better performance than Hydrogen.
    1
  113. Not much cheaper
    1
  114.  @tristanmoller9498  because to break hydrogen away from oxygen you need to put it as much energy as it takes to break those bonds. It won’t get much higher than 80% at best. Then it’s liquified losing another 10% at least, and then tricked to its end point of use. The fuel station. Once it’s in a car it has to be converted to electric in a process which is only 60% efficient. If hydrogen is less efficient than battery electric per mile, then it will always require more energy to create the hydrogen per mile. More energy means more money. In the case of hydrogen it requires between 2-3 times the energy from the same grid per mile so at least 2-3 times the cost off the batt. Then there is resale. Hydrogen has to be created at a plant, liquified and transported. No only does that plant have to pay for electricity but it also has to pay for the water, equipment, maintenance, staff, admin and logistics. Then it has to sell the hydrogen to make a profit ontop of all that. It’s sold to fuel stations who have their upkeep, staff admin and logistics costs and will also charge a profit margin ontop of the cost of buying it from the producer. Making hydrogen VERY expensive. Batteries you just plug in at home and pay for 1/3rd the energy per mile. That’s it.
    1
  115. some comments and your points. 1.) demand doesn't necessarily peak that much from charging EV's. EV"s can be charged with as little current draw as a toaster uses. 2.) EV's are typically charged when demand is lowest. This actually increases power plant efficiencies reducing the cost of power. 3.) only very selective cities have regular brownouts. Most are fine. The ones that arent is due to poor infrastructure management and planning and political interference in them. California is a great example of when politicians decide to play Engineer. 4.) Typically, modern EV's have rages around 250-300 miles. Most people doing beach trips live closer than 2-3 hours drive of a beach. having to suffer 4-6 hours drive round trip takes up most of your day. Meaning the ranges on current generation EV's would be sufficient without charging for most cases. Additionally for coastal states and countries such as Australia, the majority of the population lives within 100km (around 60 miles) of the coastline. So again, modern EV charge ranges are sufficient. So that means in your scenario it isnt everyone trying to get a charge. Then we have to consider that, that will likely not be the only fuel station with charging points. Additionally fuel stations arent the only place you would have charging points unlike fossil fuels. Meaning there would be far more places to get a charge. For example its becoming more common for beach side carparks to have their own chargers (between 3-6 typically). Although not rapid chargers, a 4 hour stay at those chargers will do you to 100% from 0. But since most people dont roll in on their last electron the average stay would be between 1-2 hours while they're at the beach enjoying themselves. Dad comes back and moves the car once its charged to let the next person who rolls in use it. Keeping in mind that even if you're not using the charger and you're waiting. its a beach side carpark, you can park and enjoy the beach while you wait. But they wont be the only ones with chargers, Cafe's super markets, council parking spots are all getting more and more of these destination chargers, whilst more and more fuel stations and super charger stations are being built with rapid chargers. So the idea that the only place to get a charge would be 4 bays in a single fuel stations is misleading today yet alone in 20-30 years when EV's make up 50% of the vehicles on the road. 5.) Whilst power plants certainly use fossil fuels, EV's are still far more efficient and produce far less emissions than a combustion car in 3 ways. A.) Even on a coal only grid (which isnt even the case in the US), EV's still produce significantly less emissions per mile than Combustion cars do even before considering the emissions produced by fuel refining and transport. Infact, its actually more FUEL EFFICIENT to charge your EV with a cheap small portable generator than it is to use that same fuel in a similar sized car. B.) Even the US isnt a fossil only grid. Infact the nation grid in the US is around 33% emissions free/renewable energy and that fraction is growing steadily. whilst 66% is of fossil fuels with 32% of that being Gas which is one of the more emissions friendly fossil fuels to use in power plants. All making the emissions efficiency of EV's higher. C.) ALOT of people have home solar and more and more are getting home solar which further reduces the emissions impact of EV's on the energy grid. Hopefully this cleared up some misconceptions for you.
    1
  116.  @tpgeraghty  why do you have to be patient to charge your EV? please explain.
    1
  117.  @tpgeraghty  I asked you to explain being patient to charge as I said earlier that you typically charge from home. Whilst your asleep. You’re not waiting. Or needing to be patient. The market will decide and in many ways, already is. Hydrogen isn’t looking to great in that aspect. There will likely be a niche for hydrogen, such as people who cannot charge from home, but if you can, BEV’s offer a significant advantage in almost every aspect.
    1
  118. Let me give you an insight into how an EV is actually used. Unlike a combustion fuel car, electricity is directly delivered to your home. Additionally unlike a combustion fuel car, you don't have to stand there holding the plug while it charges. What this means is that for most EV owners, they simply plug in when they arrive home in the evening, takes around 5 seconds. and wake up and go to work with effectively a full tank of fuel every single day. Since the average daily commute in the US is around 16 miles, not 300-400 miles as most EV's are capable of, there is no need to charge elsewhere at any other point of the 99% of the time. pursuit
    1
  119. Electricty has to be transported to the hydrogen aswell. This is about energy efficiency. Any grid losses in inherent in getting electricity from the grid. This is as apples to apples as you get as the starting baseline for the comparison is taking electricity from the grid. The end point is useful work done by the car. Measuring the loss of energy between those two points is as apples to apples as it gets. It’s like having a between two cars and complaining the race wasn’t fair because both cars had the same start and finish line.
    1
  120.  @Wroe  well you think you’re picking holes. But you’re actually not. Sure batteries only have so many cycles. For the model 3, that’s 1,500 cycles. Which doesn’t sound like a lot. Until you work out what that means. An average combustion car lasts 250,000 miles. A model 3 has a range of 325 miles. Over 1,500 cycles, that’s 487,500 miles. Almost double the lifetime. But what does end of life mean for a battery? Well the industry standard is 70% health. As batteries degrade they lose capacity. So it’s saying that after almost 500,000 miles, you can expect to have 70% of your range left which would be around 230 miles. Thats still a lot more than anyone reasonably needs for 362 out of 365 days a year.
    1
  121.  @Wroe  and charge times? The average commute is something closer to 70miles. Modern EV’s can more than meet that requirement. One only has to charge overnight when they aren’t using their car. Eating, sleeping, watching TV, etc. when they wake up they have a full tank. That saves you approximately 17.5 hours a year based on people’s average time spent in the perused of fuel. By comparison to travel about 1,000 miles in a Tesla model 3 you should expect between 2-2.5 hours of charging. However when factoring in already very much existent food, fuel and toilet stops, the extra time you spend on a charger is approximately 1-1.5 hours. So if you do a trip like that maybe 3 times a year, it still comes no where near the time you save by charging rather than getting fuel each week.
    1
  122.  @Wroe  any other hurdles?
    1
  123.  @Wroe  the average commute is 70 miles ish. A model 3 has a battery range of 325 miles. You could forget to charge your car 3 nights in a row and still have More than enough to get to work and back. Similarly if you forget to refill your car and it runs out of fuel on the freeway in peak hour traffic you’re also up shit creek without a paddle
    1
  124.  @Wroe  I don’t see the dilemma in bigger scale. So far just you on somewhat Mis guided priciples
    1
  125.  @Wroe  any other hurdles?
    1
  126.  @Wroe  hydrogen do use batteries. The absorbe the additional overflow energy. Since a hydrogen cell small enough to fit in a car wouldn’t produce the kW needed to supply the motor acceleration. It also wouldn’t be able to take advantage of regenerative breaking. A natural and significant benefit of using electric motors
    1
  127.  @Wroe  enlarge? What do you mean?
    1
  128.  @Wroe  from a fundamentally thermodynamics standpoint a fuel cell won’t be small enough and powerful enough to complete that on its own. One of the largest factors for fuel cells is surface area for a reaction. Less surface area, less reaction, less power. There are physical restraints.
    1
  129.  @Wroe  any other hurdles?
    1
  130. except Hyundai pulled their HCEV offering off the market at the beginning of 2021. So its just Toyota and Nissan.
    1
  131. hydrogen even as energy storage is an extremely inefficient way of storing energy. Additionally it takes up huge amounts of volume.
    1
  132.  @leegibson5469  depends if those problems are based on technical limitations or physical limitations. For hydrogen its mostly physical limitations. You wont get more than 60% ish efficiency out of a fuel cell. Because it relies on flow through. You cant absorb all the energy. It has to flow through the fuel cell. Similar to a wind turbine can only really acheive around 60% efficiency. Because if it was 100% efficient all the energy in the wind would be absorbed by the turbine and it would create are with no motion around the blades. and thus would stop spinning. You need to leave some energy in, so push the air through. a similar thing happens with the catalytic reaction in a fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid.
    1
  133. you dont get much about this video do you?
    1
  134.  @maxschon7709  wow. Then you really don’t understand much about this video
    1
  135. Typically the displays aren’t on when the car isn’t being used. Additionally hydrogen vehicles are lithium batteries which run electric motors just like BEV’s but with smaller batteries. So many of the issues are the same for hydrogen. Worse still because hydrogen produces water vapour, which last time I checked, freezes. And if it freezes in the exhaust then the hydrogen flow stops. If that happens your car is dead in the water. If you release the water vapour however you contribute black ice to the roads. Which is a bigger problem again. Especially if everyone has an hydrogen car. You don’t lose nearly enough charge even in the Arctic to need to be charged 5 times per day. Infact it shouldn’t use any energy when not being used in any climate hotter than -45 (freezing point of lithium batteries, except dry cells like the new ones coming out in cars at the moment which don’t freeze at all and aren’t affected by cold). Why typically happens is 1 of two things. 1.) the electrolytic fluid in the battery gets cold, reactions slow down. This tells the car the battery has less charge than it actually does. Showing lost range. However as the batteries and electric motor are used, they heat up due to internal resistance and you get your range back. Studies shows BEV’s being far more reliable in the cold than ICE cars trying to ignite fuel in a cold engine, often leading to flat batteries before they can spark an ignition hot enough. 2.) heating. People like to be warm, so heated seats and heated cabin air. Problem is whilst ICE cars draw heat off the hot engines as a byproduct, EV’s don’t get that hot. So they have to heat their own air, producing a similar power draw as an AC would on a hot day. Typically only using around 5% extra per day or less for newer models with heat pumps vs old resistance heaters. So cold weather problems aren’t really problems at all. And they’re more reliable than ICE. However hydrogen has the exact same problem but also have their own unique problems on top which would make them either extremely inconvenient to use in below freezing temperatures or extremely dangerous to other drivers.
    1
  136. The more you know.
    1
  137.  @TheTheshadow32  also just so you know your links are being held up by spam filters, nobody can see them. I think they're assuming you havnt posted any links at all. Just give the name of the article and by who and let us find it that way.
    1
  138. People keep bringing up this point and as an EV owner it’s very frustrating. Let me tell you why. EV’s use a tiny amount of cobalt in their batteries (cobalt being the only material sourced by child mining in the Congo). And that is readily recycled as it isn’t degraded by battery operation. Tesla have also signed a contract with their supplier of cobalt making it a legal requirement for them to source only ethically produced cobalt. So no child mining. In contrast do you know who the largest consumer of cobalt is in the world by a huge margin? And who has no ethical sourcing contracts in place (which means child mining)? FUEL REFINERIES! which use the cobalt to remove sulphur from fuels in a process which renders the cobalt unusable and unrecyclable. isn’t that an awkward truth. So by driving your ice car you are actually the one infact drenched in the blood of child minors. So don’t go throwing that around in public places.
    1
  139. not really
    1
  140. Pro tip. Lithium in batteries is easily and readily recycled.
    1
  141. You have a deep misunderstanding of what the term renewables means.
    1
  142. Modern EV super chargers can charge your car in between 5-15 minutes depending if you have a V2 or V3 super charger. Meanwhile Tesla's Mega charger, designed for the tesla Semi will charge it in 30 minutes.
    1
  143. No such thing as self charging cars. That would violate the laws of physics.
    1
  144.  @MikeHottVOD  it does violate the laws of phyiscs. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and entropy always increases and never decreases without the input of external energy. That means that to get energy out you need to put energy in. Self charging assumes you can create energy from nothing which violates the law of conservation of energy. The second part about entropy, also called the second law of thermodynamics, means that a system can never be more than 100% efficient. Even then, there is an upper limit to efficiency, you'll never truly have something 100% efficient. there will always be losses. So a "self charging car" violates the laws of physics. as for energy requirements, there isnt really a problem predicted for this. Whilst if everyone overnight took delivery of an EV, we would have a problem. But the worlds energy grid has never failed to increase over time by an average of doubling every 20 years. Think about all the electronics we have today that we didnt in the past. Im stting on a laptop with a separate screen using a digital mouse and keypad, listening to music on a speaker system, connected to my phone, whilst my washing machine, dishwasher, 3D printer are all on, and my aircon is also blasting with several lights in the house on, and a refrigerator running 24/7, meanwhile 2 decades ago, it might have just been the fridge and lights operating and an aircon if you were lucky. maybe a radio. The point of all that was that at the rate EV's are being adopted, even with optimistic predictions, the grid should have increased enough to support them by the time we get to full market penetration. Saying the grid cannot support it now, is a very myopic thought to have. it doesnt need to support them now, it is always growing, by the time EV's are fully adopted the grid will be more than capable of handling the power demands.
    1
  145.  @MikeHottVOD  so your "self charging car" isn't a "self charging car" but a "refuelling" car. Got it. Except unless you're using fossil fuels, you'll have to use more energy to create the fuel and due to the law of entropy, you'll get less of it out as work. So no. As for your example with Texas, let me get your logic straight. The power goes out during a natural disaster therefore its EV's fault? not good logic. You see, the power went out in texas during the snow storm not because people turned their heaters on. But because the FUEL FROZE! Texas has more than enough power to supply all the homes and heaters in the state, the problem was that the state had never had an event like that in recorded history, as such, the power grid wasn't designed to withstand artic temperatures. What happened was that the gas lines supplying the power stations froze and fuel stopped flowing to them because they're not insulated or heat traced like ones in colder climates (again, because they've never had to be.) Coal supplies were left outside of the plant instead of having to build an entire facility inside the plant (again, because they never had to.) and they couldnt get it into the burners through all the snow. Train supplying more coal were also stopped by the amount of snow. Switching stations also froze over mitigating the girds ability to load shed. Power didn't go out in texas because they didn't have the grid capacity, it went out because they weren't built for those climates. Complaining that EV's shouldn't be adopted because the power went out during the texas snow storm is like saying that EV's shouldn't be adopted because one time there was a hurricane in New Orleans and the power went out for days. its fundamentally flawed logic void of any critical thinking what so ever.
    1
  146.  @MikeHottVOD  also, side note, please read my comments fully. Notice that I stated that grid cannot support full EV adoption TOMORROW but they will in the future. Because grids are constantly expanding at a rate of about 200% every 20 years or so. By the time EV's are fully adopted, the grid will be able to cope. FULL EV ADOPTION WONT HAPPEN OVER NIGHT OR EVEN IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS So stop basing asinine logic on the false premise that over the next 30-40 years not one single person would have thunk to build more power plants or even upgrade existing ones. Thats insulting to your own intelligence and everyone else's. Think boy! THINK!
    1
  147.  @MikeHottVOD  fossil fuels are a TYPE of fuel. just as hydrogen is a type of fuel. So i stand by what I said, you're talking about a refuelling car, not a self charging one. the term self charging implies that it both generates and uses its own energy. You cant do both, it has to be one or the other.
    1
  148.  @MikeHottVOD  ..... the point of having a battery is that you dont need to have it connected to the grid..... your logic is still flawed. lets run through a scenario Modern EV's have enough charge to run a daily commute, even a longer than average one, 3-5 times without worrying about charging. If we're looking at the US average daily commute, as much as 25 times before you need to look for a charge. Most EV's are charged from home overnight, so you wake up every morning with what is effectively a full tank of fuel. when the grid goes down, batteries in your car dont. Now lets look at ICE cars, the fuel tank on the average car is around about the same as modern EV's unless you're looking at larger diesel SUV's and pickups. at the time the power goes out, you have only what ever fuel you have left in the tank since you filled it up last. that could be a full tank or you could be just about to trigger your fuel light. How do you expect to get more fuel WHEN THE POWER TO THE FUEL STATIONS TO RUN THE FUEL PUMPS TO REFUEL YOUR CAR REQUIRE GRID ELECTRICITY!? again, think boy! think! no power, no pumps, no pumps, no fuel, no fuel, no vroom vroom! again, try thinking things through more!
    1
  149.  @MikeHottVOD  Here is the problem with that idea. solar powered cars are fairly gimicky, you have around 2 square meters of a car you can put solar panels, assuming they dont get dirty or damaged which is a BIG assumption. 1 square meter of solar panels will produce 1kw of power. So lets say you leave your car in the sun all day on a summers day and you produce a whopping.... 13kWh of electricity. thats going to get a car like the model 3 (one of the most efficient EV's on the road today), only around 63 miles. Now there are some fully functional EV's coming out which ARE solar AUGMENTED but to make the most of the solar they're shaped like a giant wing making them both ugly and impractical, they have 2 seats, no boot space, have the weight of a feather, are slow, and.. get this, only have 3 wheels, which if you've ever seen a reliant robin go around a corner too quickly, you might immediately spot the problem with that. and thats not fully on solar either. the trouble there is that the power you get from the sun over the area of a car, even if you captured all of it, isnt actually alot. and there are some base requirements for diving a car with passengers are freeway speeds in terms of energy requirements. Further to that a solar car would have been completely and utterly useless in say, the Texas snow storm, or really anywhere too far from the equator like areas of Canada, norway and others. For example, in winter, you only get 7 hours of daylight. Assuming you get a sunny day of course (not common in the UK from what I hear), you'd succeed at capturing around 30% of that energy as it goes around (think glancing angles as the sun moves around. You cant point the car at the sun all day) so you'd make 4.2 kWh of electricity, which would get a Model 3, 20 miles. Not exactly an encouraging range is it?
    1
  150.  @MikeHottVOD  I think in reality. and reality is, even if we wanted mass adoption of EV's it would take decades to even build them. There is plenty of time to let the grid upgrade. Which it has always done since the first power station came online and it will continue to do.
    1
  151.  @MikeHottVOD  cool comment. Means nothing. We’re talking about well established and tested physics. Not scaring horses or… ice cars in your analogy. (Weird analogy). We’re also not talking about flying. Both of those example implies that I’m worried it will upset a “status quo.” In that I’ll scare horses or the man wasn’t meant to fly. Nothing I’ve said has been remotely similar to that. I havn’t made any comments like “if we have solar cars, how will fuel companies make a profit, you’d just be making fuel more expensive for the rest of us” or anything else. I’ve stated physics. Physics which limits what you can or cannot do. You can’t magically make more solar energy land on a car. No matter how hard you try. You can make solar panels better at capturing it, but even if you somehow by some Miracle of science, capture all of it, it still won’t be enough. Especially cosidering batteries and electric motors are already In the high 90%’S when it comes to efficiency. You just can’t do it. Face the facts. You can augment ev’s with solar, not with huge success unless you seriously compromise the practicality of the car, but you can do that. You cannot practically run them from it. You won’t have solar taxis because the energy requirements to travel at road speeds on a vehicle large and safe enough for passengers and their luggage is too high for solar to meet. Sorry but it’s a fantasy.
    1
  152.  @MikeHottVOD  what you’re displaying however is called “cognitive dissonance”
    1
  153.  @MikeHottVOD  there are also videos on why the earth is flat on YouTube. doesn't make it factual. Do you know what the very first thing NASA did when they were asked to put a man on the moon? they got their mathematicians and scientists to work out if it was even possible. They ran numbers, with energy requirements, available energy, energy mass etc etc to see if you could do it. You cant escape physics, not matter how much you want to be a "believer" because physics doesn't care about your "beliefs." There is a bare minimum energy requirement to have a practically operational vehicle which can carry itself, people and cargo safely at road speeds. Even on a sunny day, there isnt enough energy landing on the car to do that. plain and simple. no quote will ever change that fact. I did some calculations assuming 1kW output from solar panels. Per square meter on a sunny day, the energy from the sun is 1.3kW. Its not physically possible. give it up.
    1
  154. as a quick example, lets do some basic maths here. Firstly lets assume some VERY efficient values and we'll calculate the bare minimum energy requirements, and then we'll compare to the 1.3kW that the sun can provide maximum per square meter on a sunny day, assuming a 100% efficient solar panel that captures every bit of sunlight energy. Firstly lets work out where we are going. So lets say you want to drive to the top of a small mountain such as Mt Dandenong in Victoria Australia. The trip from the base to the top is around 17.7km and ascends 633m to its peak. Lets also assume its 1 passenger plus luggage so around 120kg. We'll also assume 1T for the car, its systems, seats and safety features (crash frame, airbags, etc) (VERY optimistic). Then lets assume the weight of the battery is only sufficient enough to get us to the top of the mountain, zero waste (impractical but lets do it) with a battery density that of the model 3 also of 260 wh/kg. We will also assume a VERY good drag co-efficient such as for the model 3 of 0.23, we'll also assume a similar size car to the model 3 with a frontal cross sectional area of 2.6m^2, and of course, an average speed up the mountain of around 60km/h. Now that that is out of the way, If we work out losses due to air resistance, rolling resistance, and the energy required to displace the mass of the occupant, luggage, car and batteries, up 633m of elevation, we can use simultaneous equations to solve for the weight and size of the battery, and the energy required to get to the top of the mountain. What we get is that, assuming 100% efficiency, and zero braking on the journey, we get 2.66kWh required, meaning around 10.2kg of batteries. But if we add some optimistically low losses, such as 97% efficiency for the motor, 98% for the batteries and 95% for the inverter, we will need 2.96 kWh of electricity. We also know that at 60km/h it will take around 18 minutes to travel that distance. We know that in clear sunlight, the maximum amount of energy the lands of a single square meter of earth is 1.3kW's of energy. If we captured every single drop of that sunlight energy, (impossible but lets assume so and lets assume its at noon when that energy concentration is at its peak and not say, late afternoon.) Over the time it takes to travel up the mountain, 18 minutes, we wold have collected 0.39kwh of energy, or 13% of the energy we require And that's Impossibly unrealistically optimistic efficiencies There just isn't the energy for it. yet alone factoring in things like shade from the overhead tree's as you're driving, aircon or cooling systems, internal power in the car for things like radio and instrument panels etc etc etc. IT CANNOT BE DONE I've been trying to tell you this, there just isn't the energy. face the facts.
    1
  155.  @MikeHottVOD  read my previous comment. Physics and the maths don’t agree with you.
    1
  156.  @MikeHottVOD  power sources to be determined. So no maths or physics agrees with you because you don’t even know how your “self charging car” is supposed to work
    1
  157.  @MikeHottVOD  but to clarify, no maths or physics agrees with you since you currently have no method of releasing energy onboard.
    1
  158. not really when you look at the economics.
    1
  159.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  Then you haven't done it well. firstly, EV's are only at a very slight disadvantage for payload, and in the EU, no disadvantage. Thanks to increased GVM's for electric trucks. Also consider that statistically freight is more limited by Volume than by Weight. With reduced maintenance and cost of electricity over diesel you'd be looking at approximately a 10x cost saving per mile. Which isn't something to shy away from. Add to that the added performance which means in an urban environment you save time on driving which reduces the amount companies have to spend of drivers wages adding to the savings. In terms of long range freight, Freight over 500 miles (max range of a Tesla Semi) per day accounts for less than 10% of total road freight. But thanks to laws regarding driving fatigue, and mandated brakes and maximum driving times, Having to stop to charge has no time penalty over Diesel trucks over the same distance per day. So the economics are definitely there.
    1
  160.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  You asked about the economics. I'm talking about the economics. Also according to law in most countries including the US the most a truck driver is allowed to do is 11 hours per day with a 30 minute break between the 5th and 8th hour for the US. If travelling at freeway speeds that entire time you'd only make just under 700 miles.
    1
  161.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  The Tesla semi has 1,000 Hp and 10,000 Nm of torque (over 7,000 ft lb). Additionally those who go up, also go down, and going down hill or slowing down at all recharges the batteries on EV's.
    1
  162.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  Not really. It wont. Not in most places. Espeically in the 90% or so of the trucking industry which does less than 500 miles per day. As for long distance, 500 miles is around 8 hours of driving or more. Seeing as you can only do 11 hours per day, and you have to stop for a minimum of 30 minutes somewhere between your 5th and 8th hour in the US. And coincidentally a Tesla Mega Charged takes 30 minutes to charge a Tesla Semi, you dont really lose any time. Its not like you have to stand there holding the plug, you just plug it in and walk away to a rest room or to get food, or go take a nap. But for the 90% of trucks that dont travel further than 500 miles in a single day, The economics and practicality of them is undeniable.
    1
  163.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  Also you said they were a waste of money. I said when you look at the economics of it, they arent. to which you replied, "I have, it doesnt go anywhere." which began this whole conversation. which is... well... about the economics. Goal posts arent meant to be shifted.
    1
  164.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  have you seen the charging network in the US? forget the 14 other companies with comprehensive networks which are entirely build around having a making a profit from rapid charging networks in the US. But Tesla chargers alone? You can pass 7 super chargers between Phoenix and Las Vagas.
    1
  165.  @ChipmunkRapidsMadMan1869  Keep in mind that network is rapidly increasing with new chargers coming online almost every day.
    1
  166. a few hydrogen stations have already spontaneously exploded.
    1
  167. Wow, you’re just posting this rubbish everywhere aren’t you? Transportation isn’t what makes hydrogen expensive and hydrogen batteries aren’t all that great compared to other types of batteries and energy dtotage
    1
  168.  @abstractexchange5057  actually the Majority of the cost is due to the energy required to create hydrogen. And the terms you are looking for is brown/black hydrogen, grey hydrogen and blue hydrogen depending on if it’s steam reformation,l or gasification (hence brown or black for the coal type), or if the steam reformation captures the carbon released. I very much do understand the processes and energy commitments involved. It’s sorts my job.
    1
  169.  @abstractexchange5057  actually no. When I say it takes alot of energy to create hydrogen. Which it does, I dont mean the energy converted to chemical potential energy. I mean the energy wasted. If you were to supply 100kWh to an electrolysis process, and then compress that hydrogen before passing it through a fuel cell, you would only get 33kWh out of the fuel cell. The rest of the energy will be wasted However supply 100kWh to a battery and you will be able to get 92 kWh of electricity out of it. Thats what I mean by alot of energy. And whilst hydrogen is gravimetrically dense in terms of kWh/kg (around 33kWh per kg) It is not very Volumetrically dense in kWh/L or kWh/gal. Even compressed to 700 bar hydrogen only has a volumetric energy density of 1.4kWh/L (5.3 kWh/gal) Meaning for vehicles like the Toyota Mirai for example, whilst they only carry 5.6kg of hydrogen on board, that takes up a whopping 3 fuel tanks totally 141L of fuel tank capacity (37 gallons). Thats more fuel tank storage in a small mid-sized sedan than you'd get in a Ford F150 twice its size. And for only 400 miles of range. This mean the Mirai has to sacrifice space, they have VERY little cabin space, the boot in the Mirai is so small its 100L less than a Toytoa Yaris which is a whole 2 classes smaller than the Mirai, and even then it doesnt have enough space to fold the rear seats down to try to extend the boot space. Meanwhile the similarly sized Tesla Model 3 gets only 75 miles less range, has a massive trunk (almost class leading) with another trunk in the front engine bay, and has class leading cabin space. It is also significantly faster than the Mirai, last longer than the Mirai in terms of total lifespan, and costs around 20x less per mile to operate.
    1
  170. you do realise that more than 95% of EV batteries are recyclable right? additionally this video doesn't even mention the mining and extraction of the battery material for hydrogen cars or the toxic rare earth metals used in the fuel cells either. So i don't see how this topic is related.
    1
  171. The energy for fossil fuels is stored in the fuel when it comes out as gas or oil. Its already energy dense. You can easily burn crude oil to release alot of energy. You cannot burn water. You have to pump ALOT of energy into it to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen in order to bring it to an energy dense state.
    1
  172. any conventional power station will only produce as much energy as is being used. No more, No less. Renewables however, that energy does get wasted if it's over producing like wind and solar, Those however are perfectly suited to relatively small battery storage which is far more efficient. It is far better suited to this role not because its more efficient but because its response time in absorbing and dispensing energy is significantly higher than that of hydrogen. Hydrogen storage cannot respond fast enough to demand for renewables. Or for vehicles for that matter, hence why hydrogen vehicles need lithium batteries for that role.
    1
  173. You can’t run something that generates its own fuel sustainably. That violates the laws of physics
    1
  174. you say about someone who is selling and delivering some of the most popular vehicles on the planet and has made and is selling the services of the worlds first and only re-usable orbital rockets...... riiiiiiiight......
    1
  175. They last a lot longer than that. The warrantee period for most modern electric vehicles today is 8 years. Their rated cycle life is 1500 cycles. And that’s to 70% health. So after 1500 cycles you only lose 30% of your original capacity. That means for a long range model 3 that could take you nearly 500,000 miles to reach that point. If you travel the average of 20,000 miles per year, that would take you nearly 25 years to reach that point. And at that point you still have almost 230 miles per charge left in battery health. On top of that almost the entirety of the battery is readily recycled (about 95%). And most EV batteries, when used, might not be able to be used again in another EV but they are more than well enough suited for industrial and domestic power storage devices. Meaning those batteries can be re-used again once they’re removed from the car for another 30-40 years before ultimately being recycled.
    1
  176. The more you compress it the more energy it takes to do so. The stronger, larger and heavier you need to make the fuel tanks, and the more dangerous an explosion is.
    1
  177. you also need it to generate electricity to create hydrogen. Except you need 3-4 time more per mile for hydrogen. unless you make hydrogen from hydro-carbons, otherwise known as fossil fuels. in which case you're producing more emissions than if you had just burnt the fuel in a generator to create the electricity to begin with.
    1
  178.  @milanswoboda5457  Hydrogen also uses Lithium batteries and also have platinum in their fuel cells which is so much more toxic than anything in an EV. Additionally EV batteries are around 95% recyclable with todays technology and most of the elements are continually recyclable and are able to form closed loop recycling.
    1
  179.  @milanswoboda5457  Sorry, I didnt mean to tag you in that comment. that was for Dan the-Man
    1
  180.  @benjaminjoseph3392  why do people keep mentioning cobalt? Most EV manufacturers have signed sealing meaning their suppliers can only supply them with ethically sourced cobalt. Auto manufacturers such as Tesla are sinking big bucks into research to make cobalt free batteries.
    1
  181.  @benjaminjoseph3392  but probably the thing that annoys me most about the cobalt argument and child labour is that people don’t realise what else cobalt is used for. Do you know who the largest consumer of cobalt is in the world? fuel refineries to remove sulphur. And they don’t have any clause for ethical sourcing of cobalt. Because the news fixated on EV’s using cobalt which put public pressure on them to source ethical cobalt. But complete media silence on fuel refineries. Further to that, the cobalt in batteries isn’t degraded with use. It can easily be taken out of spent batteries and put into new ones. Unlike fuel refineries who use cobalt in a way which makes it economically unviable to reclaim the cobalt after use. Meaning it’s a one off wastage. All that ignoring the fact that FCEV’s have to use a platinum which can be very harmful to ecosystems.
    1
  182.  @benjaminjoseph3392  comparatively to ICE or FCEV’s batteries are significantly greener. So much so it is actually more fuel efficient to run a BEV on a diesel generator than using that same diesel in a efficient diesel car half its size.
    1
  183.  @benjaminjoseph3392  whilst BEV’s have around 15% more emissions and environmental impacts than a ICE car of the same size, trim and role. (Would be more of it needed a fuel system, engine, transmission, etc.) that equates to approximately 1 ton of emissions more than the its ICE equivalent. However over its operational life, it will emit approximately 30-40 tons LESS than its ice equivalent. And their end of life impacts are roughly equivalent. And that a well to wheels analysis. From the source of fuel for power plants (assumed coal, the gap is more drastic with a mixed grid). Likewise it also follows extraction of crude oil, transport to and processing thru fuel refineries, and ultimately transported again to fuel stations. And that’s even with the assumption both vehicles have the same lifespan. In reality modern EV’s should see about double the useable lifespan (if not more) of either their FCEV and ICE counterparts. With drastically less servicing than either. Meaning you can safely double those results as well. As for FCEV competitively, they are terribly inefficient. You have to utilise 9x more electricity from the same grid that charges a BEV per kilometre for hydrogen on a best case scenario assuming technology efficiencies at current only hypothetically achievable. They also last about as long as ICE cars and half as long as BEV’s. Meaning for every one BEV you need to make use and dispose of 2 FCEV’s or ICE’s. That is why many people think FCEV’s are mind bogglingly stupid. But that’s also not true. It’s only stupid for domestic vehicles. For long distance freight, FCEV’s offer better range and refueling times. Albeit with less performance and safety. But in long distant freight, battery cannot compete. But for domestic use, you’d be a fool to chase FCEV’s.
    1
  184. And where do fuel cells come from? Thin air?
    1
  185. A.) sources? B.) steam reformation carbon capture has to date, consistently failed to meet its first commissioning benchmark of 25% capture. It doesn’t work.
    1
  186.  @user-RCST  nah, I don’t have the time or inclination for doing that. Plus there’s nothing I can bring to the table that dozens of other content creators havn’t already.
    1
  187. Won’t do much good
    1
  188.  @libertas-goddessofliberty5664  no it’s because I did physics in high school.
    1
  189. ​ @muzahirabbas8282  hat depends entirely on the size of the battery for your drone example, but happy to discuss why hydrogen would be unsuitable for small drones. as for Tesla vs hydrogen the reasons I believe hydrogen will no be competitive in the domestic vehicle market are plain when outlined and I am happy to discuss. It comes down to the following 7 reasons. (I will be using comparisons between the Toyota Mirai and Tesla Model 3 as they are both similarly sized vehicles in the same category (mid-sized sedan). It is also worth noting that the Mirai is much longer than the model 3 but its cross sectional area is only marginally larger than the model 3 (around an inch wider and taller). In addition the Mirai despite being hydrogen weighs slightly more than the model 3. but only by a few hundred kg. 1.) Performance 2.) Handling 3.) Safety 4.) Space 5.) Cost 6.) Refuelling 7.) Lifespan 1.) Hydrogen Vehicles suffer from a fatal lack of performance. This is because Fuel Cell (which is the most efficient way to use hydrogen. you don't want a combustion vehicle as you will see in (4.) & (6.) has a power output entirely dependant on the size of the catalytic area in the fuel cell. With a fuel cell taking up the entire engine bay, there is still not enough power to adequately accelerate the car but only just enough to allow it to cruise. This means they mostly need batteries or some other form of energy storage to provide the additional power to accelerate the car. Unfortunately the smaller the battery, the less power output it has, and with so little space as outlined in (4.) most hydrogen vehicles don't have very large batteries. By contract performance, due to the large batteries, comes naturally to electric vehicles. The model 3 for example does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, whilst the Mirai does 0-60 in 9.2 seconds. a whole 6 seconds slower. There are some hydrogen vehicles which can go quickly, such as the Hyperion XP-1. However this is a very expensive, purpose built performance car. It has 3 fuel cells and an array of super capacitors to help with acceleration. All the space is taken up by fuel tanks and fuel cells. meaning its about as practical as a daily driver as lamborignia Aventador. Meanwhile the Tesla model S plaid can out drag the hyperion despite the tesla being a 4 door, 5 seat large luxury sedan. What I am getting at is that there is a physical limitation to the performance of these vehicles in balance with their practicality. More power means you'll need to sacrifice space, seats and practicality. For Battery Electrics (BEV's) this isn't the case. 2.) as well as performance, Handling is impacted as well when in comparison to BEV's. That is because the while base of the car is used to house fuel tanks. which are round by necessity. Ontop of those they have to place the battery packs and exhaust system. Then in the engine bay they have to place the fuel cell. All together this gives a higher centre of gravity which results in less elegant handling. BEV's by comparison have what are called skateboard battery packs, This puts the centre of mass almost at the wheel axis giving it incredible natural handling and natural roll over prevention. 3.) Let me start this off by saying hydrogen vehicles are Engineered to their teeth to be safe. They are safe vehicles. Safer than combustion vehicles, but not as safe as BEV's. This is due to several factors. one of them being the roll over. As noted in (2.) the vehicles have a higher centre of mass making them easier to roll over. Whilst lower than a combustion vehicle (ICE) they are easier to tip than a BEV. This impacts survivability in an accident. What they also dont have are crumple zones. As noted previously, the fuel cell stack is usually in the engine bay which is the case for the Mirai. As I will explain in (4.) there is little room in the boot either. Because Hydrogen is extremely explosive in ranges of 4%-74% air saturation, Fuel cells and fuel tanks are critically protected. They do this with chassis reinforcement and steel plate guards. (note that whilst the hydrogen, tanks, fuel cell, exhaust, batteries are all lighter in Hydrogen Vehicles than their equivalent in BEV's the Mirai is heavier than the Model 3. This is why, the added protection). These areas are very well protected. Whilst the tanks are very safe, and aren't usually prone to critical failure, they are safe in the event of over-pressure from crushing or punctures, however if you tear one open in an accident then they are very not safe. The vehicle turns into a bomb which can wipe out traffic and pedestrians within a few hundred meters of the vehicle. The kinds of forces which would result in that are the type of forces which tear vehicles in 2, chassis and all. Whilst those kinds of accidents are rare, they do happen and its not hard to find photos of similar accidents online. As such the chassis is reinforced to protect the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell. The tanks are also protected by steel guards. This means that the crumple zones for the front, rear and sizes are significantly compromised. Meaning lower survivability. Meanwhile BEV's excel at this. With nothing in the front but storage space, no fuel tank in the back, and no transmission or engine running the length of the vehicle, BEV's have higher than average crumple zones. Giving them excellent survivability. To finish this point off. Hydrogen Vehicles are designed to be extremely safe. The hydrogen systems are extremely safe. but to do so they did have to trade off survivability in terms of energy absorption. (crumple zones). 4.) Space, Hydrogen vehicles suffer from a distinct lake of space which makes them impractical. By comparison, BEV's have alot of it. With not transmission running length, passenger space inside is generous. With no fuel tanks, the rear boot is very deep and spacious. With not engine the front of the car turns into another storage compartment. By comparison, Hydrogen Vehicles are the worst for space when compared to BEV's or ICE's. This is because while hydrogen is very energy dense (energy contained per kg), even at 700 bar (the pressure its stored at for hydrogen vehicles. This is also 32 times the pressure LPG is stored at. For reference, big steel Gas Bottles). they have very low volumetric energy density (energy per volume). While the Mirai can get 400 miles on only 5.6 kg of hydrogen. That hydrogen, even at 700 bar, takes up a whopping 147L of fuel tanks. That's ALOT of space gone! sitting on those fuel tanks are batteries for acceleration and in the front, fuel cell stack. all together what this means is no storage in the front. very little internal cabin space and even less boot space. In real world metrics, the Mirai is dimensionally larger than the model 3, about 1 inch taller and wider and 11 inches longer. Yet it has less internal cabin space for passenger. infact so little that you cant fold the rear seats down if you want to extend the boot. The boot of the Mirai is also so small that despite it being a mid-sized sedan. It has a smaller boot than a Toyota Yarris. A vehicle less than half its size and 2 whole size categories smaller. Infact the Yarris beats the Mirais boot space by more than 100L!
    1
  190.  @muzahirabbas8282  When you consider the poor performance of the Mirai in terms of acceleration, you can begin to see why these vehicles are becoming impractical. If you want a daily driver you have to get used to driving one of the slower cars in its class. If you want speed you have to get used not being able to carry passengers or even your shopping. 5.) Cost. Hydrogen is expensive. This is due to its efficiency and how the energy is transported to the car. Hydrogen is either made via electrolysis, where you pump in electrical energy from grid to separate hydrogen from something like water, or its made with fossil fuels. Less energy intensive but VERY dirty for the environment. The cheapest form of Hydrogen is unsurprisingly the former. Whilst still using a large amount of energy, (although not as much as electrolysis), its still very expensive. This can be as much as twice the price of petrol per mile range. With Electrolysis, even more so. To compare it to BEV's you have to understand how much energy is used and where from. If you want green hydrogen you need electricity from the grid. The same grid that would charge a BEV. (so all those "EV's drive on coal" arguments would also apply to hydrogen except much worse as you're about to see). From outlet to wheel the efficiency of a BEV is around 80-85%. Electrolysis alone is 70% efficient. That is that if you were to get 100 kWh from the grid, you would get 70 kWh of potential chemical energy of hydrogen as a product of electrolysis. The rest of the energy is lost to heat and breaking chemical bonds. It then has to be compressed to 700 bar (which is not a little bit of pressure). This is only 80% efficient. It then has to be transported which is generally around a 15% less (if we assume the trucks are hydrogen powered). Then it gets put into a hydrogen vehicle. Now a combustion hydrogen vehicle has efficiencies between 15%-20%. But a fuel cell has an efficiency of 60%. Then it just puts it through an inverter 95%, and into an electric motor 97%. So from the 100 kWh supplied by the grid to an outlet, For a hydrogen vehicle only around 26 kWh actually makes it to the wheels. For a BEV for the same 100 kWh supplied to the same outlet, around 80 kWh reaches the wheels. What does this mean to cost? it means that you need 3 times more energy per mile to run hydrogen. Which means on energy costs alone its 3 times more expensive. For a BEV, that is the only cost to consider. For hydrogen you also have to consider the cost of water, the cost of the hydrogen plants overheads (staffing wages, maintenance, admin and logistics) and the cost of transportation. Then that plant has to slap on profit overheads. After all they have to make a profit, Then fuel stations have to buy this hydrogen at that price, and add in their overheads and slap their profit markup onto because they too need to make a profit. BEV's are around 10x cheaper to run per mile than ICE vehicles. Meanwhile hydrogen costs around 8x as much per miles than ICE vehicles. Even if they reaches cost parity of ICE vehicles hydrogen will still be 10x more expensive to operate per miles. And in energy alone, they will always be at least 3 times more expensive. It is also worth noting the arguments against EV's for things like "the grid cant handle EV adoption" is 3 fold worse for hydrogen. 6.) Refuelling. This may seem like something hydrogen vehicles have an edge with but that's sadly not the case. For Domestic passenger vehicles, refuelling is a disadvantage. This is because the average person has daily commute of around 70 miles. The model 3 for example has a range of 325 miles. More than enough to cover you daily commute. And since you only need access to electricity to charge an BEV, this means that you can charge at home. Simply plug it in when you get home, enjoy your evening, get up in the morning and you have the equivalent of a full tank every morning. 0 time out of your day. Also thanks to the relatively cheap to install super charger network, when you do happen to do longer trips of say, 1,000 miles, it will only add an extra 1.5-2 hours to your travel time when you take out the time for the inevitable toilet and food stops. and mind you only 1.5-2 hours added to a trip somebody might do once a year at best. Hardly a daily occurrence. However for hydrogen, you have to refuel. Regularly. The average person refuels once per week which means that on average a person will spend 16-17 hours per year refuelling their car. Which is far more than the 1.5-2 hours added to a trip you might do once a year. So in the case of domestic passenger vehicles, Refuelling is a disadvantage. 7.) Lifespan. Contrary to popular belief (thanks media idiots), BEV's are incredibly long lasting. Current EV batteries are designed to last well longer than 500,000 miles or more with many on the road already passed 400,000 - 500,000 miles on their original batteries. They last approximately double the lifetime of a standard combustion engine. But what about Hydrogen? Hydrogen vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap which says "do not refuel after xxxx date". This is because of 2 reasons. A.) hydrogen embrittlement of materials. Hydrogen atoms are small. very small. so small that they can pass through solid metal. When they pass through certain materials they degrade the integrity of that material making it weak and brittle. This isn't a fast process however. But it compromises the lifespan of anything in contact with or even near hydrogen in its gas form. B.) is because of the pressure its stored at. As hydrogen fuel is used, it doesn't "drain" the fuel tanks but depressurises them. The pressure inside that tanks are constantly cycling from 1 bar to 700 bar as you use a refuel the vehicle. This has an enormous fatigue loading on the fuel tanks. After a certain amount of time, this will reduce the safety and integrity of the tanks. As a result of those 2 things, hydrogen vehicles get an expiration date of around 10 years. Whilst for a standard person 500,000 miles represents 30-40 years of driving.
    1
  191.  @muzahirabbas8282  Sorry, it was a long comment so it had to break into 2 comments as it became too long. That is my full explanation of why hydrogen will never overtake the domestic vehicle market but its good to note that a lot of those issues become different in consideration with different applications. Such as air travel or heavy freight.
    1
  192. it is. by default and reflected in EPA mileage. And whilst weight is a factor, so is volume. In that regard, hydrogen cars require more than double the volume to get the same range as a BEV. The mirai wont ever get much further than its current EPA 402 miles because it cannot fit more fuel into the space it has. only way you can fit more fuel is with a larger car which has more drag, weighs more and thus has more rolling resistance which all sorta negates the benefit of having more fuel with reduced efficiency. Hydrogen is not efficient. it requires 3-4 times as much electrical energy per mile. than a BEV does. that's without cryogenically cooling it to a liquid. thats not efficient, thats lunacy. You're putting all this energy into hydrogen to only get 20-30% of that energy out as usable work. Where as with BEV's its between 80-90%.
    1
  193.  @Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma  people seem to be disillusioned about the realities of the technology. And the point is I don’t want people to have the wrong information or assumption. Such as hydrogen would be any better for heavy haulage. There are some very real and serious physical limitations to hydrogen that nobody seems to talk about. And just people people put money into it doesn’t mean it’s good. People put money into Betamax, even millions of dollars has been spent on fly wire for a submarine. Doesn’t mean they’re a good idea. Mazda spend untold millions on rotary engines, where did that go? You can get a hydrogen car if you want but let me sum up how that would compare to if you had got an EV, -You get similar ranges, so no advantage there. -you’d be paying 20x more for fuel per mile. -you’d been buying a car that would last around 1/3rd the lifetime of the EV. -it would be exceptionally slower than the EV. -you would buy a car that not only has pathetic cabin and cargo space compared to an EV, but in its class as well (the mirai for example, despite being a midsized sedan has almost 100L less boot space than a toyota Yaris half its size! and so little cabin space you can’t even fold the rear seats to extend the boot if you needed) -you’d be getting something way less green. Not only is most hydrogen made from fossil fuels, even if you had green hydrogen you’d need 3-4 times as much grid electricity from the same grid per miles worth of hydrogen. -you’d be wasting time. BEV’s can charge from home while your asleep, for daily commutes 99.9% of the year that means you’d have a full tank every morning. Hydrogen can’t do that, you’d have to spend on average 17-16 hours per year getting fuel. These short comings also reflect on hydrogen vs electric trucks. With less cargo space and less power and even less range with drastically higher operating costs and drastically lower lifespans. They’re not a good solution there either. Unfortunately those are the facts. They’re not competitive. What they are, is a way out for fossil fuel companies as ICE cars are slowly being phased out globally. Not only is hydrogen predominantly made with fossil fuels but they also have to be distributed by fuel stations. Of which fossil fuel companies own a monopoly on, neither could be said about BEV’s. If you think the automotive industries biggest partner (fossil fuel companies) aren’t having any influence on the push for hydrogen, even in Toyota, then think again. All you have to do is look at all the lies and disinformation you hear about BEV’s but that you never hear about any of the negatives about hydrogen. Like how they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life to 10-15 years of life. Bet you never heard about that. But I bet you hear that EV’s catch fire despite statistics, automotive safety authorities and others all agreeing that BEV’s are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident and less serious when they do combust in terms of survivability. People seem to think hydrogen is this underdog that will eventually triumph, but it’s not, hydrogen is being boosted at every corner and batteries are being smeared at every turn. I mean hell, a mirai costs more without incentives than a Tesla model 3 but in some places you get get one with incentives for $8k USD brand new! Plus $15,000 of free fuel from Toyota! suffice to say there is a good reason that even with all they, hydrogen has consistently failed to take off. They’re just not good for cars/trucks.
    1
  194. What child slavery issues? And what pollution?
    1
  195. And…
    1
  196. never seen a cart horse reach freeway speeds. My daily commute would become 4 hours each way instead of 30 minutes.
    1
  197. no it wont
    1
  198. Lithium batteries aren’t particularly toxic, however the platinum used in a fuel cell for a hydrogen car certainly is.
    1
  199. There are more than enough materials. They’re also almost entirely recyclable from the batteries. As opposed to burning billions of tons of oil every year in a once off process.
    1
  200.  @milanswoboda5457  also due to the increased weight of the car having to use high pressure tanks and lines to store and transport the hydrogen in puncture safe containment. In total it’s around 20% efficient. With drastically reduced performance and safety than what is usually achieved by a standard ice vehicle due to its weight and strengthening to protect the hydrogen in an accident and also to do with the power curve of hydrogen combustion cycle. However with time, just as with it I’ve cars, a lot of that Lack of performance and safety can be Engineered out. But not all of it.
    1
  201.  @denissutherland3653  fossil fuels are hydro carbons. The hydro is hydrogen. When you separate hydrogen from the carbon, the byproduct is a lot of carbon, and it takes a lot of energy. Then in a combustion hydrogen engine you will get less than 20% utility of that fuel as usable work. With the addition of requiring heavy gear to store the highly compressed gas. So short of it is that you would need to pay through the teeth to fuel a car heavier than even EV’s which is running on an engine that has 1/3rd less power than a traditional combustion engine. 1/3rd less power from the engine to push a car more than twice as heavy. It would be more the double the cost to drive a slow gutless monstrosity. Or you could save money, and get an ev with a smaller carbon footprint, better performance than most super cars and better safety
    1
  202.  @denissutherland3653  computers. Basically. More advanced computing had made computational design much easier and faster. Meaning we could design better batteries and motors. In addition combustion motors are mechanical and are easy to control mechanically. Electric motors are electric and very difficult to control mechanically. But easy to control electronically through computers. More advanced computer and programming has allowed for better battery management systems and motor control. Advancements only made in the last decade or two.
    1
  203.  @denissutherland3653  a fuel cell doesn’t produce hydrogen. It uses hydrogen to produce electricity. In way of explaining difference in control. Think of a little RC car. How would you control the speed of the electric motor? Very simply you design an electric circuit which could limit the power supplied to the motor to vary its speed. How would you do that mechanically? Not very easily. It would be a complicated solution. However if you were to control a combustion engines speed. You can put a butterfly valve in the air intake to limit the air into the engine which reduces its power and limits its speed. A very simple mechanical solution. How would you do that electronically? You might have to line up repulsive electromagnets to repel the pistons to slow the motor. Which would be a very complicated solution. Think about if you wanted to watch YouTube on a mechanical computer which uses gears, levers and steam to do its calculations vs an electric digital computer. One is simple. One is not for the application.
    1
  204.  @denissutherland3653  RC stands for remote control. A remote control toy car. Most commonly the motor is controlled by a digital power controller. They use electricity inside a circuit to limit the power going to the motor based on an input signal. If the input signal says full, it allows full power. If the input signal says half, it gets half power, and if the input signal says nothing you get no power to the motor. And anywhere in between. All you have to do is regulate the amount of electricity being supplied to the electric motor. Not something easily achieved with a butterfly valve.
    1
  205.  @denissutherland3653  if you think sound is what makes a good car you need headphones, not a V8. But all that aside, hydro power still wouldn’t be great. Let me explain why, aside from the fact than many places in the world, including a lot of Australia, can’t use hydro power because they have nowhere to put a damn in, damns flood out and do massive damage to local wildlife and habitats. But let’s ignore that for now. Hydropower takes years to build and is very costly to implement. With that in mind you could use hydro power to power hydrogen production. But you could also use it to charge EV batteries. Let’s examine that further. It takes 3 times the amount of grid energy from the same grid to produce 1km worth of hydrogen than it does to provide 1km worth of charge to a battery electric. So if 1 single hydro damn is enough to power the needs of 1,000 people with battery electric cars, if those same 1,000 people had hydrogen cars you would have to buy 2 more hydro damns to meet the same needs. Does that sound economically viable to you?
    1
  206.  @denissutherland3653  it isn’t replenished. Water vapour is almost never deposited anywhere near where it originated. Just look at satellite images of cloud movements, clouds can travel between continents without deplenishing, and often when they do its in the ocean.
    1
  207. Building 3 times the energy infrastructure that you’d other wise need to support vehicles which are less safe, slower, and more expensive than their more efficient alternative is pure madness.
    1
  208.  @denissutherland3653  yeah. So no, last I heard no celestial being has weighed in on hydrogen vs battery. However we do know that battery offers better operational costs, performance, safety, and infrastructure needs over hydrogen.
    1
  209.  @denissutherland3653  pressure sure we do know. That’s the whole purpose of science.
    1
  210.  @denissutherland3653  if we based everything on the bible instead of science we wouldn’t have cars to begin with. Or MRI machines for that matter
    1
  211.  @denissutherland3653  which is heresay until proven. You can’t pre-suppose anything you don’t understand as being god.
    1
  212.  @denissutherland3653  god infinite wisdom says I should stone by sister to death if she gets kinky with someone before she’s married.
    1
  213.  @denissutherland3653  it also says anything born inside a bush will have strips. Don’t see that happening
    1
  214.  @denissutherland3653  do you believe every animal that is born in a bush has stripes?
    1
  215. Yup
    1
  216. Actually no. Especially in a lifetime analysis.
    1
  217.  @fastertove  kelvin and Celsius aren’t the same thing. If you’re using scientific units then you’d use kelvin, 1 degree shift in kelvin is the same as 1 degree shift in Celsius, but kelvin starts at absolute zero. Celsius starts at the freezing point of water. Thus, 0 degree Kelvin is -273.15 Kelvin. And 10 degrees Kelvin is -263.15 Kelvin. Celsius being the SI unit and kelvin being the scientific notation used for physics.
    1
  218. Hydrogen is produced from electrolysis. This requires a lot of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. At the end of this process only 70% of that electrical energy is converted into stored potential chemical energy as hydrogen. You only have to compress it and liquify it, at BEST 80% efficient, real world is closer to 40-60% but let’s go with 80% for now. Then you have to truck (using more fuel and thus more energy) the hydrogen to fuel stations before it is pumped (again, more energy) into a hydrogen car which is only about 20% efficient. So in totally of the energy supplied to create hydrogen fuel, only around 11.2% of it will ever get used at the wheels. Or for every kWh of electrify supplied to generate the fuel, only 0.112 kWh is usable. The rest is wasted, not even considering trucking and pumping losses and giving an optimistic 80% efficiency to compression of the gas. Let’s compare to an EV, charging is around 98% efficient. The electric motor (in Tesla’s) is around 97% efficient. That means 95% of the energy supplied to an EV is used. Only 5% is wasted.
    1
  219. Combustion cars are so inefficient that it’s litterally most fuel efficient to run a Tesla off a diesel generator than it is to drive even a diesel volts wagon golf.
    1
  220. that is America. America decided to official go to the metric system in 1975 but made it OPTIONAL. So if you didnt want to use Metric, you didnt have to. of course, everyone was used to imperial, and to go to metric would mean a transitional period where you had to do conversions between imperial to metric, which nobody apparently could be F'd doing and now the US loses satellites because of unit conversions.
    1
  221. Its not based on only renewables. Its just based on the energy vector transition. For 100kWh from any grid, renewable or not, most of your engery is wasted converting from electricity to hydrogen to electricity again, then into a battery then to an electric motor. Versus, the same 100kWh going from electricity to battery to electric motor. One is always ALWAYS going to be far more efficient than the other.
    1
  222. you want to talk toxic? fuel cells use platinum. Which is far more toxic than anything found in a battery.
    1
  223. some people confuse them and technically kWh/kg, whilst being specific energy, isnt inaccurate described as energy density. I find a clearer distinction in the following terminology. Gravimetric Energy Density (kWh/kg) and Volumetric Energy Density (kWh/L). That tends to clear things up for people.
    1
  224. When talking about battery degradation, lets consider the lifespan of a 2021 Tesla Model S and a 2021 Toyota Hydrogen Mirai. The Model S's batteries are rated to last 500,000 miles to 80% of their original capacity remaining (80% health). Thats alot. The mirai however. its fuel cell is only rated by Toyota to last 150,000 miles until it needs replacement. The fuel tanks are also troubling. They dont last long either. infact the mirai comes off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of the fuel system not just the fuel tanks, to only 10-15 years.
    1
  225.  @John-uk2lp  In process?
    1
  226.  @John-uk2lp  ok. What processes?
    1
  227. I’m fairly sure it’s watt hour.... kilowatt hour. A watt hour is the energy produced by 1 watt supply over 1 hour.
    1
  228.  @dottyman7251  no problem. The More you know :)
    1
  229. Actually efficiency doesn’t really drop in BEV’s. Only the storage capacity. If a brand new battery takes 100kWh of charge, when it’s degraded to 70% of its original capacity, it won’t take 100kWh of energy to charge the 70kWh of capacity remaining. It takes 70 kWh. (Obviously minus charging efficiency which won’t change) FCEV’s on the other hand, do become less efficient.
    1
  230. And provides evidence and analysis to confirm it
    1
  231.  @richardrider4885  that’s a combustion petrol or diesel powered car. Your getting your energy from the fuel. The release of that energy is just facilitated by oxygen in the reaction. Air powered implies you get the energy from the air (also not purely oxygen).
    1
  232.  @richardrider4885  you need air for the reaction. Not for the power. That would be like calling a hydrogen fuel cell car “platinum powered”
    1
  233. in terms of volume, batteries are less than half the size per kWh even before considering the fact you also need an engine sized fuel cell and a hybrid sized lithium battery it make the car run. Hydrogen is lighter, but it takes up far more volume.
    1
  234. thats because its usually a non-issue
    1
  235. Hydrogen vehicles dont last as long as BEV's even ICE vehicles dont last as long as modern BEV's. A hydrogen combustion engine has hundreds of thousands of moving parts vs the BEV's hundreds. Also there are 2 things that limit the life a hydrogen car. The first is the fuel cell limiting the life of the car to 100,000 to 150,000 miles. The second is the fuel tanks which are limited to 15 years of life. That is because hydrogen has the nasty habit of embrittling and weakening materials it comes into contact with. That would include the metallic components under high stress in the the engine. Embrittling a piston is a good way to write off your engine.
    1
  236. he didnt consider the manufacturing costs of the Hydrogen car either. how is that unfair?
    1
  237. Actually you dont need all that much energy. The engineering behind renewables stabilisation is fascinating in its complexity but if you design a renewables infrastructure correctly you shouldnt need very much energy storage at all. You will need some. But not much.
    1
  238. Unless employees are travelling more than 250-300km in a day they are unlikely to ever touch a super charger. As that can all be charged from home. If that’s the case, EV’s aren’t the car for you. As for lost time. Assuming you needed to fill up once a week with fuel (or hydrogen) you would be spending an average of 17.5 hours per year on this task. Often either taken out of the employees personal time but it could also be charged time depending on when the refuelling occurrs
    1
  239. I'm a Mechanical Engineer with a 4 year degree and 2 year masters. Aside from some of his maths (i.e. adding percentages instead of multiplying them) his basis is correct and this is reflected in real life scenarios I have been apart of. But I find the damning part of Hydrogen vehicles not to be how inefficiently they use the energy but the vehicles themselves and the fundimental physical limitations they pose.
    1
  240.  @donaldespeut2042  it doesn’t matter how many advancements there are. The law of entropy is clear. Meaning there is an upper limit to the efficiency of any system or process. It’s the reason there aren’t any giant leaps on fuel efficiency anymore, we’re pushing that limit with ice engines. It would violate the law of entropy for hydrogen technology to be even close to the 95% efficiency of a BEV. Unfortunately the laws of nature are against you there.
    1
  241. what do you mean if any for hydrogen vehicles? hydrogen vehicles also use Lithium Batteries, they also use treated and machined platinum in their fuel cells which is far more toxic than anything in a battery and their fuel tanks are made of very exotic materials to be able to contain a gas which actually gets hotter as it depressurises, is so small it can leak through solid metal causing embrittlement and needs to contain that gas at 32 times the maximum pressure of those big steel BBQ gas cylinders, whilst being light weight and puncture proof.
    1
  242. They do at night Time when they charge...
    1
  243.  @benbam6519  no quite. In addition power capacity of most countries double every 2 decades. With an accelerating trend in recent years. With the current EV uptake rate on an S curve, we won’t have any issue supplying power to electric vehicles. And I also say no not quite because most figures assume you are charging the entire cars battery. Most people do t have a 325 mile daily commute. They have less than 70. So your charging only has to charge for that used energy. Meaning lower demand than most Anti EV parties postulate.
    1
  244.  @benbam6519  a statistically average household utilises 15kwh per day. 100 families is 1,500 kWh per day. If you had a total of 2400 miles, with the average consumption of say a Tesla model 3 which is around 200wh/mile, you’d have an energy requirement of 480 kWh. Roughly only 32 families worth. Not 100.
    1
  245.  @benbam6519  keep in mind, every EV put on the road, is one combustion car that doesn’t need fuel anymore.
    1
  246. no
    1
  247.  @mattygaga2013  There is, at current, no way to store the radioactive waste which is generated as a byproduct from nuclear reactors since the first one became operational. They will remain radioative for a long long time. On the shorter lifespan end of the list, for 200 years. on the longer end, tens of thousands. We have no idea what to do with this waste, we have no idea even where to put this waste. at current it is just sitting in warehouses near the power plants collecting dust. Waiting for some war to come through for it to be forgotten about and blown up and released into the environment.
    1
  248.  @mattygaga2013  most fossil fuel waste can be slowly absorbed by the environment and broken down (not plastics and such, talking about emissions). Too much causes climate change. However nuclear waste is not subject to this. we have no way of dealing with it. How much nuclear waste is too much lying around? how long will it take to get to that point? There are only around 60 nuclear power plants in the US providing just under 20% of the total demand in the US alone. All those reactors so far have produced enough waste to fill a football stadium 7 yards high. Imagine that for the entire US grid, and then internationally as well. Its ALOT of waste that we cant do a thing with. Im not saying fossil fuels are good or even better than nuclear. But what we dont need is more nuclear. Not because the energy isnt clean. but because we simply cannot do anything with the waste.. and the longer the waste is around and more of it there is the higher the chances of an incident. A car cashes through the walls into one of these warehouses leaking waste. or they become targets for terrorist attacks. making any bomb a dirty bomb. or they, especially if providing power globally, they end up in conflict zones. is a warehouse 200 years old going to be at the front of the minds of militaries in conflict as they bomb and fight? probably not. its just not a good idea because we cant do anything with it, and it has the potential be incredibly dangerous not only to people but also to the environment if something goes wrong. So just building "nuclear nuclear nuclear" to solve all our energy needs is not a smart move. you cant just bury the obvious problem of waste and shrug it off for our great great great grandkids to deal with.. IF they can deal with it at all. Because so far, we cant.
    1
  249.  @mattygaga2013  having worked with nuclear power plants I would have thought I understood them pretty well. If you think nuclear waste becomes safer after 4 years you are remarkably deluded. Most nuclear waste has a very long half life, some as much as 20,000 to 1 million years.
    1
  250.  @mattygaga2013  if you sent a video. The link didn’t come through. Probably in the span filter. Did you get the link I gave you to the world nuclear association which disagrees with you? Or did that too go to the spam filter?
    1
  251. Green hydrogen is made exclusively by electrifying water with grid electricity then using grid electricity to compress it. Except to create hydrogen it requires 3-4 times as much electricity per mile than it takes to charge a BEV. from the same grid that charges BEV's. Meaning the strain on the energy grid will be 3-4 times greater in a hydrogen economy than in a BEV economy.
    1
  252. well the weight is automatically taken into account when you start talking about range. As for internal combustion. not so much. See the Mirai is stacked to the walls with fuel tanks to carry its 5.6kg of hydrogen it needs to go 400 miles. It has an engine sized fuel cell, a suit case sized lithium battery and almost 150L of fuel tank capacity to hold the 5.6kg. thats more fuel tank capacity than a Ford F-250! to do this they massively compromised rear passenger space and boot space not even have enough boot space to hold a spare space saver tire Now a fuel cell is around 60% efficient. Whilst combustion engines are closer to 20% efficient. So with the same 5.6kg of hydrogen you'd only get around 133 miles on the same fuel with combustion. But thats not all, a combustion engine needs a transmission running through the centre. which is exactly where one of the fuel tanks runs in the Mirai. With a fuel cell you dont need a transmission. This mean the fuel tank capacity will reduce by around 1/3rd to 3.7kg of hydrogen. Congratulations, you now have a range of 88 miles. with a fuel that costs ALOT of money. To compare a combustion car on petrol with an efficiency of 30mpg costs $0.13 per mile in fuel. a hydrogen car that uses 3.7kg for 88 miles costs $0.67 per mile for hydrogen. In other words its 5 times more expensive per mile. The equivalent to petrol prices being $20/gal. Thats why we dont have combustion engine hydrogen cars.
    1
  253. It was? The benchmark for both cars is power supplied by the grid. You plug a BEV into the grid. At the same time you plug in a hydrogen plant into the grid. Then you work through the efficiency’s to work out how much energy is wasted per mile. They have the same starting point being the grid. The same grid. It’s how much energy they use that’s being assessed.
    1
  254. You do seperate hydrogen and oxygen by heating it.
    1
  255. No. Not exactly
    1
  256.  @moodymoody2013  mind rephrasing that into something legible? If I understand what you’re saying correctly, why would you waste 3x more energy to fuel a car with a fraction of the performance, space or safety a BEV provides?
    1
  257.  @moodymoody2013  not to mention the cost of using 3 times more energy, the having that electric cost, plus overheads and profit markup of the hydrogen supplier, then the overheads and profit markups of the fuel stations themselves. When you have buy 1/3 of the electricity directly to your BEV?
    1
  258.  @moodymoody2013  hydrogen isn’t the only solution. Big battery storage, hydro electric storage, kinetic storage, liquid salt storage, liquid air storage, the list goes on. In relation to efficiencies hydrogen actually sits fairly low. In that if you were to put in 100kWh into hydrogen storage, you’d only get 30kWh out when you need it later. Compare that to a big battery, if you stored 100kWh, then you’d get around 98kWh out. Hydrogen is extremely wasteful as an energy storage solution and is only really talked about as a solution due to rapid refueling and fuel transport. In terms of grid energy storage it’s a horrible solution. In terms of domestic passenger cars it’s a horrible solution. In terms long range freight, shipping, and air flight, it’s probably one of the only solutions. (One of)
    1
  259.  @moodymoody2013  liquid salt is more efficient than hydrogen, big batteries aren’t actually that expensive per kWh. For example the horsndale battery plant in South Australia cost $122 million USD. But due to batteries ability to respond to grid demand in nanoseconds instead of convention power plants 12-15 second response time. It’s saving the grid on average $20 million USD per year. Making the buy back only 8 years. Kinetic energy storage is actually highly efficient, the most efficient under batteries, It’s just dangerous. Liquid air storage also has better efficiency than hydrogen storage. Similar with hydro. Hydrogen really scrapes the bottom of the barrel in terms of efficiencies.
    1
  260. Nope. Diesel is still less efficient and more emissions heavy than hydrogen or Battery electrics. Sorry.
    1
  261. Not really, no.
    1
  262. This is VERY untrue. Modern Lithium Batteries only lose 10% of their initial battery health after 100,000 miles or more. Further to that, Modern EV's have a battery warranty of 8 years, (often with unlimited miles) to 70% of the original battery health. Thats a far cry from needing to be replaced every 5 years. Infact even previous generation Model S's have been well and truely surpassing 400,000 and 500,000 miles. So much so that its now common place.
    1
  263.  @milanswoboda5457  there are also fire blankets which put our EV fires up to the point where the blanket is removed again.
    1
  264. It won’t drop very much. Hydrogen will always be significantly more expensive per mile than battery electric. That’s just a fact of physics
    1
  265.  @milanswoboda5457  Just a heads up. Bob posted another comment earlier down trying to suggest EV's were more expensive than hydrogen for taxi cars. By comparing a plug in hybrid, to a hydrogen car...... I'm sure you can see the flaw in that logic, he also only stated the battery range, not the actual range of the battery and the fuel tank of the hybrid. which again, I'm sure you can see the flaw in the logic.
    1
  266.  @peebles2012  ahh yes. The go to argument for any idiot with cognitive dissonance. It can’t possibly be that you’re wrong or that your analysis was idiotic and stupid. No that would be IMPOSSIBLE! so they MUST BOTH be paid disinfo against sent specifically to argue with me on the internet! Clearly that’s the far more likely and logical outcome!! (Note my sarcasm. You’re actually just an idiot).
    1
  267. They last much much longer than 5 years. Modern BEV’s are designed to last 500,000 miles to lifetime. Hell the warranty for modern EV batteries is 8 years alone. Much longer than your 5 year BS
    1
  268.  @charlessmith3758  None of those criteria are in the the warranty, nor would they be able to be enforced. The warranty is for many Tesla's 8 years unlimited km warranty. for some lower end models, 8 years and 150k km warranty.
    1
  269.  @charlessmith3758  So again, If it only last 5 years, thats a pretty good deal for consumers, as they'd get free batteries replaced in their car every 5 years. But it would also be a bad business model as the company would have to pay to have the battery replaced and their own cost every 5 years for as long as you own the car. Stop being a idiot and embrace reality.
    1
  270.  @charlessmith3758  show me a model 3 that doesn’t hold half a charge anymore. I’ll wait.
    1
  271.  @charlessmith3758  considering they model 3 has only been on the road in the US since 2017, it’s only been 4 years, at the time of their release they had an 8 year warranty on the batteries. Meaning If it only holds half a charge, they’re entitled to a brand new battery at Tesla’s cost. So. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me at least ONE legitimate example…. I’ll wait
    1
  272.  @charlessmith3758  oooh. Personal insults. The trade mark of a superior intellect. I see you couldnt find any examples of a model 3 with only half its range. I bet you found lots of examples of models 3's at 100,000 miles or more with less than 5% degradation though, didn't you?
    1
  273.  @charlessmith3758  So now the question is. Why do you feel the need to keep this up? why do you feel the need to lie. you're persistent at it, deleting your post with all the comments proving you wrong, then posting the same lies again afresh.
    1
  274.  @charlessmith3758  I genuinely want to know why you feel the need to knowingly lie to people so badly. Did EV's hurt you as a child? Show me on the Doll where musk touched you. But seriously, all jokes aside. why though?
    1
  275.  @charlessmith3758  But seriously, Why persist with something you know is, and is so very clearly a lie? what are you try to achieve here? or do you just not like EV's. if so, why not and why dislike them so much to do this?
    1
  276.  @charlessmith3758  I really genuinely want to know
    1
  277. To expand, FCEV’s use platinum as their catalyst
    1
  278. Milan is right. For you to use hydrogen you need triple layered, anti puncture, heavy high pressure vessels and high pressure lines to contain the fuel. In addition you need a much larger thermal distribution system to cool the system down in comparison to BEV’s. But fuel. Cells if they increase in efficiency won’t be by much. Law of entropy at work there. You can determine the upper limit of the efficiency of any system. Fuel cells as they’re currently conceptualised aren’t going to ever be more efficient that BEV’s are today.
    1
  279. actually hydrogen ICE would be dramitically less efficient giving your worse fuel economy and more cost per mile. Also a transmission and engine block will weight dramatically more than a 50kg fuel cell.
    1
  280. Well no. Even just on the premise of running your car from water. Think about it for 2 seconds. You’re using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then combing hydrogen and oxygen into water to create electricity. Think that that would give you enough energy to not only create my hydrogen but also drive a car is like believing that plugging a power board into itself will give you infinite electricity. Unfortunately the laws of physics disagrees with both you and mr Myers.
    1
  281.  @gilbertrehling3928  and yes. He was a fraud. And convicted as much.
    1
  282. You’re questing utilisation factoring. Which changes depending on where you are and how the panel is set up. Rooftop solar globally averages 30%. Solar farms regularly achieve 40% and those in more ideal locations such as outback Australia achieve higher than that again.
    1
  283. You’re also forgetting a crucial point. You have to buy the hydrogen. They won’t give it to you for free. Neither will power companies give hydrogen plants energy at cost. There will always be a profit margin mark up. In addition, hydrogen producers will mark up their hydrogen to generate profit after overheads and capital expenditure. Then it goes to the fuel stations. Who will put their profit mark up ontop of that when selling to the consumer. So not only do you need to use more energy. (And no, they won’t get energy at cost price, (whole sale)), but you are also paying 2 different profit markups. It’s not cheap
    1
  284.  @JosephHui57  micro turbines can only output micro energies. Energy doesn’t pop out of thin air. To run a CNG turbine, the amount of energy it produces is almost directly related to the amount CNG you can pump through the turbine. The larger the turbine. The more energy. Ontop of that, turbines have their own inefficiencies due to resistance and other mechanical components. But those losses aren’t scalable. (Or at least not directly) so the resistance and loss you will have from a power plant size turbine will be very close to the losses due to resistance and mechanical interference as a smaller turbine. That’s why you don’t see small turbines and why larger turbines boast the largest efficiencies. Micro turbines will never be able to reach the 50%-60% efficiency that large power plant turbines can.
    1
  285. This isn’t right. Firstly I think you meant 500kw. Not kWh. You’ve said it would use 500kwh per hour. That’s 500 kilowatt hours. Per hour. Which is just 500 kilowatts (kW) which is a flow rate. Not a quantity, thus defeating the per hour part. In addition 500hp isn’t 500kW. It’s 370kW. And lastly if an engine is rated at 500hp. That doesn’t mean it’s constantly producing 500hp. That’s like driving with your pedal to the metal in a car constantly at peak power rpm range the entire time the engine is on. To explain. A model 3 performance has a battery size of 75kWh. And it has a peak power output and of the motor of 283hp (211kW) which means of you ran the car flat out foot to the floor. It would only be able to drive for just over 20 minutes. In reality, even agricultural equipment are designed to utilise less than 15% of their available power plant during normal operation. Meaning you should be averaging around 75hp in use. (56kW.) if you had to run that for 12 hours straight (I doubt 20). Then that would require 672 kWh of battery storage. Or in an 8 hour day or would require 450 kWh. So for a 12 hour target, you’d be looking at a weight of 2.5 tons of batteries or 5,500lb. Minus a combustion engine, gear box and fuel tank. In benefit though you get peak and massive torque at 0rpm.
    1
  286. Also if their farm has electricty, they can charge.
    1
  287. This isnt actually a very good idea from an engineering standpoint. Firstly current batteries are built into the Chassis. If you had to separate that, you would need to build a chassis around the battery instead. This would increase weight and size, meaning less range, less storage and cabin space and less performance. Second is that you are introducing new modes of failure. Your battery connection terminal could wear out and fault, the binding bolts to hold the battery in place could thread or other multitude of possibilities increasing the likilyhood of something going wrong significantly. Then there are inevitable faults. If someone vandalizes the station or the packs, external events impact them or they just fault or fail, they could do serious damage to your vehicle when replacing the battery packs. We're taking about a machine able to quickly move and handle multi ton battery packs, if something goes wrong even a little it could write off your car in the middle of your roadtrip. Its not to say that it is impossible, just that its not a very good idea.
    1
  288. Same same but worse efficiency and performance
    1
  289. No it doesnt
    1
  290. As for the child labour I’m assuming you mean in relation to cobalt mining in the Congo. Despite companies like Tesla signing agreements to only source ethically produce cobalt and investing huge dollars into developing cobalt free batteries; Do you know who the largest consumer of cobalt is in the world? fuel refineries. who don’t have agreements for ethically sourced cobalt as they’ve never had public pressure to do so. In addition it is used to remove sulphur from fuel which makes it economically in reclaimable. The cobalt is wasted. Whilst in batteries it is used as a non degrading component of the battery meaning it can be near endlessly recycled from battery to battery.
    1
  291. If you’re worried about child labour. Buy a BEV. And sell your ICE car.
    1
  292. Why would it?
    1
  293. Arguably hydrogen is a less desirable option except for long distance haulage and freight. Could you be more specific as to why you think hydrogen is better?
    1
  294. Because if I needed 1 wind farm for bevs, I’d need to find the space, money and resources to build 2-3 more wind farms to supply the same drivers on hydrogen
    1
  295.  @FirstnameLastname-fn6ik  except you can achieve the same result with one wind farm and BEV’s is my point. And you wouldn’t have the emissions from building the other two farms
    1
  296. they theoretical efficiency of a combustion motor peak efficiency, assuming absolutely perfect lab conditions would only be less than 1% efficient that the engines on the road today. thats what you are trying to squeeze out.
    1
  297. Well there is a lot wrong with this analysis. Also the reason Elon, and so many others think hydrogen is stupid is because of the physical limitations of hydrogen. For example volume. There is no efficient way to store hydrogen in a car. Every carrier for hydrogen reduces its potential energy as it requires energy to release the hydrogen meaning you need to store it as pure hydrogen gas. But pure hydrogen gas takes up ALOT of space. The mirai with 60% efficiency, stores 5.6kg of hydrogen to go only 400 miles. But it takes up a whopping 150L of fuel tank storage. It also needs an engine sized fuel cell and hybrid sized lithium battery. That’s more fuel tanks than a Ford F-250. The end result is no front trunk, a boot so small it can’t physically fit a spare tire (not even a space saver) and a cabin so cramped that the rears seats cannot fold to extend the already incredibly small boot and the rear seats need a special cut out in the ceiling to give the the minimum legally required headroom. All this with hydrogen compressed to 700 bar which is 32 times higher pressure than a heavy steel BBQ gas bottle can withstand. Or 100x higher pressure than a typical home air compressor unit. There are a lot of limitations to hydrogen, mostly from the physical properties of hydrogen itself. Not any technology associated with it. Japan has not been a pioneer in many MANY areas. Like most developed countries they were pioneers in some areas but not others. So saying Japan is 10 years ahead technologically is false. Additionally, Japan is pushing for hydrogen for cultural reasons. Not technological reasons. Most Japanese homes don’t have driveways. Most are designed with more culturally and traditionally appropriate considerations. Those who don’t often live in communal living spaces. Either way, no drive ways or garages typically to charge an EV in. That means their best green alternative is hydrogen. Not EV’s because culturally they are not set up for that transition like most western countries with their house and garage or house and driveway traditional set ups.
    1
  298. Wtf? No it can’t. Are you insane? It takes more energy to create the hydrogen than is released by the hydrogen. Let’s give an example. Let’s say you started with 1kWh of electricity from a battery. From that you can feasibly produce 0.7kWh of hydrogen. Run that through a fuel cell and you have 0.42kWh. You can A, use that to create even less hydrogen, or B, use it to run the car but then have nothing left in which to create more hydrogen. Seeing the problem here? You’re going from electricty, to hydrogen, to electricity, to run an electric motor. You’re starting and ended at the same point and you expect to have a surplus of power? That’s like plugging a power board into itself and expected infinite electricity! Unless you’re talking about hydrogen combustion, which is less efficient again. Only expect around 0.14kWh of energy to either drive the car or run the alternator. Which would then create 0.06kWh if electricity to make more hydrogen. You. Cannot. Run. Cars. On. Water.
    1
  299. pray tell. how did he do that? As far as I know, Tesla still makes some of the most popular cars on the planet, even where they are taxed like in Australia (in Q1 of 2022 the model 3 was the highest selling car in Australia). They also make 4 of the top 10 safest cars on the planet (which is good considering they only have 4 models). Elon also owns a company to be the first and only rocket company to have re-usable self landing orbital rockets. Last I Checked Tesla was the closest company to level 5 autonomy with beta versions of level 5 on the roads with consumers as we speak. last I checked tesla's EV software, features, Motor and battery technology were all years to decades ahead of the nearest competition to the point they released most of their patents to help competitors narrow that gap. Last I checked Elon pulled a stunt which can only be describe as Tax Maximisation and then paid it. Last I checked Tesla was the only Car company to pay back the federal loans for the automotive industry thru the GFC fully, yet alone on time, and with interest. But please, explain to me how he's inflating stock?
    1
  300. Specific energy is energy per kilo. It has nothing to do with energy per M3 or any other volume measurement. It has nothing to do with energy consumption per mile and it has nothing to do with efficiency
    1
  301. All it says is hydrogen is lighter than batteries. It also doesn’t mention anything to do with the weight of all the associated equipment required to run on and store hydrogen.
    1
  302.  @popongomac3540  water boiling does not produce hydrogen. this isnt a I believe they believe situation. This is physics. Very well known, understood and proven physics.
    1
  303.  @popongomac3540  super heating water is super heating water. The boom isnt caused by hydrogen exploding, if it were it would have a very different colour and look. The boom is caused by rapidly Ionizing air, which becomes a conduit for electricity as its more conductive, plasma forms when the ionized air has a charge conducted through it, The temperature of plasma super heats the ionized air creating a zone of rapidly expanding air which pushes on the surrounding air in what is called a "sound wave" or "pressure wave" (same thing) when it reaches our ears it sounds like a boom. As for frying fish, if it were hydrogen igniting you would expect to see the same thing occur when boiling water or when doing it without oil in the pan. It does not happen with boiling water, it doesn't happen with super heated steam and no fire occurs when frying fish on an equally hot surface without oil or with fire rated oil. Which sorta leaves the phenomena of putting a fish onto a pan full of hot, highly flammable oil which if atomised over the edge into the gas flame underneath causes a flame, not an explosion as you would expect to see with hydrogen. Another thing to note is that there is no flame on induction cookers either because there is no naked flame in which to ignite the oil. your pseudo scientific theory doesn't match reality buddy.
    1
  304. Actually that’s the opposite. A Tesla model 3 battery is set to last 700,000km to 30% degradation. Meaning you’d still have 70% of your battery health left. Meanwhile current hydrogen vehicles only last 300,000 km.
    1
  305. The mirai in terms of volume is closer in size to the Tesla Model S. Which the long range has more range than the mirai. The mirai also cannot for any more fuel on board as it’s already compromised for space. The Tesla however, when “ONE battery” swapped out a model S batteries for its own batteries as a trial boosted the range to 1,216km a charge. Without compromising much in the way of boot or cabin space. Which is generous in both for the Model S.
    1
  306. Is that why I can buy a Nissan Leaf for $20k? I’m must be rich!
    1
  307.  @2DGraphicDesign  hahahah. Why do people cling to lies about batteries? You don’t have to buy a home power storage system. Why would you? And no, Nissan’s can charge fairly expediently off a wall power point but if you do install a home charger system, (around $600) what maintenance are you expecting to have to do on it? It’s a wall socket with hose. You never really have to touch it? Also no, you wouldn’t have to worry about battery disposal for around 15-20 Years with current battery technology. Current generation battery technology can far outlive a standard combustion engine.
    1
  308.  @2DGraphicDesign  also that would be a relatively new second hand leaf cost. $50k AUD. Not prohibitively expensive even on minimum wage here is Aus. When I brought my model 2 standard range it was only $10k more than that.
    1
  309.  @2DGraphicDesign  actually I drive a model 3 standard range plus. And yes. I refgularly travel from Melbourne to Cobar. Having to charge only adds an extra hour to my trip. Less when I count in the stops for food when I used to drive my Subaru. My model 3 gets around 400km of range to a charge. Also I havn’t lied about anything. It’s all very easy to look up. I’m looking at the Nissan website right now that says the leafs batteries have an 8 year warranty. Would you look at that!
    1
  310.  @2DGraphicDesign  as for heating. Newer EV’s are now coming out with heat pump technologies to reduce that load. Meaning it would be no different to travel on a hot day with the aircon on. In addition modern EV’s utilise the heat supplied by the motor to warm the batteries as its used. If the batteries were charged while they were warm. You havn’t lost any range when they warm back up again. Although cold weather is a problem, unless you plan to travel more than 200km a day, modem EV’s shouldn’t pose any problem what so ever.
    1
  311.  @2DGraphicDesign  In addition, due to not having a gearbox or combustion engine or fuel system, EV’s production have been found (complete wells to wheels analysis) to be only 15% more emissions heavy to produce. This is the equivalent of around 1 metric ton of emissions when compared to an equivalent size, trim and cost car. However it was also found the end of life recycling and wastage was approximately equivalent to combustion engines. In addition a combustion car during operational life produces around 20-30 tons of emissions. Just from burning fuel. Not even including the refining of oil into fuel, a heavy emissions and energy intensive process, transportation of fuel and regular replacement of oil, spark plugs and other engine components that need regular replacement. I’d say EV’s are better. Even with a battery.
    1
  312.  @2DGraphicDesign  if you don’t believe me just look at the in depth study done by the council of concerned scientist on the matter.
    1
  313. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO8cVWOqZcg
    1
  314. Why do people bring this up? That EV batteries use cobalt. And that cobalt in some specific instances is mined with child labour. I suspect it was from a few news articles of people cherry picking information which is shown in the following reasons. And I think you’ll laugh at the last reason. 1.) Tesla has signed a contract with their cobalt supplier to ensure that only ethically sourced cobalt is used. This means no child mines. 2.) Tesla is one of the only battery companies sinking huge money into battery development to remove cobalt from their batteries. 3.) the cobalt in Tesla batteries are designed to be readily recyclable and in cases when Tesla are able to recycle their own cars do so. 4.) (the reason I say cherry picking) do you know who the largest consumer of cobalt is in the world? Who has no ethical mining contracts? And who use cobalt in a way which is expendable and can’t recover and re use the cobalt? FUEL REFINERIES to remove sulphur from their fuels. So isn’t it awkward that people keep complaining that Tesla use tiny amount of recyclable and some times recycled, ethically sourced cobalt. Yet they drive cars in fuel which has used and disposed of Huge amounts of cobalt which could easily have come from child labour. See why I’m confused as to why this point is always brought up?
    1
  315. Range loss is temporary. The Energy in the battery doesn’t just disappear. That would violate the laws of thermodynamics. As you drive the batteries and motor will generate heat. That warms up the battery and you get your range back. The majority of the energy loss is actually due to using the heater to keep the occupants comfortable. Newer EV’s are starting to head away from resistance heating (which was cheap and worked but chewed energy). To heat pumps. Which consume less that 20% of the energy for the same task. Further to that EV’s, unlike combustion, will always start, no matter the temperature. The only requirement for the motor is delivery of the charge, not the deliver of liquid ore heated fuel. That being said an EV if it were at some parts of Antartica would require special batteries as the electrolyte can freeze at around -50c
    1
  316. It’s actually 10-15 minute charge time with the latest superchargers. And 15-20 minutes with the most common super chargers on the network.
    1
  317. You’d also be paying up to 20x more for fuel over your road trip in hydrogen.
    1
  318. actually the opposite is true, modern fuel cells only last around 150,000 miles whilst modern BEV batteries will last 500,000 miles or more. Additionally the same could be said for BEV's. what if they were charged with 100% renewable energy? they could, the difference being that we would have to build 1/4 of the renewable energy infrastructure to power BEV's than if we were to try to make hydrogen from green energy making BEV's the cleaner choice in that regard aswell.
    1
  319. actually utility for most renewables sit around 30% not 20. as running a grid. many places have majority renewable energies. take the Australian state of South Australia (SA). it went from having no renewables and being energy dependant on other states and having the least reliable and most expensive grid in the country. To have more than 70% renewable energy, being energy independent and supporting other states, is the most stable grid in the country and has the second lowest wholesale energy prices in the country.
    1
  320. thats included in the energy consumption per km. i.e. the range.
    1
  321.  @xolomartinez6036  maintenance isn’t related to energy efficiency. Additionally BEV’s aren’t significantly heavier to similar classed vehicles. And even if they were, why does that increase tire wear? Large 4x4’s and SUV’s don’t go through tires noticeably faster than smaller mid-sized sedans. Why you think EV’s magically wear through tires faster doesn’t make sense to me. As for brakes, EV’s unlike conventional vehicles, use mostly regenerative braking. So far from wearing through brakes faster, statistically speaking, EV’s wear through brakes 5 times SLOWER than ICE vehicles. And hydrogen doesn’t typically use this type of braking. And where it does, only in small amounts due to having only a small lithium battery on board.
    1
  322. actually FCEV's are heavier than BEV of equivalent size. For example the Toyota Mirai and the Tesla Model 3 are both Mid-sized sedans. Yet the Mirai is heavier than the model 3.
    1
  323. I do a breakdown of the Mirai's recent accomplishment of driving 1,000 km on a single tank on the Toyota page here if you're interested to look at it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fn0ROrOdfQ&lc=z223wprihur0vv1m2acdp434tx5xxturvadymc0eiuhw03c010c.1626491520552326
    1
  324. You do realise he said that because hydrogen is most commonly made through fossil fuels (hydro-carbons) and not through electrolysis right? I mean.... you DO understand that dont you? EV's even on a coal only grid are still vastly more emissions friendly than ICE vehicles. and its very trivial to prove. In Canada, the governemnt gives away some 4.8 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel companies whilst they claim around $4 billion in taxes. That balance is shy about $800 million dollars. And wind and solar and other renewables are viable alternatives. Look at South Australia, with a grid over 75% renewables they went from the worst most expensive grid in Australia dependent on other states for energy to being the most stable and best performing grid in Australia, with the second lowest wholesale energy prices and supporting NSW and VIC energy grids. To suggest that wind and solar dont work, or that they are dirty or even that they are just as dirty of fossil fuel plants, is utterly moronic.
    1
  325. Batteries and electric motors will actually last longer than a combustion engine. In addition the EV’s themselves don’t lose efficiency over time. They lose charge capacity. You keep your performance but you just can’t take it as far on road. But here’s the silver lining. That take a LONG time. Current generation EV batteries are rated to last 1,500 cycles. For a long range model 3 for example, that’s nearly 500,000 miles before they reach that rating. But what does that rating mean? A lifetime for batteries has been arbitrarily set as 30% degradation (due to much smaller first generation batteries not having a lot of range and it stuck as the benchmark). So after 500,000 miles you still have 70% or more of your original range left. For a long range model 3, that’s still around 230 miles per charge. As for recycling. A EV battery is around 95% recyclable and can be readily re-used in less energy dense applications such as home power storage.
    1
  326. what about it?
    1
  327. …. Except it’s factually correct. No amount of saltiness can change physics
    1
  328. Yes
    1
  329. It’s shifting the goal post mixed with influence from fuel providers. If you can’t have a monopoly on fuel anymore because everyone can get their energy from a power point, a lot of people like shell, Mobil, United, etc, all go out of business. That’s a lot of lost revenue. So they encourage the promotion of hydrogen aggressively over EV.
    1
  330. It’s shifting the goalpost also because hydrogen can be exported and imported. I’d you don’t want to pay the money to upgrade your energy grid you can import it from someone who has. You also leave them with the carbon footprint of producing hydrogen and you can enjoy the zero emissions.
    1
  331. It is actually legitimately fuel efficient run a Tesla from a diesel generator than it is to use that diesel fuel in a VW golf of half the size and weight.
    1
  332.  @andrewwilliams9419  unlikely. Every auto manufacturer for the last decade has seen declining sales year on year. Every single one. Except Tesla. Who has seen that increasing sales year on year. What metric are you predicting the failure assuming it’s not on your own personal bias?
    1
  333.  @andrewwilliams9419  what an explanation. Care to elaborate
    1
  334.  @andrewwilliams9419  or would you like me to elaborate?
    1
  335.  @andrewwilliams9419  haha. Righto. So you can’t tell me how I’m wrong but we just gotta take your word for it? What kind of a dumb argument is that?
    1
  336.  @andrewwilliams9419  it’s hilarious that you think you can “dismiss” people on a public forum. The ego that must be involved with that is breath taking
    1
  337. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong
    1
  338.  @maxdegerfalt9843  it’s also worth noting that hydrogen cars come with an expiration date printed on their fuel caps limiting their life to only 15 years and modern fuel cells can only last around 150,000 to 200,000 miles, meanwhile BEV’s have been showing to and designed to last up to and exceeding 400,000 and 500,000 miles which is around 30-40 years of driving for the average person. As a result, if you want to look at mining and manufacturing costs, you’d need to consider mining, manufacturing, using and retiring 3-5 hydrogen vehicles for every BEV lifetime. How do you suppose that stacks up? Yet alone the enormous amount of grid energy required to operate a hydrogen fleet at excessively high costs.
    1
  339. hydrogen is very much not on top for future. sorry but no.
    1
  340. Wouldn’t actually be that effective unfortunately. You’d lose more energy to drag than you’d gain by airflow
    1
  341. well no. see it takes far more energy to produce hydrogen than what is released when you burn it. although you can use hydrogen to supplement gas in existing cars, the problem is it takes more fuel to produce it. Meaning you're still at a net loss. Most engineers understand this as the second law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. The other problems are that hydrogen embrittles metals making them weaker (bad in a car which runs on contained explosions) it also erodes gaskets and seals that aren't designed to accept hydrogen. Then there is the fact that the cylinders and upper exhaust system on cars aren't designed to deal with water vapour. Meaning you get increased rust and wear. In modern cars this would complete bust your O2 sensor putting your car permanently in limp mode until you replace the sensor and remove the HHO system. The summary is, it takes more energy from the engine to produce the hydrogen than what the hydrogen releases (even before you consider the fact you only capture around 20% of the total energy released anyway). So it will only slow down your car or increase fuel consumption (which ever comes first). Meanwhile, since combustion engines aren't designed for hydrogen or water vapour, you will be shortening the lifespan of your engine considerably. However you wouldn't be able to run it on a modern engine in any case due to the sensors and tuning of the engine.
    1
  342. EV batteries are more than 95% recyclable.
    1
  343.  @DT-dd4po  to be clear, real life applications show that current EV batteries will last 1500 cycle to end of life (which is 70% capacity remaining btw). for a Tesla Model 3 that is 780,000km until you reach that point.
    1
  344. Most first world countries aren’t actually. And global power production has consistently doubled every 2 decades. But further to that power production is actually fairly efficient. Much more efficient than drilling and refining fuel and definitely more efficient than combustion engines. Transmission losses are approximately 10%. But those losses would also be applied to hydrogen production as well as battery charging. So not too sure what the point is? And in addition to that, hydrogen production requires 9 times more electricity from the grid per kilometre than battery electric vehicles require. The grid would be worse off producing hydrogen than just using it to charge cars on the existing energy grid.
    1
  345. You can charge your Tesla from renewables such as solar. You do understand that right? And you’d need 4x less solar energy per mile charging a battery than making hydrogen per mile. You understand that too right?
    1
  346.  @ahmedmodabbel7630  what does that have to do with hydrogen? I do realise all of those (aside from the scam part, they're not a scam). But you do understand all those apply to hydrogen dont you? Green hydrogen is made with grid electricity just like the electricity that charges a BEV. but it uses 4x more electricity per mile than a battery does to create the hydrogen. You do understand that non green hydrogen is made with fossil fuels right? because they're hydro-carbons. in a process that creates more emissions than if you had just used those fossil fuels in a car to begin with. It takes fossil fuels to make the hydrogen car, the fuel cell, the hydrogen cars lithium battery pack. you do understand that right? You do understand that whilst most Tesla drivers offset their energy costs by charging with solar at home, you cannot do that with hydrogen right?
    1
  347.  @ahmedmodabbel7630  oooh. Nice rebuttal. You really showed me.
    1
  348. Making fuel cells and hydrogen creates pollution
    1
  349. Unfortunately, if you’re making green hydrogen, you need 3-4 times more grid electricity per miles worth of hydrogen than you need to charge an EV for one miles worth. So grid strain would be 3-4 times worse for hydrogen than BEV’s.
    1
  350. This would require contact with the rail. Which would require wearing parts, grounding contact and a lot more modes of failure. It would also mean you’d have to constantly replace the contacts it’s connecting to as it wears.
    1
  351. well once you get rid of the diesel engine and the transmission, it actually isn't that bad. especially considering the GVM for electric trucks is higher than for diesel.
    1
  352. The state of South Australia has 70% renewables, have the second cheapest wholesale energy price in Australia and the most stable gird in Australia. Germany is also not an example of renewables failure but a renewables success. However Germany is fairly limited geographically for renewables and would need the implementation of the European super grid to actually get to fully renewable. Otherwise winters will become a long standing problem for them. As for home solar, It cost me $7,800 to install. Its a 5.5kW system (after inversion losses). on winter days (sunny, not hard in Australia) we produce around 20kWh, In summer days we produce 40kWh in a day. (sometimes more depending on cloud cover). 5.5kW a lot more than is required to run a blow drier (typically 1.9-2.4 kW draw). We have a 50 kWh electric vehicle good for 400km on a charge. We only drive around 100km per day (12.5 kWh used by the EV on average). So the car has to charge up 12.5kWh. which a charging efficiency averaged for that car to be 96% efficient it would require 13 kWh to charge from the panels. (FYI we charge the EV at 3kW.) Fortunately due to current circumstances my wife works night shift and takes the EV, while I work from home, meaning we can charge it during the day direct from solar, However a standard home energy storage would be able to store enough energy to charge the car, otherwise we get money back from the grid for putting in power to the grid. So no, you're wrong about solar there buddy.
    1
  353. Lithium batteries are not bombs. As worst they have cascading thermal runaway which leads to smouldering and ultimately flames. They don't explode. In addition due to their design, statistics show that they are 11 times less likely to spontaneously combust and 5 times less likely to combust in an accident. This is mostly on account of the batteries being protected in an accident and they are swimming in coolant fluid whilst in most EV's. which is especially significant to prevent thermal runaway and even more significant to prevent the lithium being exposed to oxygen which is how thermal runaway usually begins.
    1
  354. Lithium batteries used in EV's dont contain sodium. which would only explode if exposed to water in most cases if they did contain sodium.
    1
  355. actually if you line up the chemical calculations for emissions per kWh from a power plant (which agree with reported data) and the emissions exhausted from combustion engines (which also agree with reported data) you will find that an EV produces significantly less emissions per km than a ICE vehicle does. in fact it is more fuel efficient to charge your EV from a small cheap portable generator than it is to use that fuel in even an efficient modern combustion engine. Because that is the same premise that hybrids work from, except that their generator is internal instead of external. Combustion engines take ALOT of losses getting energy to the wheels, whist generators have comparatively little. And this is all before you include the emissions and energy require the refine the fuel in the first place, yet alone transport it both as crude oil and then again as refined fuel.
    1
  356. there are losses when hydrogen is idle as well, and i'm not just talking about leakage since hydrogen can leak through solid metal. Also power generation losses have nothing to do with the battery. additionally transmission line losses are closer to 5% not 30%.
    1
  357. Such as?
    1
  358. Modern EV’s are around 95% recyclable with modern technology
    1
  359. probably not mentioned because its not true. Modern EV batteries will last up to 500,000 miles to a "life" which is defined as having 80% battery health. which is to say you have degraded your battery by 20%, or that you have 80% of your original battery capacity remaining. degradation have very little impact on the batteries ability to charge or discharge and more to do on the batteries energy capacity. But if we're talking about lifespans, Fuel cells only have a rated lifespan of 150,000 miles according to Toyota and Hyundai. additionally fuel cell cars come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps limiting their lifespan to only around 10 years.
    1
  360. Better than double dipping the emissions and burning the fuel we put so much energy into making
    1
  361.  @earthspiritwalking6790  firslty, you wont be producing hydrogen at home. To start with, The equipment would take up a huge amount of space and be particularly dangerous in a residential setting. It would also take a VERY long time to produce enough hydrogen to even fill a single HCEV, considering it requires around 56kWh of electricity to create and compress 1kg of hydrogen, when a vehicle like the Mirai holds 5.6kg of it. It takes a long time to produce. Lets say you used a standard wall outlet of 1.8kW. It would take you around 7.5 days to create enough hydrogen to fill a single fuel tank. In other words you're creating fuel at the equivalent of 2.3 miles per hour. Not really practical, When that same 1.8 Kw outlet would charge your EV at a rate of 8.6 miles per hour and take 46.5 hours to charge the same 400 mile range and requires NONE of the expensive and large equipment hydrogen production and storage requires.
    1
  362. says the guy with running water, heating/cooling, no fear of being eating by predators every night, modern medicine, the internet, rapid transport to any place they want to go and an abundance of food.
    1
  363. smoke doesnt typically contain hydrogen. not sure how you envision that happening
    1
  364. and you get that maths from...?
    1
  365. You do realise the majority of the worlds lithium is supplied by Australia. And most of the workers at those mines are super unlucky to earn less than $150k pa USD. You got that arse backwards my dude.
    1
  366.  @S.E.P.  actually batteries arent that dangerous. Infact they're safer than combustion engines. There are many more reasons why hydrogen will never work out for vehicles. Final note though. EV batteries are more than 95% recyclable. When they go bad, they can be re-used into new batteries again.
    1
  367. Neither of those considerations are relevant for his video content. I’m talking about the efficiencies from supply to wheels, if electrolysis gets electricity from the grid, and batteries Charge from the grid. This both would have the same impacts per kWh of eachother from the grid. In his case, he is comparing how 100kWh from the grid is used, when it’s used to charge a battery vs when it’s used to create hydrogen. There is no reason to drag up manufacturing nuances if you’re not doing the same for hydrogen either. What would be what the kids call “cherry picking “
    1
  368. By which standard you could charge EV’s from solar and wind. But you would be required to build 4 times less solar and wind for batteries. How many emissions are produced making and maintaining 4 times as wind and solar farms? Additionally, hydrogen cars also last only around 1/3rd or less the lifespan of a Battery electric car. So you’d still have to make 3x more hydrogen cars than you would Battery electric over the same period of time. What about those emissions?
    1
  369. unfortunately ammonia is a type of hydrogen carrier. in that its a way of storing hydrogen us. But it takes energy separate the hydrogen from the ammonia. More energy than you'd get out of the hydrogen through a fuel cell or combustion. So you cant carry it in a car. And if you did you would need even more equipment on board to separate it meaning you're taking up more space in the vehicle not less. And adding it as a storage vector for hydrogen prior to the pump means more capital cost equipment and more electrical energy required to both store it as ammonia and then separate it for use. In this sense, carriers are not really efficient unless you're transporting it on a large ship going form one port to another.
    1
  370. Keep in mind you don’t NEED to recharging in 5 minutes, especially when you have home charging and have the car in your driveway for 14 hours or more every night just sitting there. You just charge at home and wake up every morning to what is effectively a full tank.
    1
  371. you're wrong on a few things. they do produce approximately 15% more emissions during manufacture. But 15% more against what? against similar sized/classed vehicles. So it doesnt go up for larger cars. because whilst the emissions for producing EV's goes up with size, the same can be said for cars. equally so. Next is that batteries are actually >95% recyclable. they're not landfill fodder.. also, they last much longer than 7-9 years. The industry standard warranty of BEV batteries today alone is 8 years. In reality modern EV's are designed to last approximately 500,000 miles or more. Meaning EV's sold today will live twice as long as traditional combustion engines being sold today.
    1
  372. also a 9 hours journey does not take over 12 with a BEV. For example modern long range EV variants can get as much as 400 miles or more. that represents approximately 6-7 hours worth of driving on a single charge. Modern superchargers can top up those batteries in approximately 10-20 minutes. If you were doing 9 hours of driving it would take you around 9 hours and 10 minutes or 9.5 hours. All considering that you also have to spend 10 minutes getting fuel in a standard car during a 9 hour drive anyway.... not a huge loss. I really dont know where you are getting any of this. especially your maths of travel times. doesnt make sense.
    1
  373. This is just patently false and you should seriously question who ever told you that rubbish. Modern EV’s have a standard battery warrantee of 8 years. Their rated lifetime is 1,500 cycles. For a long range model 3 that’s 500,000 miles of driving. Or the next 25 years for the standard persons driving habits. On top of that. What’s considered a lifetime for batteries is 30% degradation. Meaning you still have 70% of your original range remaining after 500,000 miles. For a long range model 3 that’s still 230 miles of range to a charge.
    1
  374. Like what?
    1
  375. They're actually fairly long now. Most Modern EV's are designed and are showing real world data supporting that they will last just over twice the average lifespan of an combustion engine.
    1
  376.  @peebles2012  wtf even is this? What modern EV has a 65 mile range. Even a standard range model 3 has 250 miles. Not 65. Long range EV’s over 400 miles. The battery warranty on most EV’s alone is 8 years. Meaning you wouldn’t even come close to needing a battery replacement after 10. Even with super charging. Also the LEVC from what I can tell from their website and Wikipedia is a HYBRID not an EV. So we’ll done doofus.
    1
  377.  @peebles2012  also worth considering that current hydrogen cars lifespans are limited to 150,000 miles. Their fuel cells degrade to a point where they need to be replaced. You’d need to replace your hydrogen car every year and a half. So you forgot to mention that too.
    1
  378.  @peebles2012  so if you had even a standard range Model 3, the shortest range vehicle in the Tesla fleet. You wouldn’t need to super charge at all. Just plug it in at the end of the day and come back to a full tank effectively.
    1
  379.  @peebles2012  just like… wtf is even wrong with you?
    1
  380.  @peebles2012  oh and then we need to consider that charging from a power point is around 60% cheaper than charging from a super charger. Then we also have to consider that whilst you have to waste time and potential work every second day going to one of only 15 hydrogen fuel stations in the whole of the UK, if you had an EV with even the lower end 250 mile ranges. You’d wake up with full range. every. Single. Morning meaning you’d waste no time getting fuel or charging which means more fares over your 300 days.
    1
  381.  @peebles2012  but let’s re-do your calculations. And we’ll ignore the time and mileage you waste getting hydrogen fuel. 200 miles/day. Model 3 standard range range is 250 miles. At a consumption of 0.2kWh/mile so that’s 40kWh per days. Over 300 days that’s 12,000kWh per year. The average cost of electricity in the UK is £0.163. So that’s £1,956 per year. And over 10 years it’s £19,560 + taxi cost at £66,000 which gives a total of £85,560. Per year also keep in mind the model 3 battery has a cycle life of 1,500 cycles so the battery will need to be replaced after 250 x 1,500 = 375,000 miles. Whilst the hydrogen only lasts 150,000 miles according to Toyota. Hell hydrogen cars even come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel caps.
    1
  382.  @peebles2012  so £85.5k for the EV vs £215k for the hydrogen, plus lost fares from having to drive around to find hydrogen. Also plus needing to replace the hydrogen car in around 6 months time. Seems like there is a clear winner to me.
    1
  383. @UCojggEm0sYiTp6r1ojkW6-w cool I’m looking at their webpage and it states it’s a hybrid. With a 1.5L engine and 65 miles of battery. It’s not an EV. It’s a hybrid. My point still remains
    1
  384.  @peebles2012  it’s a plug in hybrid. Not a full EV, dumbass. So try again kid.
    1
  385.  @peebles2012  well no. Once again, it’s not an EV, it’s a HYBRID which is why it will be banned. You twat. You could easily select a car from the 2022 line up of full EV market offerings, the vast majority of which have ranges well over 200 miles meaning you won’t EVER need to use a super charger. And 200 miles for a full EV equates to around 40kWh which even if you WERE super charging is around £11 per day which is still vastly cheaper than hydrogen. Sorry. But you’re just wrong. And standing in a HYBRID for a full BEV in cost analysis is just plain stupid. I mean you have to be broken in the head! That would be like claiming your petrol drive WRX is fuel efficient because diesel hybrids use so little fuel. You have to be a fucking nutter if you believe your own bull shit. Do you have the mental acuity of a 7 year old? You think petrol and diesel are the same thing they just smell different? Like come on man! How stupid do you have to be? A hybrid IS NOT A BEV and that shouldn’t have to be explained to you school kids even understand the difference.
    1
  386.  @peebles2012  like seriously, not a jab or a joke, are you special in the head? Do you have a mental disability or something? I just cannot understand how at all you think you are comparing hydrogen to pure electric here. I mean there is a reason it’s call hybrid. Seriously, do you have a mental thing? I want to know so I can change tact to make it easier for you to understand.
    1
  387.  @peebles2012  no, 100,000 miles or 15 years which ever comes first. With 100,000 miles being under Toyotas end of life take back scheme for its fuel cells. Meaning they don’t last longer than that. Google it. Toyota even says so.
    1
  388.  @peebles2012  they aren’t tears running down your leg mate. Maybe you need adult diapers…
    1
  389.  @peebles2012  nope. I wish. Just your average neibour hood Engineer not putting up with peoples BS. Such as saying EV’s aren’t practical by doing a cost benefit analysis of a hybrid! I still can’t believe that. Honestly how stupid and senile do you have to be!?
    1
  390.  @peebles2012  you made the BS claim that we don’t produce enough material for more the 3.8m EVs to be made each year yet almost 7m were made last year Then you make the BS claim that EV’s are expensive and impractical by doing a cost benefit analysis on a hybrid! how the hell did you become a “Chief Executive” when you can’t even do simple fact checks?!
    1
  391.  @peebles2012  I suppose that what happens when you’re a chief executive for a company that hasn’t made anything since 1987 huh?
    1
  392.  @peebles2012  interesting that you claimed the 3.8m was from a LinkedIn article. But turns out it’s just you posting that same BS in peoples comments on LinkedIn with no sources or links. Interesting You also seem to push H2 pretty hard on LinkedIn comments too. I wonder, who’s paying you to push hydrogen? Fossil fuel companies?
    1
  393.  @peebles2012  😂😂😂😂 you even posted that batter replacement has to happen every 100,000 miles hahahhahahahah! Omg you are a self deluded senile idiot aren’t you!
    1
  394.  @peebles2012  😂😂😂😂😂😂 omg. No they havn’t. Toyota still has just the ONE hydrogen vehicle since 2014 with no plans for another. Meanwhile they’ve announced 30 new Battery Electric Vehicles to hit the market before 2025!!!! and it’s a similar story across that board. Hell honda discontinued its only hydrogen car last year!!! And have started making more BEV models. WHAT FACTS DUMBASS, the ones you’re pulling out of thin air? 😂😂 Jesus are you just like living in a fantasy word or do you have dementia or what?!
    1
  395.  @peebles2012  what slippery rope? Everything you’ve said so far has been demonstrably false, far from the market abandonment of BEV towards hydrogen, OEM’s are practically sprinting at making more battery electric’s meanwhile those same OEMs are slowly pulling away further and further from hydrogen. You claimed you could only make 3.8m cars but 6.75m were made last year throwing that whole argument out. And perhaps the most hilarious is that you tried to say BEV’s were expensive by costing A HYBRID CAR that would be like saying petrol cars are fuel efficient because diesel hybrids use so little fuel!! AHAHAHHHAHA you can’t fake this level of stupid can you old man?
    1
  396.  @peebles2012  no. I already made that clear by pointing about those companies, Toyota included are doubling down on release more and more EV models whilst Toyota hasn’t made any plans for any new hydrogen cars since it’s release of the mirai in 2014. And *honda discontinued hydrogen model when it canceled the clarity. Meanwhile it’s newer ionic electric vehicle is starting to dominate its sales. What self delusional rock have you been living under
    1
  397.  @peebles2012  perhaps try reading next time 🙏
    1
  398.  @peebles2012  is that how you ran your little company? Made up pure bullshit out of thin air to pass it off as fact?
    1
  399.  @peebles2012  like mentioning sunbeam-Talbot in your list of OEM’s, despite them formerly being the one company and which.. well don’t even make cars anymore since it was absorbed by Chrysler…. In the 1980’s.. so again. You’re spitting puuuurrreee bullshit.
    1
  400.  @peebles2012  no? Nothing? Good.
    1
  401. It would at best bring the cost of hydrogen down to the current cost of fuel. It would still be significantly more expensive than battery electric. It would also require significantly more grid energy to produce green hydrogen than if you had just put that grid energy into a battery electric meaning you would have to upgrade the grid significantly more than you would with battery electric. Also lithium isn’t scarce.
    1
  402. they also have the cost, performance, safety and practicality edge as well.
    1
  403. You dont really understand how this technology works do you? Be careful who you call a food online. For starters, a hydrogen tanks stores energy, in the form of hydrogen, a fuel cell merely coverts that to electricity. as for which is better for the environment. EV batteries are roughly 95% recyclable. Its also worth mentioning that Hydrogen vehicles also have to use Lithium batteries very similar to hybrids. And lastly, Fuel cells use platinum as the catalyst. Which is far more toxic than anything found in an EV battery. Ontop of that current EV's are designed and are showing signs of lasting 30-40 years worth of driving. Meanwhile Hydrogen vehicles roll off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap limiting the life of the car to only 10 years. Meaning you will have to manufacture, use, and then dispose of 3-4 Hydrogen cars for ever EV made. Which would have a much much much bigger environmental impact than an EV will
    1
  404. No. The higher the water is compressed the more energy it takes to release the chemical bonds. All you’d be doing is reducing the efficiency when you can chemically compress and liquified hydrogen in a far more energy efficient way.
    1
  405.  @jerrymcminn7251  no. Because gas is compressible, water is not. The gas would be compressed to the density required to fill that volume and would act as a resistive force which prevents the electric current from breaking the chemical bonds to release the hydrogen. All you would be doing is making the electrolysis less efficient and more power hungry. As instead of just fighting the bonds, it now has to supply enough energy to break the bonds against the pressure now supporting the bonds.
    1
  406.  @jerrymcminn7251  it doesn’t quite work like that. You’ll get micro bubbles in the water (like carbonation) and you’ll have to supply more and more energy as it builds pressure.
    1
  407.  @jerrymcminn7251  I’m not saying you can’t do it. I’m saying it’s going to make the process less efficient and more energy hungry.
    1
  408.  @jerrymcminn7251  for you to compress the gas, that takes energy. Without a pump to compress it or any other source of mechanical or thermal compression, that energy will come from the electricity required for electrolysis. First law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Compressing a gas required energy. If it isn’t coming from a mechanical means of compressing the gas it will come from the energy required to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
    1
  409.  @jerrymcminn7251  so pressure is a form of energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. Which means it has to come from the electricity also performing the electrolysis. Which then means you need more energy to perform the electrolysis under pressure
    1
  410. The grid can support 25% EVs on the road today. However the grid is always increasing year on year. At a rate of roughly doubling every 20 years. That means the grid capacity if current will grow faster than the adoption of EV's. As for your needs. Batteries can suit those needs. However there arent many market offerings for such a vehicle. So for now you are out of luck. however hydrogen wont do you any better. infact, in almost every sense, Hydrogen is worse than BEV's.
    1
  411. you cant produce your own fuel in your car using your own fuel.
    1
  412. They are still a lower emissions option than ice car or hydrogen
    1
  413. True. However this is a future for wind solar and battery. That is because for much of the world, current power generation methods will be retired long before any nuclear options will be completed or hydrogen upscaled. One of the advantages of wind, solar, battery is that it can be built. In a matter of months. There will be an intermediate and necessary step to develop a wind, solar, battery compatible grid before nuclear and hydrogen are implemented. Especially considering the losses with hydrogen.
    1
  414. That’s actually a drawback of h2
    1
  415. well hydrogen for vehicles isn't exactly the best option. Take the Mirai and the Tesla Model 3 for example. The mirai and model 3 have near identical dimensions, except the Mirai is slightly longer and only 1.4 inches wider and higher. Both have similar weights with the Mirai being only 53kg heavier than the model 3. The model 3 has a range of 325 miles, and the Mirai has a range of 400 miles (75 miles difference). here is where they begin to differ. -The Mirai has a 0-60 of 9.2s whilst the Model 3 has a 0-60 of 3.2s. Due to the low power output of fuel cells. -The model 3 has exceptional handing due to its extraordinarily low centre of gravity thanks to its skateboard battery design. The Mirai is force to mount components up higher to move out the of the way of the fuel tanks. meaning it has worse handling and suffers more risk of roll over in an accident. -The Miria only has the one boot at the rear which is smaller than the boot you find on a much smaller Toyota Yarris yet alone other cars of its size class (midsized sedan). The cabin space is so small that you cant even fold the rear seats to give better boot space when needed. This is because whilst hydrogen is light weight with the Mirai storing 5.6kg of hydrogen. Its volume is large. For the Mirai to store 5.6kg of hydrogen (or 400 miles worth of hydrogen) it tanks need to total a whopping 147L capacity. That's enormous and takes up alot of the space in the car. By comparison the Model 3 has one of the largest rear boots in its class plus a boot at the front of the car and has class leading cabin space. (the extra front and rear boot room also give it better crumple zone further improving safety). -Safety, The mirai, whilst alot of work has been dont to bring the tank safety down to on par with ICE cars, or even better in some circumstances, its no where near the level of safety of the model 3. Not just in fire risk, but also due to the reduced crumple zones, and lower centre of gravity, its survivability in an accident is lacking by comparison to the Tesla. -cost. At current, hydrogen stations which make their own fuel, end up being a whole 8x more expensive per mile than a BEV or in this case, the Model 3. That means if you were to drive 100,000 miles over the life of ownership and it cost you $$3,780 in electricity for the model 3, the Mirai would cost you $30,280 in hydrogen. Not a small thing to swallow for consumers. -operational life. EV's have come leaps and bounds since the first Nissan leaf and Chevy Bolt were produced. Current EV Technology will see vehicles like the model 3 reach 500,000 miles to a battery life. (which is classed as 30% degradation. i.e. 70% of your original battery capacity remaining). This, for the average person, represents almost 40 years worth of driving. Unfortunately due to the nature of hydrogens interaction with materials, this sort of service life is not yet achievable. with the Mirai's coming out of the factory with expiration dates printed on them. usually giving the Mirai around 10 years of service life before they have to be retired. Which means, very little to no second hand car market making owning a car all the more expensive and un obtainable to low income earners. Further to that the emissions to do with manufacturing and recycling 4 Mirais for every Model 3. seems to be an emissions hazard. -The grid. Because hydrogen isn't exactly efficient, this means more energy. The only way to make hydrogen is with electricity. Either steam reformation, which creates more emissions than if you had used that gas in a combustion car to begin with, (how do you think the steam is heated) or by electrolysis. This electricity could be used to charge a BEV. Even without taking into consideration desalination of water, liquifying/compression of hydrogen, transportation of hydrogen, if you just make hydrogen then put it directly into a fuel cell to make electricity there is a greater than 50% loss in that process. For example if you put 100kWh of grid electricity into making hydrogen. Once you run that hydrogen through a fuel cell you will have only generated around 45 kWh of electricity. And thats at hypothetical limits of efficiency which aren't realistically achievable. What that means is that if you had 1 wind farm which could power the demands of 100 drivers with BEV's like the model 3, you would need 3 wind farms to power the needs of the same 100 people if they were driving hydrogen instead. That sort of cost for grid construction, upkeep and demand also has to be taken into account.
    1
  416. it wont be. Hydrogen is bad for cars but worse for heavy haulage. BEV's win there too.
    1
  417. happy to discuss if you're interested though
    1
  418. ……. You do realise that hydrogen cars in a lot of cases weigh as much, sometimes more than BEV’s and that BEV’s aren’t much heavier than comparable ICE cars right, on account of not having a big petrol/diesel power/drive train? And that a hydrogen car only gets about 5.6kg lighter empty vs full? I have jackets that weigh more than that.
    1
  419. Not really. BEV’s don’t weigh much more than other cars in their size class and hydrogen actually weighs slightly more than BEV
    1
  420.  @Obaboss  I know where this graph comes from. That graph assumes a singular fuel tank growing in size. That's not how vehicles work, you cant fit a 3m diameter tank in your car, In most cases they're broken up in to 2 or 3 fuel tanks. Additionally it does not account for the chassis reinforcement to divert crash energy around the tanks which is what makes hydrogen cars heavier in the first place. And finally it does not include the need to upscale the size of the car as the fuel capacity increases which results in more weight, more drag which needs bigger fuel cells, bigger batteries and more fuel to get just as far, which is all, again, more weight. This is graph is based on the very broad assumption that you can have a tank of infinite size fit into a car of singular volume, without impacting seating or cargo space or other vehicle systems. like strapping it to the roof whilst driving through a vacuum.
    1
  421.  @Obaboss  Would you like me to find you the article? They dont include the fact that hydrogen has less practical volumetric energy density than batteries.
    1
  422.  @Obaboss  the original article was “fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared” by C.E. (Sandy) Thomas. What’s worth noting about this article is that it was written in early 2009. The first mass produced EV wouldn’t be released until late 2010. The first mass produced fuel cell vehicle wouldn’t be released until late 2014. That’s means the data compiled was collected in 2008 2 years before either of the vehicles he’s talked about would even be made en mass. So it does not consider that fuel cell vehicles would also need batteries sized to their fuel cells. It also doesn’t consider the safety requirements for fuel cell in which the chassis needs reinforcement which is where most of the weight comes from. So keep in mind. This was entirely hypertherical based on assumptions because they weren’t even on the market yet.
    1
  423.  @milanswoboda5457  The model 3 is classed as a mid-sized luxury sedan in the USA.
    1
  424. I would avoid converting ICE vehicles to hydrogen. This would have an incredible impact on reducing the lifespan of the car. Hydrogen has a nasty habit of embrittling materials it comes into contact with making them weaker. Embrittling a piston is a good way to brick your engine.
    1
  425. Yes and no. Japan is an incredibly densely populated country. The benefits of large countries like the US and Australia is that different states have their own independent power grids but are also capable of supporting one another. Which greatly increases capacity and stability. Japan don’t have that. Nor do they have the space or locality to utilise renewables. So the only way you’re going to feasibly get to zero emissions is with hydrogen there. But for the US it would be much simpler with battery. Japan will have to import hydrogen which will be expensive and whilst carbon free for them. Not for the country who has to make the hydrogen. Basically outsourcing their carbon footprint to someone else. California grid has no trouble with capacity and every trouble with integration. California gets more solar energy than it can use. But that’s precisely what causes power outages. If you have too much power on the grid and nowhere to put it, the fuses shut it off. It can also shunt out traditional power plants collapsing the grid. California is a prime example of how NOT to implement renewables. They allowed a free for all with zero regulation and oversight. And zero plan on stable grid integration and now are paying the price.
    1
  426. So in California’s case. More EV’s is helping the grid. (Amost)
    1
  427. You don’t need any more power to charge an EV than a toaster uses, you could have an EV on every house on the street. What kind of power do you think they need to consume whilst charging. And being from green electricity or not doesn’t matter, the analysis assumes 100kWh supplied by the grid, one analysis assessed using that 100kWh to produce hydrogen to fuel a FCEV, the other to use the 100kWh to charge a BEV. Considering they got the power from the same source with the same efficiency, green or not, it doesn’t have any impact on the outcome.
    1
  428. Why? Is it the 5x + greater expense per km? The greater strain on the grid? The lowered safety? the lowered performance,? the inconvenience of refuelling? the shorter lifespan of hydrogen? Or the lack of excessively expensive existing infrastructure?
    1
  429. This guy has been an idiot for a very long time. He's a retired ICE mechanic, if you think he understands how EV's and battery chemistry work, you'd be sorely mistaken. In reality ranges are increasing, Tesla is rolling out its 4680 batteries which are cheaper to produce.... because they're tab-less which uses less materials. However far from what he's claiming (for some reason he thinks less materials less performance) the 4680 batteries have both higher energy density and higher energy output which means better performance and better range. Infact recently with these batteries the model 3 long range went from 325 miles of range to 353 miles of range. mean he absolutely and categorically doesn't know what he's talking about. Additionally tesla is taking additions steps to become the first company to use "lithium clay extraction" which would mean Tesla has enough lithium in the deserts of Nevada alone to supply their company for the next 40-50 years and cheaper than other lithium extraction processes. The reason Lithium has raised in price recently is because of the conflict in Ukraine which has seen many precious metals and other materials slow due to global uncertainty, rise in oil prices used for shipping etc etc etc.
    1
  430. Even then BEV are better fort he environment than hydrogen cars.
    1
  431. That study has some key flaws. Firstly it assumes and averaged material production based on past performance and does not take into account the fact that EV manufacturers have already placed orders for the materials to make the EV’s at the volumes they’re planning. And mining and production will ramp up or down accordingly to the agreed demand and mines will turn away customers before they over commit their resources. Companies do this pre-ordering because not doing so would be a little like starting to bake a cake before you went and picked up the butter and the flower from the shops. The next problem is that they’re only looking at the battery requirements, as hydrogen vehicles use hybrid sized lithium batteries. They don’t, however factor the procurement on the palladium and additional steel required to make the fuel cells and reinforce the chassis. It also doesn’t account for the disparity in service life of the batteries and EV’s. The larger the battery, the longer it lasts, fuel cell vehicles at current are only rated to last around half the average lifespan of a combustion engine. Meanwhile modern BEV’s are rated to last up to double the lifespan of combustion engine. It does not account for this added load of material sourcing in the turnover rate of the differing vehicles. It’s not a comprehensive study by any means. It’s an interesting analysis but not one that can be applied outside of hypotheticals.
    1
  432. Another give away is that in 2021, 6.75 million BEV’s were produced. Close to double your 3.8m cap.
    1
  433.  @peebles2012  really, you said in your OP it was from Leicester university. Not Toyota. Also wouldn’t you think Toyota might have a biased opinion there? So which is it? Toyota or the University?
    1
  434.  @peebles2012  additionally doesn’t negate that 6.75m EV’s were produced in 2021. Which again, should be a red flag if your article is stating the limit is 3.8m…
    1
  435.  @peebles2012  nobody had mentioned Elon musk, except for you. Maybe reflect on that for a bit.
    1
  436. Electrolysis is approximate 70% efficient. For every 100kWh of electricity you supply to generate hydrogen, you will generate 70kWh worth of potential chemical energy worth of hydrogen.
    1
  437. Power companies don’t just give people wholesale energy. Even fuel refineries have to pay energy rates. And whilst SMR isn’t very carbon heavy it still produces carbon it the steam needs to be heated in order to do that. Usually by one or two ways. 1.) they burn something to heat up the steam or 2, they get the power from the grid to do so.
    1
  438.  @JosephHui57  hydrogen suppliers aren’t going to get wholesale energy. No company will give large amounts of their product away, continuously, for no profit what so ever. They will never get the energy at cost. Even fuel refineries don’t get energy at cost. (Whole sale price)
    1
  439.  @JosephHui57  also as Milan said. The hydrogen producer must make a profit. To cover capital expenditure on equipment, land rates, power costs, water costs, staffing, admin, transportation, wages, training etc etc etc. and ontop of all that it needs to make a profit when it sells its hydrogen. Then it goes to fuel stations, who similarly have to make back money on capital costs like buying pumps and the building, staffing wages, and other services. And need to make a profit ontop of that when they sell the hydrogen. That’s why hydrogen is expensive. It’s triple dipping ontop of 3 times the amount of energy as a BEV.
    1
  440.  @JosephHui57  so you know large corporations who will consistently and constantly give their main product to a major consumer for no profit what so ever? That’s a very interesting business model isn’t it?
    1
  441.  @JosephHui57  that would be like Lockheed Martin supply F22 raptors to the US airforce at cost. For no profit what so ever. What a great fucking business model.
    1
  442.  @JosephHui57  or smiths supplying chips to major super market chains at cost. So that they make no profit from large super markets.
    1
  443.  @JosephHui57  that’s not really how electricity works doofus. It’s not like taking buckets of water and delivering them to individuals. All electricity goes into the power grid. And comes out of the power grid. It is impossible to tell what energy came from which source. Depending on where you live, smaller renewables can have their energy purchased by larger power companies to supplement their own energy commitments and to offset their emissions. Effectively what happens is that the turbines put power in under the banner of the energy company. The energy company pays a slightly higher rate for it, as it then offsets their own emissions. However larger renewables can act as their own power plants and power companies. And don’t do this. The wholesale energy price is the price it costs to make the energy as soon as there is a profit markup, it’s not whole sale anymore
    1
  444. You can’t generate hydrogen in your car on demand…
    1
  445.  @nikhiljoshi7486  .... the centre point of the video is efficiencies. If it takes 3 times more energy for one fuel than another, from the same power source, it’s fairly self evident that it’s 3 times worse. As for lithium production batteries vs steam reformation. You’re missing a critical point. Lithium isn’t continually required as fuel. It’s a capital expenditure for the production of the car. A one off cost. Whilst hydrogen production is a continue requirement for every mile driven. Meaning the overall expenditure over the lifetime of the car is predictably worse for hydrogen. If you’re going to start talking about manufacturing costs, you should do that for both vehicles instead of just the BEV. Because otherwise then it WOULD be biased. There was no bias against hydrogen. Hydrogen just has many short falls
    1
  446.  @nikhiljoshi7486  I covered multiple points. I am also responding on my phone since I’m out doing a 45km hike. Li in batteries aren’t used up in the storage. The chemistry of the electrolyte is what ultimately does in the battery along with tendrites forming on the anode. Modern EV batteries are around 96% recyclable with nearly 100% of the lithium recyclable. This could have been confirmed with a cursory google search. Before making your comment. As for the 100 cycles, what fucking rock are you living under. Again a cursory google search shows that modern EV batteries almost all EV manufacturers almost all universally give an 8 year warranty on their batteries. The cycle rating of modern Tesla batteries are 1,500 cycles to a lifetime. For a model 3 with 325 miles that nearly 500,000 miles. At end of like that’s also determined to be at 30% degradation. You’ve only lost 30% of your original range after 500,000 miles. So where you got 10% over 100 cycles that’s beyond me. And whilst steam reformations itself isn’t wasteful and only produces a small amount of carbon, the energy required to heat the steam has to come from somewhere. And it’s usually supplied one of two ways. Electrical heating, by drawing power from the very same grid, or by burning something. No one is trying to be biased here. Hydrogen just isn’t that green. And the only way you are going to make it green is the same way you are going to make BEV’s green. By making the energy sources green. The only difference is that you need significantly less green energy for a BEV than for a FCEV. If you had to produce, build and commission 3 times the name plate energy for hydrogen then BEV. That’s a big negative, both financially and emissions wise. If you need 1 windmill to power the needs of 100 BEV, you’d need to build 3 windmills to power the needs of the same people with FCEV’s. Doesn’t matter which way you look at it.
    1
  447.  @MichToJoshya  cool life story. Wasn’t necessary. But ok. Perhaps you missed it but I already told you that battery degradation does not degrade and use up the lithium. It changes the chemical composition to the electrolyte and causes solid electrolyte layers called dendrites in the anode. That can be very easily summized, aside from googling what causes battery degradation, but looking at what parts of the battery is recycled. Lithium is a big one. Almost all the lithium can be recycled. It does “change”. It’s a periodic element. The battery management system Tesla has is actually hailed as a feat of engineering. The parameters it maintains to such a high degree of accuracy is still yet to be replicated by legacy automakers or anyone else. Infact the discharge and recharge of batteries across individual cells only varies by less the 0.01mV. Which is incredible. Also worth noting that the coolant doesn’t go inside the battery cells. It just pools around it. But if you really want to open that can of worms. (Which I think you’ll regret) then let’s. Although the sub systems drain on the efficiency isnt include for BEV, it also isn’t included for ICE’s either, aside from what’s Necessary to maintain the engine running. It also wasn’t included for FCEV’s either. And since you’re such a fan. Let’s look at that shall we? Hydrogen is unique in that it has an extraordinarily low inversion temperature. That means unlike normal gasses, when it is drained from a compression vessel (storage tank) it gets extraordinary hot, instead of cold like normal gasses. To add to this fuel cells also produce A LOT of heat. All that heat MUST be removed from the system in order to keep it operating, including from the batteries the FCEV’s must have as the power output of a fuel cell isn’t enough to adequately accelerate it. So what ever cooling needed to keep a Tesla operating is a FRACTION of what would be required to operate a hydrogen car. (FCEV’s). Along with having to utilize its own battery management systems and sun sustems systems just like a BEV. so if we start comparing that as well, FCEV’s still lose out. And honestly not including it is a bias AGAINST BEV’s.
    1
  448.  @MichToJoshya  yes. An 8 year warranty. Meaning if your battery degrades by more than 30% in 8 years, they replace it with a new battery for free. If you don’t like it, then that’s tough for you.
    1
  449.  @MichToJoshya  why are you using two accounts?
    1
  450.  @MichToJoshya  only lithium that gets used up in lithium batteries are free lithium ions which get trapped in the Solid Electrolyte layer on the anode. Sometimes called the Solid Electrolyte Interface (SEI) the ions are trapped in this layer and therefore cannot participate in future cycles. The lithium ions however are not “consumed” and the amount of lithium in these layers is negligible. As it’s only localised to the exposed anode inside the battery, and the layer itself is only less than 20nm thick at worst. The rest of the lithium. Is fine, unless you penetrate the battery and expose it to air. https://youtu.be/XLnBg25JoHg As for cycles. They are dependent on the TYPE of batteries supplied. Panasonic’s for Tesla have a cycle life of 1,500 cycles to 70% health. https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/stop-worrying-about-battery-life-if-you-own-a-tesla-model-3-ar185236.html
    1
  451.  @MichToJoshya  uhh no. Actually it’s a solid Electrolyte layer. as the electrolytic solution solidifies around and anode, it traps the free lithium ions. Even in a fully dead battery, that SEI is only around 20nm thick. That means it would contain less than 1% of the total lithium inside the battery.
    1
  452.  @MichToJoshya  for someone so concerned with rebuttals to every point in an argument you sure let that one go easily.
    1
  453. BEV batteries charge with around 98% efficiency. They are also >95% recyclable. Hydrogen is the clear loser when you look into it more.
    1
  454. Ahhh, no. The big arse solar panels provide all of its electrical power
    1
  455. well the first trail versions have been given to companies years ago. Their mass production however has been delayed due to covid slowing down supply lies, making forging of new supply lines nearly impossible and slowing down construction of the plant meant to produce them. and the global semi-conductor shortage which is kind of self explanatory. Tesla is by far not the only company to run into these roadblocks but seems to be the only company where those are not taken into consideration before people start spitting shade. I guess some people just want any reason to be salty.
    1
  456.  @mrsensibletimewastingarrog4185  They're not designed for long haul. Long distance freight accounts for less than 10% of all road freight. 80% of all road freight travels less than 300 miles per day. Additionally there are trial trucks on loan to freighting companies in selective cities. People have videoed them driving around in the wild. A simple YouTube search would find that for you. And reports from these companies are that the 500 mile version exceeds its range estimates and that they're only at around a 1T disadvantage compared to Diesel which isnt a huge deal especially considering the majority of freight is limited by volume and not by weight.
    1
  457.  @parveshkhatri1027  we have seen EV’s increase year on year before and during the pandemic. So in that context, it makes sense that we got most of our EV’s from the most recent years which have been during a pandemic. So yes. Not sure what that point is supposed to be. And no, by far the most popular EV on the market and the most popular car in many markets around the world is the Tesla Model 3. Selling more than almost all its competitors combined.
    1
  458. Good for them. But it still doesn’t eliminate the fundamental thermodynamics limitations of hydrogen
    1
  459. actually, as far as private domestic passenger vehicles go, Hydrogen has no real advantage over EV's at all. EV's have better cargo/cabin space, they save you time, they have better performance, better handling, they're safer to drive, they cost significantly less to operate and they last longer than hydrogen vehicles.
    1
  460.  @orlovskyconsulting  Comment 3/3. I was not concerned with the cost of manufacture. I am concerned with the cost of fuel. Hydrogen is not found naturally in its pure form. You have to split it from something like water, ammonia or hydro-carbons (fossil fuels). This process requires alot of electrical energy from the power grid. It then needs to be compressed, then transported then used in a hydrogen vehicle. (if splitting from hydrocarbons, you are also releasing carbon into the atmosphere by making the hydrogen). Hydrogen is expensive because this process is expensive but lets look at just the electrical costs as a baseline comparison before we start adding other stuff in. Lets start with 100kWh from the grid. If you supply that to hydrogen production plant, at best you'll get an efficiency of hydrogen product of 70%. So now you have 70kWh of hydrogen. You then need to compress it to store it, maybe even liquify it. This is 80% efficient (assuming you use some of that power to compress it otherwise you'd be cheating) so you now how 56 kWh of hydrogen. Then you have to transport it presumably from a hydrogen powered truck which has an average of 15% loss meaning you now have 47.6kWh of hydrogen. Then you put it into a hydrogen vehicle. The fuel cells only operate at around 60% efficiency so of the 100kWh from the power grid you put into making, compressing and transporting the hydrogen, you only get 28.6 kWh of electricity to the electric motor in the hydrogen car. not very efficient. If you look at EV's, if you supply it with 100kWh to charge it has a charging efficiency of 98% meaning you now how 98 kWh of energy in the battery. And thats where i'll stop. Because the discharge, the inverters and electric motor after that point are identical on the Mirai and the Tesla model 3. That means to go the same distance the Mirai needs 3.4 time more electricity from the same grid than EV's need. So on power costs alone, no matter what you do, in electricity prices alone hydrogen will always cost 3x more per mile. Then you have to realise that whilst EV's only buy the electricity, for hydrogen you have to pay for 3 times the electricity, plus the water/ammonia/hydro-carbons. Plus the transportation, plus the suppliers profit mark-up ontop of facility overheads, staff and logistics. Not only that but then you have to pay for the fuel stations profit mark-ups ontop of that to cover them buying the fuel, their overheads and costs, plus they have to make a profit all before it gets to you. Meaning that hydrogen will always be significantly more expensive to drive than an EV.
    1
  461.  @stickmouse5002  fuel tanks cant be laid flat across the platform of the car, they are cylindrical and take up 141L of tank volume in the Mirai, A mid-sized seden. Thats more fuel tank volume than a Ford F150 in a mid-sized sedan! ontop of that you just gotta look at even the storage spaces. If you look at the Mirai it has less storage space than a Yarris. A car half it size. It actually has over 100L less boot space than the yarris. It also doesnt even have enough cabin space to fold the rear seats down in the mirai despite it being 11 inch longer than the model 3. The model 3 on the other hand has a huge boot for its size and another boot in the front as well. the notion that hydrogen vehicles have more space is not accurate.
    1
  462.  @stickmouse5002  Your link shows that hydrogen has less energy density in wh/L but is lighter in terms of wh/kg. it also noted that whilst the Hydrogen vehicle stores more energy in its tanks, by the time its converted to the wheels it would have been more efficient to store it in batteries. which is what I discussed in comment 3/3
    1
  463.  @orlovskyconsulting  well there you are mislead again. Hydrogen vehicles actually dont last as long as Battery Electrics. Moden EV's are designed to last as long as 400,000 to 500,000 miles on a single battery pack (to 70% of their original health i.e. 30% range reduction) this represents 30 - 40 years of driving for the average person. Meanwhile a little known fact about hydrogen vehicles is that they come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on their fuel caps. Limiting the life of the vehicle to only 10 years. In relation to replacing battery packs. Correct, that is how much it costs to replace a battery pack. something new outlets and bloggers like to chant against EV's. but its not strictly accurate. there is a district difference Battery and Battery Pack. In an EV a battery pack is the mechanism which not only holds the batteries in place but also forms part of the chassis of the vehicle, it also houses all the cooling and heating components for the battery management system. However the batteries themselves in EV's are usually thousands of 18650 batteries (thats their name) if you google them they look like oversized AA batteries. To replace the batteries its as simple as removing the seats and pulling up the floor then removing their protective cover with a few screws. Then you just replace the batteries one by one without needing to pointlessly replace the battery pack. this process costs today around $4k USD. 5 years ago it costs around $7k USD and in 5 years its predicted to cost $2k USD. Because as production of the batteries increases, cost comes down. economy of scale. Not a huge cost after 40 years. Making the claim you have to replace the battery pack instead of just the batteries is like telling someone you have to buy a new PS5 controller every time your AA batteries go flat. It makes no sense.
    1
  464.  @orlovskyconsulting  Also as i've said before, and that i've made very clear. You cant solve the space issue with hydrogen. If you want the range, you need the fuel to do it. in a mid sized send, 400 miles looks like 141L of tanks. If you want more space you need less fuel. if you want more range you have to take up more space. There really isnt any getting around it. You cant put a square peg in a round hole.
    1
  465.  @orlovskyconsulting  FYI I'm not trying to have a go. I'm trying to communicate the physical limitations of hydrogen and why BEV's hold all the advantages when it comes to privately owned domestic passenger vehicle market. I don't want you to throw money into an investment which isn't going to pay off.
    1
  466.  @stickmouse5002  true. it was made earlier, my apologies for the assumption.
    1
  467.  @stickmouse5002  No Problem
    1
  468.  @orlovskyconsulting  Solar powered refuelling station arent a scalable idea. They work now because each station might only service one or two hydrogen vehicles per day. truth is solar only gives you so much energy and you can only split water then compress the hydrogen so fast. All in all a normal petrol station sized hydrogen plant/station would only produce enough hydrogen to supply around 2 vehicles per day in sunny areas like California. If those two vehicles go the the fuel station too soon after one another, there wont be enough fuel for the second vehicle to top up. They're good publicity stunt but a poor idea if your end goal is full-scale hydrogen adoption.
    1
  469. 1.) yeah, hydrogen does. Do you even know what is in a fuel cell? additionally fuel cell vehicles NEED lithium batteries to operate competently. so there is that. 2.) Battery performance does. And so do fuel cells, but fuel cells degrade at a faster rate than EV batteries. 3.) No they don't. Warranties for modern EV batteries alone is in the order of 8 years. Whilst they are currently designed and expected to and showing to last up to or exceeding 500,000 miles. meanwhile Toyota, Honda and Hyundai all state the expected lifespan of their fuel cells is only 150,000 miles. And their cars for only 10 years. Little known fact is that hydrogen cars roll off the assembly lines with an expiration date printed on them. 4.) sure we do. EV batteries are shown to be roughly greater than 95% recyclable. And companies like Tesla have committed to recycling all of their EV batteries.
    1
  470.  @yannickmondoux2435  manufacturing costs were not taken into account for hydrogen or batteries in this video. If you think fuel cell cars don’t use toxic and rare earth materials you’d be sorely mistaken. Additionally a fuel cell according to Toyota will only last around 150,000 miles. Meanwhile a Tesla battery lasts 1,500 cycles, which for their performance model gives them almost 500,000 miles before their battery is degraded by only 20%. With the newer 4680 batteries Tesla are just starting to roll out on vehicles having a cycle life of 4,000 cycles. Also consider that EV batteries are more than 95% recyclable.
    1
  471. Regenerative breaking is more than 90% efficient. This works out that if you had two identical vehicles, one being 300kg heavier than the other, the additional energy used by the heavier vehicle by the time it comes to a stop, would be the same as 2 AA batteries. not very much at all when you're taking battery packs between 50-100 kWh. As milan Swodoba said, rolling resistance has a very small coefficient. usually between 0.03 and 0.06 and as low as 0.01 for eco tires. For the heavier vehicle, the addition 300kg would only add a force of 90N if your coefficient was say, 0.03. with the tires fitted to EV's typically that would be closer to 0.01 which is 30N. (the same force as 3kg in your hand for reference (or 6.5 lb if you're American)). which is understandably very little. finally there is the other point that Milan mentioned. Of the two, battery and Hydrogen vehicles, Hydrogen is the heavier vehicle. This is mostly due to the reinforcement and protections in place to protect the fuel tanks in the Hydrogen car during collisions. its a lot of extra, high strength steel in the chassis. This is where the majority of the weight comes from. Recently, Toyota drove the Mirai 1003 km through France on a single 5.6kg fuel tank (the tank is 147L). This represented an average of 0.2 kWh per km. and whilst Toyota gives you the exact start time, they dont mention the finish time. If you look at Toyotas video you can see the dash at the finish line and it says 3.59. It is also dark and on the day they ran the test, it didnt get dark until well after 9pm, so we can assume its 3.59 am. This means it took them over 22 hours to travel 1003km, which works out to around 45km/h average travelling speed. A model 3 would have an energy consumption of 0.095 kWh/km at 45 km/h. (model 3 and Mirai are similar sizes aerodynamically and also similar weights with the mirai weighting only 53kg more than the model 3 (the model 3 also has far more luxury features which add significant weight to the car). So they should have about the same rolling resistance and energy consumption, give or take. This suggests that the fuel cell is only around 47% efficient. They also used green hydrogen which is made via electrolysis. Which is only around at beset 75% efficient. All this means is that the fuel used to travel 1003km, required 277 kWh of electricity from the same grid that charges the Tesla to make enough fuel for the Mirai to travel 1003km at 45km/h. The model 3 on the same energy, also travelling 45km/h can drive over 2,900km on that 277 kWh.
    1
  472.  @milanswoboda5457  yes but also it would be weighted. You will pull far more energy out of your higher speed when you're more efficient that your lower speed when you are less due to velocity being squared in its relationship to kinetic energy. For example, if you are going 80km/h and you absorb exactly half the available kinetic energy you are still travelling at 56.5km/h. So the differences in efficiencies at different speeds are weighted
    1
  473.  @milanswoboda5457  Or as another way to look at it. when I used 100km/h as my example, half that energy is absorbed between 100km/h to 71km/h.
    1
  474.  @milanswoboda5457  I’m not trying to do marketing either. I perceive the kinetic energy in relation to the mass being might higher than being lost to aerodynamic drag. Although you are right, SOC and temp are both factors for regen, without defined boundary conditions I can only assume null. So I have. Im not trying to market. Just issuing the information I have on hand. You could integrate the regeneration over deceleration against the drag with the rolling resistance deducted, it’s a big long to do here but drag takes most of its toll during cruising. Deceleration occurs quick enough that losses due to Fr and Fd are relatively small. By comparison. If that make sense. You don’t decelerate for 2 hours to come to a stop. You decelerate for a few seconds before coming to a stop. Either way, you are correct in that you can’t define exact values here. Im certainly not assuming the worst case scenario either.
    1
  475.  @milanswoboda5457  very true
    1
  476. it actually isnt.
    1
  477. and for a multitude of reasons, practicality, infrastructure costs, lack of ability to charge from home, efficiency, performance, lifespan, emissions, practicality (in terms of cabin space and cargo space), range... the list goes on and on.
    1
  478. Why about the 3 times more energy to split it into hydrogen the. The sales markup from the producer to the fuel station and the sales markup from the fuel station to the customer.
    1
  479.  @naterobinson9605  Hydrogen is actually much worse. For starters, because of hydrogen embrittlement of metals, and materials, Hydrogen vehicles come with an expiry date of 10 years from purchase. Thats a short short life span for a car. and around 1/4th the expected lifespan of Battery Electric Cars so no second hand car market for hydrogen. and if you went with hydrogen you would have to mine, build, operate and dispose of 4 hydrogen vehicles, over the same amount of time a Battery electric car would last. Additionally if you wanted to make hydrogen, you need alot of energy. 3 times more energy per mile than BEV's in fact. So if you have a power plant capable of powering the needs of 100 people driving BEV's. You would need to built 2 more powerplants to power the needs of those same 100 people using hydrogen vehicles. And that would be very very very expensive if you wanted to use green hydrogen. almost 20x more expensive per mile. Otherwise you could get it from Methane, which releases more carbon, uses just about as much energy but the capital overheads are less meaning you could produce hydrogen for as little as 8x more than BEV's per mile. But you'd be polluting. Then there is the fact that hydrogen vehicles need Lithium batteries to operate but ontop of that the fuel cells require the use of Platinum. which is far more toxic for the environment than ANYTHING in a lithium battery. Hydrogen isnt as green as they appear.
    1
  480. not over their lifespans, no
    1
  481.  @kbrickell4732  True. but eventually people will buy new cars. Without new cars coming into the market, there is no second hand car market. This new car market is where EV's make the most sense.
    1
  482. ..... where exactly do you think hydrogen comes from? its not just a little well you can grab limitless energy from. Hydrogen does not occur naturally in its pure form on earth. You have to make it. making hydrogen means expending alot of electricity. Infact, if you watched this video you'd know it takes 3-4 times the same amount of electricity from the grid to make a miles worth of hydrogen than you you had just put that electricity in to charge a BEV.
    1
  483. kilo-gram. kilo meaning 1,000. a kilogram is 1,000 grams........
    1
  484. also metric countries also use 12 and 24 hour time. Not sure what you're complaining about.
    1
  485.  @UghTech  funnily enough, 24 hour time originated with the egyptians to split the day up into 10 hours and added 1 for morning twilight and 1 for evening twilight. Similarly with night. meaning 12 for each which equates to 24. Even they devised it into 10 technically.
    1
  486.  @UghTech  the base unit is grams. however a gram is so lightweight that to measure everything in grams would result in alot of zero's and digits. So its most commonly referred to as Kilogram instead of gram.
    1
  487.  @UghTech  If everything you measured was a huge value you'd adopt a larger value colloqually
    1
  488.  @UghTech  ok, so the metric system is based on something called CGS, which was meter, gram, second. however when creating the SI units off of these CGS units, it was noted that when linking chemical and electrical energy units with mechanical energy units for a cohesive system, the result was that either the mechanical energy units were inconveniently small or the chemical/electrical energy units were inconveniently small. This was overcome by basing Kg as the unit m, kg, s for SI units. Another way of thinking of it is if you are working out force or stresses you can use m, kg to get newtons and newton/meters, or you can use mm, kg to get kN or kN meters. They opted to move from grams to kilograms to keep the overlapping units reasonable as kg is much easier to measure without being impractical. Keeping in mind the use of meters, grams, seconds were widely used at the time they created the SI unit system.
    1
  489. There are far more serious drawbacks to hydrogen than for BEV’s. Hydrogen has failed to take off despite more incentives for the technology than there is for BEV’s such as enough incentives to buy a car more expensive than a Tesla model 3 for less than $14k USD, with $15k usd of free fuel. As an example.
    1
  490. it requires more energy to create hydrogen than you get from the hydrogen. Think about it. You are taking water. Turning it into hydrogen and oxygen by using energy, Then re-combing it into water to create energy. You are going from water. to gas. back to water. If that could work, you would never have to refill on anything. Just use the byproduct water to create my hydrogen. You'd just cycle the same water over and over in a closed loop and create infinite electricity. What you are suggesting is like plugging a powerboard into itself and expecting it to give you unlimited electricity.
    1
  491. few questions. 1.) what is green nuclear? 2.) what takes hours to day to fill? 3.) are you assuming the hydrogen cars are any good at being cars, regardless of how the fuel in made or delivered?
    1
  492.  @DoubleplusUngoodthinkful  more clarifications, thankyou for your response though, 1.) nuclear power still produces low level and high level waste that we still don’t know how to dispose of safely. 2.) a home charger (type 2) charges at 12kW. A model 3 has an efficiency close to 0.2kW/mile a 12kW home charger would charge a model 3 at 60mph. Considering most charging is done at home whilst your asleep, you don’t really have to wait any time for it to charge. Much more time efficient than going and getting fuel. 3.) hydrogen fuel cells last around 1/4 the lifespan of BEV’s you need 3-4 time More grid electricity to produce 1 miles worth of hydrogen than you do to charge 1 miles worth of batteries, hydrogen has notoriously low power output making them slow, hydrogen is very very expensive compared to ICE yet alone electricity for BEV’s and hydrogen, whilst being lightweight, takes up a huge amount of volume. Meaning you have extraordinarily small boot space and cabin space for the size of the vehicle, as is exemplified by the Toyota Mirai. So they’re not very well suited for cars because they get just as much range or less than BEV with no ability to store more fuel with compromised cabin and boot space making the vehicle less practical. The vehicles don’t last as long, have poor performance, need much higher infrastructure costs, even as far as grid capacity, and cost significantly more to operate. Doesn’t sound well suited to automotive applications to me.
    1
  493.  @DoubleplusUngoodthinkful  Climate Change Denialism is a completely separate subject I dont want to get into. As for the cost of hydrogen, It should be pointed out that you would have to pay for 3-4 times the amount of grid electricity per mile from a BEV, plus water, plus equipment and facility capital, plus maintained of the site, staffing wages, logistics, site overheads, etc etc, All with a profit markup to be transported and sold to fuel stations, who would then put a profit markup ontop of that before it arrives at the consumer in the car. Meaning, even if the company only had to pass on the power prices AT COST BEV's are still 3-4 times cheaper per miles. With no real solution on how to make the fuel much cheaper at all. As for charging. I think you are mis interpreting how EV's actually work. EV's today have ranges between 250-400 miles with the average commute being around 16 miles and a 70 mile commute being deemed on the far higher end. Even travelling those distances, if you get home and plug into a wall socket, yet alone a home charger that the vehicles come with, you would wake up the next morning with a full battery. Every morning. just for arriving home from work and getting up the next morning to leave. That would save the average person approximately 16-17 hours per year on getting fuel from a fuel station (hydrogen included). When doing longer trips over the 250-400 miles. You would almost exclusively use super chargers, the most modern of which can fully charge your EV in 5-10 minutes, with the most common of which doing so in 25-35 minutes. Which after several hours of charging is enough time to go get a coffee and have a toilet break. Keep in mind you dont have to stand there and hold the hose like you do with a ICE car. All in all BEV's actually save people time and are far from being as slow as you make them out to be. They are far more practical than most people give them credit for because its a paradigm shift. Most people thing they'd have to drive to some special station and stand outside holding a plug for 12 hours. Not the case at all. You just plug it in when you get home and have a full battery every single morning with enough range that if your forgot for some reason, you could afford to do so something like 3 or more days in a row before it becomes critical.
    1
  494.  @DoubleplusUngoodthinkful  You dont want to have to "wait" overnight? you do sleep right? not exactly waiting. what about eating dinner? not waiting. you just not using the car. Additionally, as I said, you can get quite a few trips from one battery charge to and from work depending on your range. So again, why would you be "waiting." I live with an EV. I haven't needed to install the home charger the car came with. I've been getting by driving 120km per day and charging from a wall outlet in my garage. I have never once had to "wait" for a charge. what you mean by "waiting" for a charge is you're "waiting" to use the car again. "waiting for a charge" implies you need to use it over night beyond the range remaining which would be well over 100 miles of range. Which, most people dont drive while they're asleep and good things dont happen to those that do.
    1
  495.  @DoubleplusUngoodthinkful  there are chargers that can charge that fast. they're called V3 superchargers. The most common is V2 super chargers with the 25-30 minutes. Last time I was at a V3 super charger here in Australia on my way to Mt Hotham for the ski season, I had to move the car while I was waiting for my coffee because it topped up so quickly. But let me express. You will rarely charge from 0-100%. you usually roll in with anywhere between 20-40% and charge to between 80-90%. So your wait times are considerably less that what I have nominated. For example If I were to install my home charger which came with the car, to go from 0 to full would take me approximately 4 hours. But from my average daily commute, I'd only need to charge for 1 hour and 20 minutes. It takes me more time to make and eat dinner.
    1
  496. Also also because hydrogen cars also use large batteries
    1
  497. Cool story…
    1
  498. True. But you also need cryogenic suited machinery. As decompression of high pressure vessels result in dramatic drops in temperature. Meaning the more you use it, the colder it gets.
    1
  499.  @milanswoboda5457  true. I had not thought of that. Although the does raise more issues. Removing heat from an energy system is much harder than adding it.
    1
  500. Even the cleanest way to produce hydrogen requires 3-4 times the same electrical energy per miles as a BEV. So from the same energy grid, EV's produce 3-4 times less emissions, Sure you can make Hydrogen greener through renewables, but the same can be said for EV's which would require much less. If you have 1 wind farm to power the needs of 100 drives with BEV's, you would need 2-3 more windfarms built and commissioned with all the emissions involved with that to power the needs of those same 100 people if they had hydrogen cars. Ontop of that modern EV's inclusive of the battery, are designed to last 30-40 years. Meanwhile hydrogen cars are limited to 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Meaning you'd need 3-4 hydrogen cars to cover the lifetime of just 1 BEV. and all the emissions that go with making and disposing of that hydrogen car. In terms of practicality, Hydrogen cars have next to no storage or cabin space. Having less of either than a car half its size. BEV's have massive boots, alot of cabin space and even a front trunk. Hydrogen cars go much slower than BEV's whilst BEV's are known to be incredibly fast. Hydrogen cars protect the tanks through chassis reinforcement making them (yes its true) heavier than BEV's and reduce the crumple zones leading to lower survivability in a crash making them less safe than BEV's. Hydrogen also costs ALOT of money. Hydrogen, even when made cheap through fossil fuels instead of electrolysis, is around 10-20 times the cost per miles driven than a BEV. Making them very expensive to own. SO... BEV vs Hydrogen, Hydorgen cars create more emissions, dont even last half the lifespan of a BEV, are slow, have less room in the cabin, impractically small cargo capacity, are less safe and cost significantly more to operate. All for only 20% more range to a tank than an equivalent EV to a charge. Bargain.
    1
  501. % of % might not be affable or subtractable but that’s not what he’s doing. What he is saying is akin to if you sold 10% to a stranger. Then a difference stranger comes up to you and wants 10% of your candy, you have 81% of your candy left and you’ve given away 19% of your candy. Because you gave 10% away, then the next day you gave away 10% of the remaining candy. In which case it’s 0.9*0.9=0.81 of your candy remaining. In this instance he is saying (although incorrectly) that you lose 30% of your energy during electrolysis and 40% through the fuel cell. So how much do you have left? 60% of 70% is 0.7*0.6=0.42=42%. You have 42% of your original energy amount remaining. To rephrase that when you undergo electrolysis using 100kWh of electricity you can collect the equivalent chemical potential energy (which is easily mathematically determined), in hydrogen of 70 kWh. If you put (which is 70% efficient) if you put that 70kWh of potential chemical energy in hydrogen through a fuel cell you will get 60% of that 70kWh worth of electrical energy out. Which is 0.6*70kWh which is 42kWh.
    1
  502. Also. BTW a kWh and a calorie are the same thing just different amounts. Power is power. Simple as that. If I have 30 kWh of stored energy in batteries and 30KWh of stored capacitor energy, both have the energy stored in different ways, one is a chemical storage and the other is potential difference, both have energy.
    1
  503.  @David_Lloyd-Jones  you should re-read my comment. I didn’t say they were power, I said they were energy. I said power is power. Just like energy is energy.
    1
  504.  @David_Lloyd-Jones  I do know the difference between power and energy. The difference between kW and kWh. Just like I know that my phone auto corrected BTU to BTW. Which for some reason you decided to roll with. In either case none of that changes the point of my argument.
    1
  505. Less than 2 year’s actually
    1
  506. Modern EV batteries are designed and are showing to last up to or exceeding 500,000 miles which is twice the average lifespan of a combustion. Engine.
    1
  507. what a bubble you must live in.
    1
  508. Tesla makes the worlds fastest production car which is also a 4 door 5 seat luxury family sedan..... as for the acceleration of the Tesla Semi, you can find videos of it hauling in the wild with their on-road trial models on loan to freight companies.
    1
  509. Who else was pushing and improving battery car technology. And it’s not that he doesn’t want people to be able work on their cars. It’s more that batteries cars are such that inherently you don’t have to service them at all. And a V8 sounds good but the fastest production car in the world right now isn’t a v8. It’s a Tesla. Which is faster than a V8 supercar.
    1
  510. Hydrogen is far worse environmentally and receives more incentives and a ongoing media campaign to prop it up, whilst BEV’s suffer from an ongoing smear campaign.
    1
  511. That would be impossible. Using energy to convert water into hydrogen, just to convert it back to water again, and expecting more energy than what you put in to make the hydrogen to come out of that same hydrogen is like plugging a power board into itself and expecting unlimited electricity. It would be like expecting a bouncy ball to go higher on every single bounce without interfering with it or touching it. It’s against the laws of physics.
    1
  512.  @club6525  Consider it this way, even cutting edge electorlysers are only around 70% efficient and fuel cells 60% (in automotive applications closer to 40% but we'll give you a fighting chance). we know that the Mirai goes 400 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen. We know that 1kg of hydrogen has the energy potential of 33.3kWh. So if it goes through a fuel cell, and 40% of it is lost (60% efficiency) then 33.3 x 5.6 x 0.6 = 112 kWh for 400 miles or a consumption of 0.28 kWh/mile. Which similar sized and drag coefficient EV's use 0.18-0.20 kWh/ mile so its not that far off accurate. Now lets suppose you have the 1.6kWh battery that the Mirai uses. And you use that electricity to make hydrogen from water. You now have the energy equivalent of 1.12kWh of hydrogen. You convert that to electricity again and you new have 0.67kWh of electricity to either drive the car for 2 miles. or make more fuel but not both. lets say you want to make more fuel. So you put in 0.67kWh of electricity and you get out 0.47 kWh worth of hydrogen. Make that fuel into electricity and you now have 0.3kWh which you can either use to make fuel, or drive the car 1 mile. You starting to see where i'm going here. Its doing nothing but wasting energy. You only have the energy you start off with. The rest is a negative feedback loop. In this case its the 1.6kWh lithium battery in the Mirai. In a typical hydrogen fuel cell car, its the hydrogen tanks storing the already processed hydrogen. The moral is you cant run a car off water. Its not fuel. its not energy storage, it just hold hydrogen.
    1
  513.  @club6525  PEM actually has an 80% efficiency. And your calculations don’t include the energy required to generate the hydrogen. Which is precisely where it becomes intangible. Simply put. It always takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen releases.
    1
  514.  @club6525  that 0.11Kg of fuel from 1L of water would require 4.6 kWh of electricity. Of which youd only have 2.2kWh available once you convert the hydrogen back into electricity. So far all you’ve managed to do is turn 4.6kWh of electricity into 2.2kWh of electricity before you’ve even done any work.
    1
  515.  @club6525  solar doesn’t help that situation. Aside from it not producing enough energy with the surface area available to a car to run enough of a reaction to drive the car in that scenario, it would be far more efficient to just store it in a bigger battery.
    1
  516.  @club6525  instead of using 4.6kWh from stored energy somewhere such as a battery, to make 2.2kWh. It would be far more efficient to use that 4.6kWh directly into the motor. Instead of throwing away more than half of it for no gain. Is it not obvious that you’re using electricity, to generate less electricity?
    1
  517.  @club6525  PEM membranes have a working efficiency of 80% any plain google search will show you that.
    1
  518.  @club6525  if it only took 1-2kWh to produce 2.2kWh of electricity, you’ve broken physics. It means you’ve released chemical bonds without the energy needed to break those bonds. If you could produce 2.2kWh of electricity using 1-2kWh of electricity you would have infinite electricity as you’d just keep cycling the water through for more and more electricity. Sorry but the world, and physics, doesn’t work like that
    1
  519.  @club6525  vehicle weight has a very small impact on efficiency. Your image is only in rolling resistance. It’s not and exponent like air resistance and it’s very small. Rolling resistance is F=CN where N is the weight Mg, and C is the coefficient. Increasing the weight of a an EV car by 100kg only increases its consumption by less than 0.05kWh/km.
    1
  520.  @club6525  firstly, no, a car has maybe tops, 1.5m2 of roof surface area on large vehicles. Solar panels at best produce 1kW per square meter. They also couldn’t told to maximum sun absorption meaning your utility factor would be dumped somewhere around the 15%. What that means is over a sunny, cloud free 10 hours of sunlight day, you could expect to generate a whopping 2.25kWh of electricity in total. So no, it wouldn’t be sufficient to run a car. Electric or pointlessly water. And no, in terms of weight it still doesn’t make up for it. Water isn’t energy dense. It just isn’t. You don’t release energy from water, you put energy into it. 4.6kWh into water gets you 2.2kWh out. So no. Additionally, most of waters weight, IE, 89% of its weight, is oxygen, so again, not really all that energy dense. And you’re carrying a lot of additional weight. Infact in terms of weight, 1L of water weighs 1kg and has 0.11kg of hydrogen in it, whilst 1kg of hydrogen at 700 bar on its own weighs… well 1kg. So you’d be drastically increasing the weight of the car. For the same 5.6kg of hydrogen in a mirai, you’d have to carry onboard, 51kg of water. You’d also need a battery which could convert that water to hydrogen, you’d need more than 230kWh of energy to do so. Which again, solar panels won’t cut it.
    1
  521. Well. No
    1
  522. Fuel cell cars typically weigh more than equivalent sized BEV’s
    1
  523. And are also typically more expensive due to the platinum they need as a catalyst as well as the cost of the fuel being higher that even fossil fuels yet alone electricity, of which you need approximately 9 times more per km than a BEV’s.
    1
  524. do you honestly beleive that wind turbines are worse for the environment than coal, gas, or oil power plants?
    1
  525. actually if the world increased its utilisation of hydrogen the demand on the grid would increase more than it would with EV. This is because you have to make hydrogen. The only way to make hydrogen is by using alot of electricity. Around at best 3 times more electricity per mile's worth of driving than an EV uses.
    1
  526. you say that but have you seen Toyotas solid state battery or Teslas 4680 batteries.
    1
  527.  @cdromuser1  I’ve seen the Tesla 4690 batteries. They’re putting them in the Y now.
    1
  528. hydrogen trucks have a worse outlook than battery electric trucks. the majoirty of the specs for both the Tesla semi which is undergoing road trials currently for selected frieght companies, and the Hyundai Hydrogen semi truck the Xcient currently in use in Sweden i believe. Comparing the two shows scary differences. Range: Xcient is 400 miles fully loaded. Tesla is 500 miles fully loaded Power: Xcient lacks the power to go faster than 85km/h (52mph) even unloaded. Tesla can acheive freeways speeds even on a steep slope. Battery: Aside from having not one but two fuel cells and double the fuel tank capacity of a standard semi, the Xcient has a 75kWh battery (same size thats in a Tesla model 3 long range). The tesla is estimated to have a 1,000 kWh battery. Lifespan: Xcient fuel cell is only rated for 100,000 miles and the fuel tanks are only rated for 10 years. The Tesla is designed to last well over 1 million miles. If current Tesla Battery degradation applies to the Semi, then that is an underestimate. Design: The Xcient needs space for all its fuel tanks, 75Kwh battery and 2 large 95kW fuel cells. With all that space requirement the Xcient not only takes up alot of verticle space of the first trailer, reducing overall cargo volume, but the rear of the truck extends almost the full length of the first trailer. Meaning it has a terrible turning circle. The tesla suffers not such issues. The tesla also has the ability to charge from its destinations, meanwhile hydrogen is difficult to come across. Even in California. Cost of operation: Xcient, does not last very long and hydrogen is approximately 20x the price per mile than a BEV costs to operate and around twice the cost of diesel per mile. And that wont get much better for hydrogen. The Tesla costs remarkably little to operate and will outlast diesel trucks without any of the regular maintenance. around 10x cheaper than diesel per mile. Lastly, refueling. Semi trucks have no real requirement to go further than 500 miles in a day due to labour laws in most countries. They prohibit truck drivers from being behind the wheel for certain lengths of time in a day and mandate breaks. For example, in the US truck drivers are not allowed to be behind the wheel for more than 11 hours in a day. With them being required to take a 30 minute break somewhere between their 5th and 9th hour. There is only so far you can travel in 8 hours with a truck. around 400-450 miles in fact. Meaning that the truck has enough range fully loaded to keep going until the truck driver is required by law to stop for 30 minutes. 30 minutes also happens to be the time required to charge the Tesla Semi. You also dont have to be with the truck whilst this happens. You can go into the rest stop and use the facilities and eat some food and drink before going back on the road. Therefore its reasonable to conclude that there is absolutely not time penalty for driving a Battery Truck.
    1
  529. So he may be an overrated salesman but its hard to argue with the numbers. Hydrogen trucks are not the future.
    1
  530. still doesnt change the outcome.
    1
  531. well there isnt much room to grow when you're already a t 98% efficient. however no, fuel cells wont get much more efficient. The laws of thermodynamics tell us what the upper most achievable efficiency of a system is. For fuel cells its between 60-70%. In lab conditions, fuel cells have been able to reach 60-65% efficient. scaled down to cars, in less than perfect conditions in terms of air quality, humidity, temperature, use cases, vibrations, they're closer to 40% efficient. they wont get much more efficient because you cant get them much more efficient.
    1
  532.  @Phantom-kz9bv  its not. Lets look at it this way, Both the Mirai and the Model 3 run off electric motors, powered by batteries via an inverter. The biggest difference is that the fuel cell charges the battery in the Mirai. So the difference in efficiency between the two vehicles would approximate the losses through the fuel cell. As losses through the inverter and electric motor would be approximately the same. Now we know the potential energy stored in hydrogen at 700 bar. 33.6kWh/kg. The Mirai carries 5.6kg of hydrogen to travel 402 miles. So thats a total stored energy of 188.16 kWh of energy. Which means it uses 0.468 kWh/mile. Meanwhile the Tesla Model 3 uses 79.5 kWh to travel 353 miles. Which means it uses 0.225 kWh/km. In other words the Mirai uses 52% more power to go the same distance. So the loss through the fuel cell is around 48% which is to say the fuel cell must then be approximately 52% efficient. Not 80%. Of course there are other factors which affect this but the mirai and the model 3 have similar weights and drag co-efficient. so they're roughly comparable.
    1
  533. They’re not comparable. It take energy to create a battery, it also takes energy to creat a fuel cell, or chassis or windshield. They are all sunk costs of the car. That’s manufacturing costs. Whilst hydrogen fuel, are fuel costs. They are needed for every single mile you drive the vehicle. It’s used up by the vehicle to run. Do you see the difference? If you were going into production costs for BEV’s you’d also have to do the same for hydrogen. And this video would be ALOT longer.
    1
  534. Are you trying to attribute 100% of the increase in power demand to EV’s? That’s pretty flawed logic man.
    1
  535. Also probably worth putting out there that hydrogen would consume far more grid electricity than BEV’s do per mile.
    1
  536. I wouldn’t put that power into electrolysis. Most because every kWh of electricity you put into it, by the time it reaches the wheels only 0.112kwh is actually utilised as usable work. The rest is wasted. With battery electric vehicles like Tesla’s its 0.95kwh for every 1kwh provided is utilised as usable work.
    1
  537. It’s probably worth noting that modern EV batteries last a long time. Infact the usually have a warranty period of at least 8 years in today’s market. (Far more than 5 year) and are designed to (and showing to) last 400,000 to 500,000 miles to a battery which is around 30-40 years worth of driving But on the other hand hydrogen fuel tanks are limited in life to 10 years as they have a expiration date printed on the fuel cap as they come off the production line and fuel cells are limited to 100,000 miles of driving. So BEV’s last 30-40 years before the battery or the motor is done. Hydrogen lasts only 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first before you need to replace the car.
    1
  538. Actually h2 has less power and uses much more grid energy.
    1
  539.  @BillSmith-su4jt  there is no well extraction for hydrogen. It has to be split from water or fossil fuels. That’s the only way to get hydrogen. It’s not naturally occurring here on earth in it’s pure form. Additionally I mentioned power. I mean power in reference to the flow rate of electricity. Fuel cells are very low power. That’s why fuel cell vehicles are very slow and also need batteries to store excess energy to be used for acceleration. So in terms of power, batteries are not weak, they’re more powerful than hydrogen.
    1
  540. It takes 9kwh of energy to produce 1 kWh of usable energy in hydrogen. It’s more power efficienct to dump the byproduct water out the exhaust
    1
  541. That’s false actually. Most grid losses around around 5% with the worst cases being around 15%. As for emissions per kWh, once that translates into miles driven even on a coal only grid it still produces less than an internal combustion engine. Even without considering the huge energy and emissions cost of refining and transporting the fuel in the first place. You’re forgetting that EV’s are super efficient. So efficient infact it’s actually more fuel economic to charge your EV from a cheap portable generator than it is to use that fuel in even a modern efficient combustion engine.
    1
  542. Not jets. But propellor aircraft, yes. Only due to energy density. Aircraft suffer double from the added weight of batteries. Once in the thrust required to move the extra weight. But twice in the lift required to keep you airborne. Vehicles usually only have to worry about the former but for aircraft you need to have the extra thrust to move the added weight and on top of that you need the extra speed to stay airborne which means even more thrust again.
    1
  543. even when doing the efficiency calculations correctly, it still doesnt have a big affect on the outcome.
    1
  544. actually EV's are exceptionally good at towing due to their excessively high torque which peaks at 0rmp and greater. That's why one of the fastest production cars on the planet right now is the 4 door 2 ton luxury sedan Model S. As for power usage, hydrogen doesn't offer much more range but does off significant compromises in practicality, safety, performance and handling as well as cost of operation. Another thing to consider is that when you go uphill, you usually go downhill. Regenerative breaking can reclaim up to 97% of that energy. Infact here in Australia I can drive a Tesla 100km from Dinner Plain to Myrtleford and get there with more energy than I started with because its all downhill. the benefits of EV's are immense for somebody who travels less than 300km per day. Which is to say, the majority of the population.
    1
  545.  @aerotuc  No I have a model 3 SR+ (400km range) in Australia. I travel between states all the time, I completed a 5 hour drive with it the other day only needing to stop twice for 20 minutes a stop to charge. I can get comfortably between 380km and 400km of range. and thats the standard range model. That includes going up or down mountains and dealing with course chip country highways. As I said before, you usually always come back to the same spot. If you go up, most of the time you come back down again, you dont actually lose alot of eneryg by doing that. I can drive up to Mt Dangenong and drive back home again and my trip average will still be 130 wh/km.
    1
  546.  @aerotuc  400km isnt exactly a short drive. That represents around 4 hours of driving on a freeway. Most people don't travel more than 100km in a day, even when they're busy. In reality the average Australian doesnt travel over 400km in a single day more than once per year at best as for time. 20 minutes in an unacceptable waste of time? ok, lets put that into context shall we? The average person will travel, on average, 7 minutes out of their way to get fuel. 7 minutes there 7 minutes back. and spend 5 minutes refiling and paying for fuel. They will also, on average do this once per week. That means that is 16-17 hours per year spend attempting to get fuel as for an BEV, you plug that thing in when you get home and it charges when you're at home and you're not using it. You dont have to sit there and hold the plug. You dont have to drive to a fuel station to do it. You plug it in, have dinner enjoy your evening, go to sleep and get up in the morning to a full charge. That represents 0 hours of your time wasted charging in normal day to day. As I said before you might travel more than 400km in a day maybe once per year. I've only done it twice this year. I drove to Mt Hotham to do snowboarding. Then I drove back. I stopped twice on the way up. And once on the way back. 3 stops, each for 20 minutes. give or take 1 or 3 minutes. So thats 1 hour. Now if i were in a car i would have to stop once for fuel (I used to do this trip in my subaru) when we stopped for fuel I would also stop to get food and stretch my legs. This would take me around half an hour to fuel, park get food, get back on the road. once going up, once coming back. thats 1 hour. So time lost getting a charge compared to in a combustion car? oh well you guessed it! zero. even if it were an hour lost compared to driving an ICE car. thats 1 hour per year compared to 16-17 hours per year. Which one do you think is the more unacceptable waste of time?
    1
  547. 1.) correct. 2.) false. Hydrogen makes for poor trucks. real world examples prove this. only a few studies support your claim, all 3 of which neglect to account for the increased vehicle size and therefore weight and aerodynamic drag increase associated with containing more hydrogen. Because whilst its light weight. It takes up more than twice the volume per kWh that batteries do. Additionally, EV's now offer ranges between 400-600km. Infact, if you look at all the fuel cell car offerings, similar sized EV's have longer ranges without the sacrifice to boot and cabin spaces that hydrogen requires to store that much fuel. 3.) Correct. Fuel cell vehicle hydrogen tanks are only rated to be used for no more than 10 years. Infact, fuel cell vehicles come off the assembly line with an expiration date printed on the fuel cap. Althought this time frame seems monstrously large compared to how long the fuel cells are certified to last. only 150,000 miles. Yet another reason hydrogen isnt suitable for freight.
    1
  548. for the most part the popularity of EV's vs Hydrogen would depend on if your a first world country or if you're a developing country.
    1
  549. That’s just electrolysis with extra steps...
    1
  550. Thats what happens when you degrade education to participation awards and being told you're special and entitled for doing nothing but existing. they're a manifestation of the previous generations greed. For example here in Australia, my parents got free education even through to masters and doctorates. Not a cent. But I have to pay it at excessive prices. Guess who voted for that. Guess who's idea it was to give participation awards and change education from critical thinking and application of knowledge to cancel culture and gender and social studies. It wasn't their generation. They're grew into what previous generations taught them to be. I am apart of that generation but thankfully I was raised better. But I do take your point. I am a Engineering Consultant. However my services are increasingly in lower demand because the people I'm consulting think they already know everything. And the worst part is, it isn't my generation I consult. They're Gen X and Boomers. We grew into what they sculpted us to be.
    1
  551. That’s not going to work.
    1
  552.  @perryvallee3643  well I’m also a Mechanical Engineer, the reaction of water and soda releases hydrogen but VERY slowly, impractically slow. You’d be waiting most of a year to get enough hydrogen to fill a cars worth. Keeping in mind you need to compress and store it. Neither of which is easy to do with hydrogen without specialty equipment and materials.
    1
  553.  @perryvallee3643  which still wouldnt work
    1
  554. well heres the thing. GVM for electric trucks in the US is roughly 1 metric ton more, so around 37T. The truck itself does not have a big heavy diesel engine or transmission, that means its the 3-4T battery weight doesnt put it much over. The end result is that its carrying capacity is about 1 Ton less than a conventional diesel truck. In the EU however, the offset for Electric trucks is 2 metric tons, giving the semi and equivalent carrying capacity as a diesel truck. This is already been confirmed by Tesla even without the actual numbers being released. (which I believe is because they want to re-assess with their new 4680 Batteries). But we know from on road tests that the truck will be able to travel up to and just over 500 miles to a charge, thats around 9 hours of driving, We also know most developed countries like the EU and the US have laws limiting the length of time you can be driving a truck for. For the US thats 11 hours straight with a 30 minute break sometime before your 8th hour. Tesla have also released that the Semi on V3 superchargers will be able to recharge up to 80% of its battery in 30 minutes. That means you'd be able to drive up to your 8th hour, pull over at a charger, after 30 minutes you have enough charge to continue up to you 11th hour. Keeping in mind that the cost of electricity per mile will be around 1/10th the cost of fuel per mile, in addition even with Teslas current batteries the semi should be able to outlast its diesel counterparts and with the stated cycle numbers for the 4680 batteries (Tesla have always underquoted expected cycle lifes) it should last significantly more, (well over 20 million miles if they are to be believed, which as I've said, they've always underquoted their batteries cycle lifes).
    1
  555. Well no. Because of Japanese culture not A lot of people have garages and places to charge electric. So ultimately it makes more sense for them to get hydrogen. Additionally they can import the hydrogen instead of having to develop grid capacity within their relatively small land mass. What is good for Japan isn’t necessarily good for all countries, or even most countries.
    1