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