The Truth about Hydrogen

The Truth about Hydrogen


This episode of Real Engineering is brought
to you by Skillshare, home to over twenty thousand classes that could teach you a new
life skill. As the world grapples to eliminate fossil
fuels from our energy diet, electric cars have seen an incredible boom over the past
few years. Last year, over one million electric cars
were sold around the world. The number of Nissan Leafs, Teslas, and other
electric vehicles in circulation worldwide is now more than three million. And while there are many brands of electric
car to choose from, there are only two choices when it comes to powering electric vehicles:
fuel cells or batteries. Both produce electricity to drive electric
motors, eliminating the pollution and inefficiencies of the fossil fuel powered internal combustion
engine. Both hydrogen and electricity for batteries
can be produced from low­ or zero ­carbon sources, including renewable energy like solar
and wind, and therefore both are being pursued by car manufacturers and researchers as the
possible future of electric vehicles. However, a great debate is being waged by
supporters of each technology. Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology
“incredibly dumb,” claiming they’re more of a marketing ploy for automakers than
a long-term solution. In contrast, Japan has announced its intention
to become the world’s first hydrogen society, with the Japanese government and the auto
industry working together to introduce 160 hydrogen stations and 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles
by March 2021. So which is actually better? At first glance, hydrogen seems like an extremely
clever way to power a car. Compressed hydrogen has a specific energy
(aka energy per unit mass) of neary 40,000 watt hours per kilogram. Lithium ion batteries at best have a specific
energy of just 278 wh/kg, but most fall around 167 wh / kg. That’s 236 times as much energy per kg for
hydrogen. And because of its energy density and lightweight
nature, compressed hydrogen and fuel cells can power cars for extended ranges without
adding much weight, which as we saw in our last video is a gigantic road block for incorporating
the technology into the aviation industry. The designers of electric vehicles are caught
in a catch 22 with energy density and range. Each extra kilogram of battery weight to increase
range requires extra structural weight, heavier brakes, a higher torque motor, and in turn
more batteries to carry around this extra mass, This weight compounding limits how far
a battery powered vehicle can travel, until new technology can help reduce the weight
of the batteries. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, this weight
compounding is not an issue. Additionally, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle
can be refueled in under 5 minutes, where a battery powered electric vehicle, like the
Tesla model S, takes over 3 hours to fully recharge. When looking at the range and refuel times
hydrogen can offer, you can see why some car manufacturers are investing in this technology. On the face of it. Hydrogen is a clear winner, but it falls behind
when we start considering the end-to-end production process. While both batteries and hydrogen fuel cells
are both forms of electricity storage, the cost differ drastically. Fully charging a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kiloWatt
hour battery, costs between 10-12 dollars depending where you live. With a rated range of 500 kilometers, that’s
between 2 and 2.4 cent per kilometer. A great price. In a previous video, I visited a petrol station
that introduced a hydrogen pump, fed by its own on-site production facility. which used off-peak electricity to produce
hydrogen. The hydrogen from this station cost $85 dollars
to fill the 5 kg tank of the Toyota Mirais on site, which had a range of 480 kms. That’s 17.7 cent per kilometer, 8 times
the price. And here lies the problem, Hydrogen simply
requires more energy to produce. To understand the economic viability of hydrogen
let’s dig deeper into the production process. Before any hydrogen vehicle can hit the road,
you first need to produce the hydrogen, but hydrogen is not a readily available energy
source. Even though hydrogen is the most abundant
element in the universe, it is usually stored in water, hydrocarbons, such as methane, and
other organic matter. One of the challenges of using hydrogen as
an energy storage mechanism comes from being able to efficiently extract it from these
compounds. In the US, the majority of hydrogen is produced
through a process called steam reforming. Steam reforming is the process of combining
high-temperature steam with natural gas to extract hydrogen. While steam reforming is the most common method
of industrial hydrogen production, it requires a good deal of heat and is wildly inefficient. Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually
has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with. And while hydrogen fuel cells themselves don’t
produce pollution, this process does. So if we want to assume a future scenario
with as little carbon emission as possible, this method won’t cut it. Another method to produce hydrogen is electrolysis
– separating the hydrogen out of water using an electric current. While the electricity needed for this process
can be provided from renewable sources, it requires even more energy input than steam
reforming. You end up losing 30% of the energy from the
original energy put in from the renewables when you carry out electrolysis. So we are sitting at 70% energy efficiency
from hydrogen fuel cells if traditional electrolysis is used, before the car even starts its engine. A slightly more efficient method of producing
hydrogen is polymer exchange membrane electrolysis. Using this method, energy efficiencies can
reach up to 80%, with the added benefit of being produced on site, which we will get
to in a moment. But this is still a 20% loss of energy from
the original electricity from the renewables. Some experts say the efficiency of PEM electrolysis
is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, which is a great improvement, but still well short
of batteries charging efficiency at 99%. [1] A 19% difference in production costs doesn’t
explain the difference in costs yet, so where else are we losing energy. The next hurdle in getting hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles on the road is the transport and storage of the pure hydrogen. If we assume the hydrogen is produced on site,
like it was for this petrol station, then we eliminate one energy sink, but the cost
of storage is just as problematic. Hydrogen is extremely low density as a gas
and liquid, and so in order to achieve adequate energy density, we have to increase its actual
density. We can do this in two ways. We can compress the hydrogen to 790 times
atmospheric pressure, but that takes energy, about 13% of the total energy content of the
hydrogen itself. Alternatively we can turn hydrogen into liquid,
cryogenically. The advantage of hydrogen liquefaction is
that a cryogenic hydrogen tank is much lighter than a tank that can hold pressurized hydrogen. But again, hydrogen’s physical properties
means hydrogen is harder to liquefy than any other gas except helium. Hydrogen is liquified by reducing its temperature
to -253°C, with an efficiency loss of 40%, once you factor in the added weight of the
refrigerators and the refrigeration itself. So pressurisation is a better option at a
13% energy loss. Once the hydrogen is produced and compressed
to a liquid or gas, a viable hydrogen infrastructure requires that hydrogen be able to be delivered
from where it’s produced to the point of end-use, such as a vehicle refueling station. Where the hydrogen is produced can have a
big impact on the cost and best method of delivery. For example, a large, centrally located hydrogen
production facility can produce hydrogen at a lower cost because it is producing more,
but it costs more to deliver the hydrogen because the point of use is farther away. In comparison, distributed production facilities
produce hydrogen on site so delivery costs are relatively low, but the cost to produce
the hydrogen is likely to be higher because production volumes are less. While there are some small-scale, on-site
hydrogen production facilities being installed at refuelling pumps, such as the station mentioned
in the last hydrogen video. until this infrastructure is widespread, we
have to assume that the majority of hydrogen is being transported by truck or pipeline,
where we know that energy losses can range from 10% up to 40%. In comparison, assuming that the electricity
that we use for charging the batteries comes completely from renewable resources (like
solar or wind), we just have to consider the transmission losses in the grid. Using the United States grid as a reference
for typical grid losses, the average loss is only 5%. So in the best case scenario for hydrogen,
using the most efficient means of production and transport, we lose 20% of energy during
PEM electrolysis, and around 13% for compression and storage, amounting to a 33% loss. In other systems, this could be as much as
56%. For battery power, up to this point, we have
lost just 6% to the grid and recharging. Bringing our best case efficiency difference
to 27% and our worst case to 50%. The next stage of powering electric vehicles
is what is called the tank to wheel conversion efficiency. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, once the
hydrogen is in the tank, it must be re-converted into electric power. This is done via a fuel cell, which essentially
works like a PEM electrolyser, but in reverse. In a PEM fuel cell, hydrogen gas flows through
channels to the anode, where a catalyst causes the hydrogen molecules to separate into protons
and electrons. Once again the membrane only allows protons
to pass through it, while electrons flow through an external circuit to the cathode.This flow
of electrons is the electricity that is used to power the vehicles electric motors. If the fuel cell is powered with pure hydrogen,
it has the potential to be up to around 60% efficient, with most of the wasted energy
lost to heat. Like hydrogen fuel cells, batteries also come
with inefficiencies and energy losses. The grid provides AC current while the batteries
store the charge in DC. So to convert AC to DC, we need a charger. Using the Tesla Model S as an example, its
peak charger efficiency is around 92%. The Tesla model S runs on AC motors; therefore,
to convert the DC current supplied by the batteries into AC current, an inverter has
to be used with an efficiency of roughly 90%. Additionally, lithium ion batteries can lose
energy due to leakage. A good estimate for the charging efficiency
of a lithium ion battery is 90%. All of these factors combined lead to a total
efficiency of around 75%. However, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also
have some of these same inefficiencies. Any kind of electrolysis requires DC current,
and therefore, a rectifier will be required to convert the AC current from the grid to
DC. The conversion efficiency here is 92%. We also need to convert the DC current produced
by the fuel cell to AC to power the motor through an inverter with an efficiency of
90%. Finally, the efficiency of the motor must
be considered for both fuel cell and battery powered vehicles. Currently, this is around 90-95% for both
of them, which is amazing when you consider that internal combustion engines running on
petrol have an efficiency of only around 20-30%. If we add up all these inefficiencies and
compare current generation batteries, to the best and worst case scenario of current gen
hydrogen. We can see how they measure up. Even with the BEST case scenario. Not taking into account any transport due
to onsite production, and assuming very high electrolysis efficiency of 80%, and assuming
a HIGH fuel cell efficiency of 80%, hydrogen still comes out at less than half the efficiency. The worst case scenario is even worse off. So while you may be able to go further on
one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle,
the cost that is needed to deliver that one fill up would be astronomically higher compared
to charging batteries due to these energy losses and efficiencies. Based on our worst case scenario, we would
expect the cost per kilometre to be about 3.5 times greater for hydrogen, but as we
saw earlier it’s actual 8 times the price. So additional costs of production unrelated
to efficiencies are obviously at play. The cost of construction of the facility is
one and the profit the station will take from sale is another. For now, these inefficiencies and costs are
driving the market, where most investment and research is going into battery powered
electric vehicles. So which wins? Both are equally more green than internal
combustion engines, assuming equal renewable resources are used to power them. Fuel cells allow for fast fill up times and
long ranges; a big advantage. But battery powered vehicles might catch up
in range by the time there are enough hydrogen stations to ever make fuel cell vehicles viable. While fuel cells are efficient relative to
combustion engines, they are not as efficient as batteries. They may make more sense for operation disconnected
from the grid or as we saw in our last video using hydrogen for planes actually could make
a lot of sense, but once again that’s a topic for another video. For now, battery powered electric vehicles
seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. As battery-powered cars become more common,
we’re also starting to see self-driving cars become the norm. If the job of driver is slowly automated away
and consumers have a bunch of free time to read or watch online video, it may be wise
to use that opportunity to start learning new skills and Skillshare is great place to
do it. You could take this course on Photoshop for
beginners and learn a skill that has helped this channel immensely. You may have noticed that we introduced a
new thumbnail design the channel. This done in part because the channels views
we trending downwards for past 2 months, despite putting extra effort into production quality. We needed to rethink our strategy for branding,
and I felt the blueprints strength was that it was easily recognisable as mine, but they
all also look so similar it’s difficult to tell when there is a new video. So we got to work in photoshop to use the
strengths of blueprint design and build on its weaknesses and we can up with this transitioning
effect. Taking designs to reality, which I think fits
the theme channel perfectly. We saw immediate effects with the views on
our last video jumping 80% compared on our 2 month average. This is the power of illustration and you
can learn how to use software like Photoshop and Illustrator on Skillshare These days you can teach yourself pretty much
any skill online and Skillshare is a fantastic place to do it. With over 20,000 classes ranging from animation,
electronics, programming and much more. The classes follow a clear learning curve,
so you just click and watch without having to curate your own learning experience. A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month
for unlimited access to all courses, but the first 1000 people to sign up with this link
will get their first 2 months for free. So ask yourself right now. What skill have you been putting off learning. What project have you been dreaming of completing,
but you aren’t sure if you have the skills to do it. Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare
using the link below to get your first 2 months free. You have nothing to lose and a valuable life
skill to gain. As usual thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me, the
links to my twitter, facebook, discord server, subreddit and instagram pages are below. I’m about to do a Q&A on the subject matter
of this video on my instagram stories, so if you are interested in having some questions
answered the link for that is belo

100 thoughts on “The Truth about Hydrogen

  • Leaving out cost of making and replacing batteries.
    Answer: Use Hydrogen as an additive to gasoline. Electrolysis under the hood with the available car battery, pipe the hydrogen (ad Ozygen!) into the engine to be burned with the gasoline = minimum 33% gas mileage at worst. It does work, but is ridiculed since this is a home brew which works and no one gets a cent for it except the owner of the car.

    The ridiculous argument that this cannot work b/c it makes free energy is akin to say pulling the trigger on a gun makes free energy since the bullet has a lot more energy than the trigger pull. Its all about releasing potential energy.

  • this is so backward you can convert your car motor to burn hydrogen and produce it on demand with your car and get way more mileage

  • Costs, schmosts! It's inevitable. Plus, I don't understand how "battery efficiency" can be considered to be 99% IF the energy comes primarily from fossil fuels?????

  • I wish Bob Lazar was here he was our savior, now all there are, is Dublin nay sayers, everything can be disproven with enough financial backing.

  • A non trivial aspect of battery-powered vehicles is the fact that today, the best and perhaps only approach to the batteries used lies with lithium. Mining it and processing it has to be built into the equation. Obviously Li isn't a renewable source so eventually we'll run out of it and its cost will be much higher.

  • So in the UK we have 40% of the grid running on natural gas. Therefore it would be better to convert existing petrol vehicles to run on gas rather than charge electric cars or create hydrogen. There's a clue in the costs, choose between an expensive (up front) electric car with off peak electricity to charge it overnight, or maybe a hydrogen car which could be on a par with existing vehicles when mass produced then pay a high price per mile for the hydrogen to run it, or convert well known existing vehicles to run on gas (from a well established gas grid). Of course there's another factor that's not yet in the mix, Government derives huge revenues from taxes on petrol and diesel. If revenues from this source drop then expect taxes to be applied to the alternatives in order to replace that revenue. Most people will be driven by by the impact on their wallet.

  • This started to sound a bit like some tesla propaganda material lol

    What seemed to be "conveniently" omitted with the electric car is that large scale use of EVs means the grid generates much more power 24/7/365 as it never knows when people will charge their cars

    This energy isnt "stored" either, and if they tried to store it the cost of doing so would be HUGE

    So the "green" alternative is mostly going to be powered coal and gas power plants, the need for which will INCREASE if too many people start using EVs, not to mention many countries will also need to update their ageing national grids too which would have a HUGE carbon footprint as too would the coal and gas power plants sending the extra electricity through those new shiny grids 24/7/365

    So what was that you said about the "wider picture"? And how come you ONLY looked at the wider picture for the hydrogen fuelled vehicle?

    Is the cheque from Musk in the bank yet? 🙂

  • Very good video. However, you should pay a closer attention to the battery leakage problem. If you use your vehicle every day then this is adequately mentioned in this video. But, if you have prolonged periods in which you do not use your vehicle then the fuel cell car becomes a winner. Good mentioning about airplanes, drones and future flying cars. Also, remember than fuel cells were used in Apollo missions. Another problem is recycling the batteries. I can see that both technologies are pretty good when hydrogen is produced from water and especially on-site.

  • Storing hydrogen isn't easy. No matter how well sealed, thick the tanks are or what they are made of they leak hydrogen. That's because hydrogen atoms are small and go through materials that liquids and other gases can't.

  • Hydrogen sucks. Always has, always will. Well, it's not hydrogen's fault, it just has a poor thermodynamic efficiency. Blame the second law of thermodynamics, if you will, and then move on, because if you go up against the second law, the second law always wins. 🙂

  • Considering its more abundant, & a cleaner fuel,…its a no brainer humans should be using hydrogen in place of fossil & nuclear, at least until until zero point energy is released from black project thieves.

  • So why are the Japanese switching? You must realize that they know all about what you're saying in this video, and have considered all the angles. If they STILL think it's a good idea to go ahead with production, then they must know something you don't know or haven't taken into consideration here. I would suspect that a large part is due to the cost of crude/gasoline imports/production etc. When have you known the Japanese tech sector to not have a clue about their decisions?

  • If Elon thinks fuel cells are "fool cells" when compared to batteries, then batteries are foolish when compared to super-capacitors. Capacitors will rule the future if they aren't suppressed like the NiMH battery was.

  • no one takes into account that batteries are not forever, if you add the cost of changing batteries every unknown cycles then everything changes

  • Skill share is shit. Also petrol is way more green than mining ore for tesla batteries . Oil rigs are already there

  • But have you considered manufacturer environmental damage such as ion lithium batteries the chemical compounds are made of then the lifespan of that battery an ion lithium batteries are not recyclable and my next question how long does an ion battery last to a hydrogen cell and the environmental damage of manufactory of that set hydrogen cell

  • The problem here is Shell’s prices, not the H2 cars.
    In Japan the cost of 5kg is around U$D40 and Toyota promised will be US$10 in a few years. It seems Shell is getting a lot of profit or they don’t have the technology of Japan to make it cheaper.
    The Toyota Mirai runs 650km/5kg of H2 so the calculation is totally wrong.

  • The truth about hydrogen is…scientists only ever cover the science…never the practical!
    After all, VHS won over BETA!

  • Umm 99% cycle efficiency? Try 80-90%.
    And no mention of the 300-500 cycle life on the batteries and then straight into landfill.
    Some people will be buying new batteries every two years.

  • How much the battery cost ? Just in case i need to replace it.. the lost in capacity of battery after year or two is at least 10%

  • Electric cars burn more carbon than a gas car. HOW DO YOU THINK WE MINE AND TRANSPORT THE MATERIALS? DIESEL TRACTORS!!! SLAVE CHILDREN are used to mine the ore. THIS is where YOU are going with CIVILIZATION. CHILDREN in SLAVE MINES. What an A$$HOLE!

  • AVERAGE FUEL TANK 80 KG AVERAGE BATTERY WEIGHT IN ELECTRIC CAR 400 KG, 400 / 80 = 5 x 33% efficiency = 165 % or WITH EQUAL WEIGHT LOAD IN A CAR YOU GO 65 % FURTHER WITH HYDROGEN + IT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY PERFECT, BATTERY RECYCLING IS A MONSTER AND YOU DID NOT SEE THAT WHEN YOU SAID 2 CENTS AGAINST 17 CENT . IT IS WRONGLY PRESENTED BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOW THERE IS THE HIGH COST OF REPLACING THE BATTERY BANK , YOU MISS THAT TRAIN, JAPANESE GOVERNMENT ARE A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE, YOU HAVE THINKING WITH OTHER LONELY PEOPLE CALCULATION, ALMOST BORING BE CAREFUL ME FRIEND ELECTRIC WITH THE EXTRA PURCHASES OF BATTERY AND RECYCLING ARE MORE EXPENSIVE TO THE PLANET , GENERALLY REALY LIKE YOU BUT THIS TIME … BIG MISTAKES .OR YOU GOT PAID TO SAY THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY ?

  • Did you ever consider that wind and solar are vastly stupid and waste a lot of land. With nuclear they would have unlimited electricity for producing hydrogen. They could easily produce it at the same plant with a molten salt reactor that produces more fuel than it uses; elimnating ac/dc conversion inefficancys. Then we don't have to expand the grid and there will be more trees and wildlife. You should eliminate some of those ac/dc conversion inefficancys for Hydrogen. If we were to truly go in on hydrogen on a massive scale that is how it should be produced in an intelligent society. Straight DC.

  • I appreciate your primary assumption of using 100% renewable sources in your analysis of efficiency, however practically speaking, renewable sources are demonstrably unreliable and realistically incomparable in their energy density to fossil-based fuel sources such as coal, oil and natural gas which are the primary sources of electrical generation. Transitioning to electrically powered vehicles only shifts the source and amount of pollution from fossil-fueled vehicles to fossil-fired power plants, but does nothing to actually reduce or eliminate overall carbon emissions.

  • hydrogen is already dinosaur technology compared to what your government can create. Instead of trying to make hydrogen work, overthrow your government. Torture your masters and learn their secrets, and advance society in a way that brings peace and prosperity to the world. Break free from your chains! You are all slaves.

  • you forgot to mention one important factor. and that´s what i think japan is betting on with their push for hydrogen. a fusion power plant can produce hydrogen almost for nothing so the cost will almost be entirely in the transport. of course this will have implications for battery cars too but i doubt the recharge price will differ nearly as much as it does now. the major difference then will be as you pointed out the energy density and on that front batteries probably will never come even close. with lithium we´re actually at physical limits and there´s really no way of improve on that in any menaingful way. of course there could be a major breakthrough, a bolt from the blue that no one even thought of. but such events are extremel unlikely. so with batteries that can´t really be improved. a hydrogen economy would be the better choice.
    so while discussing hydrogen have you considered making a video on the cryoplane? would be a perfect match for your channel and i´d love to see your take on it .

  • The equation presented here is good, but while the factors of charging time and range (translating to frequency of recharge required) are mentioned, they are not included in the equation. This is probably due to the difficulty putting a number on the two concepts, but I would suggest they are both very real and very relevant factors that should have a place in the equation. Time is money, and human resources are presumed a requirement to complete the refueling task, and there is the loss of use of the machine while it is refueling. A factor not mentioned in the video is the maintenance aspect of battery-electric versus hydrogen-electric. While it is true that both technologies are evolving at a prodigous rate, the typical current lifespan of a lithium polymer vehicle battery solution is around 7 years. At that point the entire battery must be replaced at a not-insignificant cost. Is there a similar analogue to the Hydrogen-electric model's fuel cell? Which one has the longer lifespan, and which one is more expensive to replace, given the cost-to-lifespan ratio?

  • The CSIRO developed a safe hydrogen production tech. Our, moronic, government is paying no attention to it. Electric cars, as the Germans explained, are a scam. As are 15 cent (Au) shopping bags.

  • Making it too hard—keep your internal combustion engine, Fill the gas tank with water, pump it to an alternator/generator that electrocutes the water separating the hydrogen that is then sent to the fuel injectors. Oh, and purified water will drip from the exhaust to help the roadside flowers grow 🙂

  • either way the infrastructure is there to transport hydrogen. Its cheaper to produce than petrol and more efficient. Batteries are made at a huge cost to the environment and what is the life span of a battery? Both are viable but hydrogen i believe is the smarter environmental answer.

  • This is comparing apples to bananas and expecting pineapples in the result.
    Hydrogen is the only viable option unless you wish to dig out every darn rare earth metal from the planet and reducing many regions to rubble in the process.
    The perception of "losses" is in my opinion lost as if you do nothing then you have lost nor gained anything. This is in fact a "net gain" by processing it.

    Also compare lifetime of a battery vs. lifetime of hydrogen. It's a "no brainer".

  • Hi I just drove a friends Tesla about 275 mile back from
    A trip. He was staying. With the supercharging stations we fill up one once from about 10% full to 90% full and it only took about 15 minutes ,not the 3hours you said in video . ( correction 3hrs home charging time vs hydrogen refuel at home …eh ever?). With lots of charging stations it’s like only using one brand of gasoline , not a big deal. Good analysis otherwise .
    The high cost to produce hydrogen is crazy as a fuel source, much better to simply use the propane or lpg or other natural gas you are converting to hydrogen directly in normal combustion engine. We already know how to do this right now , in fact we have been doing it for over 40yrs for regular cars.simple cheap and clean as burning propane type products produced 90% water and is so clean up can run it in a forklift inside a building safely!
    Why not do a comparison of thIs to electric power?
    Cheers Warren

  • Nothing can replace gasoline and diesel engines, NOTHING. all these ideas are Bullshit, electric cars are the biggest fraud of the century.

  • the best solution to the higher cost of gasoline is to get a good paying job, get a V8 car fill it up. drive as much as you want and don't bother with this shit. has anybody ever seen a well off rich person care about gas prices or what comes out of their cars exhaust pipe? if they do then they are lying to you :), or they are going to make more money through that ,the solution is easy , work hard ,make more money and spend it.

  • I listen to this video and there are a lot of assumptions being made and statements that just aren't true at the moment 95% of our energy for electricity comes from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas and only 5% of the United States energy comes from renewable sources uch as wind and solar so subtract the idea that charging cars by renewable sources out of the equation and only compare hydrogen to fossil fuel powered electricity. What are the comparisons between the two not between hydrogen and the loss of energy and renewable sources and the loss of energy because renewable sources are not what's recharging a car's battery it's coal and natural gas.

  • Tiny problem here … lithium batteries are really really expensive, very bad for environment and hazardous when on fire …

  • Battery power is a scam and incredibly bad for the environment, hydrogen and nuclear is the future and are clean!!! 👌👈

  • It never ceases to amaze me how the very same people who remained SILENT during the manufacture of 7 billion laptops and 10 billion smartphones… SUDDENLY come out out of the woodwork as lithium mining expert environmentalists (expressing their opinion on an iPhone)… as soon as Tesla make 500,000 cars. Does it not strike you as STRANGE?!?

  • So you are telling me that charging batteries more often due to their low range, doesnt add to their inefficiency? Also batteries dont always remain constantly efficient in their capacity, over time.
    Additionally, where do you think the power for charging car batteries comes from? 🤔

  • Maybe investigate the 240 patents by the late Stanley Myers method to split water with resonance and other technologies.

    Does burning H2 create CO2?

  • The energy required to mine the rare earth metals in the batteries, the manufacture and later disposal of the batteries? A very poor presentation by using half-truths and misinformation. Manufacture of solar panels and wind farms? Get real. Terrible and irrelevant dribble.

  • Making and explaining the videos about engineering and technology and at the same time showing supercharging station and saying the charging time at home it contradicting and seems biased.

  • In 1890 1/3 of all cars were electric with the other third being steam powered so beat that. Think about it why no steam car using electric power source.
    Nuclear and urine batteries are better than lithium in yield.

  • Most eco-muppets choose to ignore or just through sheer ignorance is the colossial enviromental damage. To get lithiumn batteries, huge opencast salt water evaportion mines in Chile and Australia are produced at the great expense of local water supplies and local indiginious people are displaced because there is no water for daily life. Cobalt is also required in huge amounts which is found in large opencast mines in Congo where child exploitation takes place as of a result. The country is being ravaged and Tesla has bought one of these mines. Oh the hypocrisy. Lets not forget the intensive refining process using corrosive materials to make batteries that is produced and shipped around the globe to be put in some dull Toyota.
    Hydrogen has to be the way forward despite its problems but what they dont tell you about batteries is that you loose 30% of power after five years and you cannot recycle those batteries. Enviromental – my arse!!!

  • The solution is simple. Develop an emissions neutral synthetic fuel. We already use synthetic oils… Both ethanol and LPG are cleaner than mineral oil fuels.

  • What about the possibility of fuel cells which use a mix of fuels, i.e., methane, propane, octane (gasoline), and hydrogen? This would be a good transition from gasoline combustion engines.

  • Mile for mile distance travelled energy output, divided by energy input. The bicycle is the worlds most efficient form of transport

  • Why do you hear a crackling boom when lightning charges through the water of a rainstorm? The water is igniting from the high voltage of the lightning bolt which brings me to instant electrolysis. The World's steam engines, equipped with lightning bolt spark plugs would take over from the pure pressure of the expanding steam once it warms up. Capeesh?

  • This video is Government propaganda
    Where will all this lithium come from?? The salt flats in Bulgaria?? they don't want it dug up as it will destroy the landscape….. So where is the lithium going to come from? and how many poor little fishies have to die to get the stuff??

    BS video!

  • This video erroneously assumes the batteries are charged via solar or wind, when in reality 80%+ of electric vehicles are charged with electricity that originates from coal or natural gas fueled plants. The percent is even higher in the US. Hydrogen is likely the better choice when a realistic assessment of where the electricity actually comes from instead of where it would ideally come from. Also keep in mind that Elon Musk may have called hydrogen "stupid" because in addition to Tesla, he also owns the largest solar panel company in the US.

  • Why convert back to electricity? Hydrogen is a gas. Internal combustion engines run a gas/air mixture. Why re-event the wheel? Convert present gas burning engines to hydrogen gas. Exchange present petrol tanks with pressurized fuel tanks and run engines on straight hydrogen. Easy peasy! Right!

  • Stopped at 6-mins.. for starters Toyota leads HEV, by far, the evolution from Gas/Electric will shift to Electric/H2, the cost benefit compare from single (US) station is laughable.. but, for fun, early FAX Machines and Microwave Ovens were expensive too. Notes efficiency transfer loss, and pollution, of H2 but no mention of same for Electric? Did not bother to wait and see if any comment related decay.. batteries lose stored power over time.. H2 doesn't.. and crucially; not about legacy commercial power distribution but fully self-contained residential capture and charge.. "Real Engineering".. ._.

  • Today the best choice is plugin-hybrid internal combustion engines! They are efficent and you are not limited to range. You are flexible and if you have solar panel you can charge them at home. Smaller battery means also less saftey problem compare to fully electric cars. All in all the best choice is now plug in Hybrid like Hyundai Ioniq! It consume 1.2 liter in 100 km, basically it has 60 km electric range when it is fully charged and you can still go to anyplace with 900 km range!

  • Yes and add oxygen boys and girls and you get water…wow add water to soft soil and you get mud. Gee what can't Hydrogen do …ahh well sing I'd guess…

  • What is ignored here is the opportunity to distribute other manufactured renewable fuels such as Butanol and the use of hybrid vehicle designs. Although people will immediately point out that Butanol is a hydrocarbon, if produced from renewable sources the right way to consider this is that the carbon is ‘borrowed’ for the fuel structure. The same could be said for Methanol, and others, but Butanol has properties similar to petrol (gasoline) which make a transition to high proportions of Butanol more acceptable and gives an easier pathway towards renewable transport.

    If a fuel like Butanol is used in hybrid vehicles, you have all the advantages of electric vehicles in terms of performance, recovering braking energy and the ability to go electric for short journeys in cities, but far less weight and embedded carbon from manufacturing. The conundrum of added range in electric only vehicles where range adds weight which in turn adds weight and cost to the drive, braking, etc., is avoided in a hybrid vehicle. Of course you may be able to plug in a hybrid to charge the limited range batteries, but generally refuelling is the same as it is for a conventional vehicle using existing infrastructure with refuelling times that even the wildest claims for electric charging cannot meet; current hybrids achieve at least 4.7 L/100km (50 MPG-US) and a small 20L tank is filled in far less than 1 minute giving 425km+ range – many hybrids achieve better efficiency than this.

    With a Butanol/Gasoline mixture having an energy density of ~30 MJ/L, the specific energy consumption at 4.7 L/100km equates to ~0.390 kWh/km, which is approximately twice that of good electric only vehicles, although the waste heat may be partially useful for cabin heating in cold climates. The debate should be around the conversion efficiency from renewable sources to the vehicle, combined with the manufacturing embedded carbon and the embedded carbon involved in developing new infrastructure (charging points, network reinforcement, etc.). The carbon released from the butanol is part of a short carbon cycle when produced from renewable sources.

  • Hydrogen Fuel is a great idea… but do NOT be so naive! The amount of oxygen used to create the chemical reaction with hydrogen would be catastrophic to earths ozone.

    Hydrogen Fuel is OLD technology and idiots are still trying to develop it thinking that it's still a 'GREAT' idea which it is not!

    Do your research
    https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009014

    there are thousands of more articles researching this

    If you want clean energy without catastrophic penalties then start looking at harnessing the power of the thing that comes up every morning..

  • you're assuming hydrogen extraction technology does not improve.
    Did you calculate the lithium mining process for batteries?

  • I’m sure these inefficiencies will decrease over time, with constant innovation. Everything is clunky early on.

  • this would be a good solution for Planes, Ships, and other forms of transportations that are not feasible for battery, they emit huge amounts of emission. Powerplants too, replace coal&natural gas

  • I thought you were gonna say one obvious factor to minimize battery charging time and prices, but you didn't make the connection: while you are in a hotel, work, meeting etc, tell your self driving car to find a spot to refuel, and please come back in time for lunch. Compared to the fast fcv refueling, this is even faster = no time waiting at all.

  • Liked the video, Look a only one part total equations of skews the results. 1.The cost of production of lithium batteries to fuel cells. 2. What is the life expectancy of each lithium batteries and fuel cells. 3. What is the impact to the environment in disposal of lithium batteries and fuel cells. Observation. I enjoyed the fact of how it would take three hours to recharge a lithium battery with no impact to cost or efficiency.

  • I have a feeling that by the time we figured out whether Hydrogen or electric cars are better, we will have a new technology that will kill them both 😀

  • Hydrogen gas can be produced , by burning natural carbon growth producing natural carbon dioxide ,wile having the best energy production plant known to mankind, that converts carbon dioxide to Oxygen better ,than any energy production plant known to mankind.
    The hemp plant seed oil ,can be used the same way as all crude oil with three changes.
    It produces natural carbon dioxide not monoxide poison, it can be used to produce environmentally friendly plastics ,that fish, and animals can eat. It also can be used as oil ,wile transported by seed with no environmentally dangerous spills.

    First you start with desalination floating platforms , that use oceans energy to produce electromagnetic desalination,and pumping clean water thousands of miles. With round dome covered,platforms, with grated walkways ,that channel waves to pinwheel generators under the walkways. With more pinwheel generators under the platforms that capture oceans energy of ebb ,and flow of the oceans tides. Wile are anchored through the center ,with the clean water pumped up through the center of the dome ,to detachable firehose on swivel,that carry’s water to hardline on land. My name is Kendon Erland Curtis. This is my God given concept, I received in A God given Dream.

    I would like to Quote the Great Albert Einstein ,Quote “ Raise new Questions, explore new possibilities, Regard old problems from a new angle “.

    The clean water can be pumped to in ground desert homes ,cooled by conducting cooling systems , with no ozone damage.

    The irrigation water systems are to grow hemp seed oil. The carbines harvest the seed oil wile defoliated ,the plant,with the foliage followed by herd animals. Trapping the carbon in the soil. The stalk can be bailed ,for building materials, clothing, and burned to produce electricity wile capturing the hydrogen gas for compressed gas. Thereby solving the age old problem ,of creating hydrogen gas when it takes x amount of energy to produce x amount of energy . With the best solar panels known to mankind the hemp plant. With 90% better carbon dioxide conversion rate ,than any energy production plant known to mankind.
    My father was A geologist.
    Think deforestation ,as A huge part of the equation. We deforested most of the world, before the Americas where a glimmer in the eye of a pilgrim.

    Old growth forests burned continuously throughout our evolution . However even though beetle, blight, disease, and droughts often caused by solar flares burned continuously, and created huge amounts of carbon dioxide. It was not monoxide poison. The same old growth forests that burned also converted carbon dioxide to Oxygen.
    I believe this is what my God given Dream is capable of.

    1- energy from oceans in the best use to create water desalination.with the electromagnetic process.

    2- clean water, in fact with the electromagnetic process cleaner than water has been for thousands of years.

    3-in ground desert homes, cooled by conducting cooling systems ,with no ozone damage useing pre irrigation water.

    4-electricity from burning the stalk left over from building materials, clothing, and other fiber products. In the location with the hemp plant, the best carbon dioxide conversion rate plant ,known to mankind.

    5- Capturing the hydrogen gas wile burning the stalk for electricity, scrubbing the smoke ,capturing the hydrogen gas ,for compressed gas thereby solving the age old problem ,of producing hydrogen ,when it takes x amount of energy ,to produce x amount of energy. With the best solar panels known to mankind the hemp plant.

    6- seed oil that can be used exactly like crude oil ,with three major differences. One it produces natural carbon dioxide when burned. Two the seed can be transported worldwide without environmentally dangerous spills. Three all fish , and animals can eat it, and become healthier.

    7- environmentally friendly plastics can be produced ,with the hemp seed oil. With 30 million tons of plastic dumped into the oceans each year .all can be eaten by fish, and the microorganisms, that are the bottom of the oceans food chain.
    Our recycling facilities can separate the plastic ,for winter fodder for animals in the desert farms.

    My name is Kendon Erland Curtis I am not A Democrat ,nor am I a republican. I am A conservative Constitutionalist. I realize how naive this sounds ,however I was instructed to share the information ,with the world. It is my wish,and belief ,that the energy companies are best suited to produce the God given Dream. I respectfully ask ,that you seek out my family in Conyers Georgia America to give them ,A small percentage ,of the gross profits of the concept produced. Thank you , and God bless.

  • Big claims about Hydrogen from Oil Sands that both, leave the CO2 in the ground AND costs 20% of the current method of producing Hydrogen from NatGas, are being made as a real company gets to near industrial scale production. I would be very interested on seeing two things: 1: you educated opinion on whether this is a real technology and 2: to see you re-run your numbers for this break through see: https://www.partisanissues.com/2019/08/solved-super-cheap-hydrogen-produced-without-co2-using-oil-will-change-the-world/ Thanks

  • I love how he spends all this time talking about the manufacturing, storing and distribution of hydrogen, but says nothing about the mining, shipping and manufacturing of lithium batteries. Add that into the mix and they both suck!

  • If you're comparing re-fueling a Hydrogen car from a hydrogen station, then you should compare it to refueling a Tesla from a supercharger i.e. Takes 15 mins to get to 80-90% from zero% which is all you need, not "3 hours". I've had a Tesla for a whole year and done 54,000km on it, and never needed to charger over 50 mins. The convenience of charging at home makes this a no brainer versus having to go to a station.

  • Hello team. Thank you for your nice video.
    I don't think that this comparison you've just did was accurate regarding the real and bigger issues than efficiency.
    There is a big difference in CO2 consumption and destruction of land producing fuel cells compared to batteries. Therefore I would be very happy that you make an evaluation there too. Compare it between the mayor cars (fossil/batterie/hydrogen).
    You will find out that the cars using fossil fuels are "better" for the environment until 100 k Km.
    Continue your good work!

  • Got ya. How much NOx is produced in comparison to present petrol burning engines. The other thing that brothers me is that there is no problem burning propane and CGN instead of petrol. I mean these must produce much higher levels of hydrocarbons then hydrogen would ever do.

  • If you use renewable energy sources such as solar panels to aid the electrolysis process, do you really care all that much about energy losses? Its energy that would otherwise be lost anyway to the ground. Essentially you would have fusion powered electrolysis… just that the nuclear reaction is taking place ~8 light minutes away and the collection is done here instead of at the source. Maybe I am missing something though.

  • Why not just use gasoline? The infrastructure and delivery system already exists. The fuel is relatively cheap and abundant. Ill stick with my gas vehicle.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *