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

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Hydrogen wins by all measures other than cost to produce. But hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so how could it really cost that much? It doesn't! It's free with solar!

    So why don't we stop wasting investment on dirty battery tech and move that money into reducing the cost to produce hydrogen? The answer is it would remove the Big Techs ability control us and it would eliminate the need for rare earth medals and the wars to get them. No more military industrial complex.

    Metal Hydrides can store low pressure hydrogen that allows individuals to produce their own hydrogen and store it at home all year long. This is not new. It's just starved of research money.

  2. Great summary of the different challenges of hydrogen and lithium-ion technology. But you are forgetting one advantage for hydrogen: If a user creates the hydrogen at home through electrolysis with e.g. solar power, the extra energy produced can be used to supply warming to the user’s home.

  3. Amount of carbon and pollution emitted to produce batteries for an e-car exceeds those an ordinary diesel car will produce over whole its lifespan. 100%

  4. Bro, you present challenges and not solutions, because at the end of the day, the people that pay your bills don't want to use hydrogen combustion engines. Sure it needs electricity, and we can produce plenty for free. you guys need to get a grip, we are not stupid. We know that if hydrogen fuel cells are used, everyone needs to buy a new car, while using hydrogen as a combustible only requires an inexpensive retrofit. Any questions?

  5. Batteries lose capacity over time. Lithium mining is really really bad for the environment. Batteries lose usable capacity in extreme cold and extreme heat. This is clearly a biased review. My money is on the Japanese AKA Toyota. When more people charge ,everyone on the planet,
    I wonder how the electrical grid will hold up. There's still so many unanswered questions, like how much 🔋 production can continue, until supplies dwindle and eventually dry up. There's also the problem of China owning half the lithium production, not a very comforting thought. China isin't the kind of country you want controlling supply like that. Either way the future looks a whole lot brighter without oil consumption and hopefully a greener planet with endless possibilities.

  6. The most important argument is that you CAN'T store electric energy but you can store hydrogen. And if we want to have all renewable energy there will be power peaks and lows so we need a way to store energy ( for example in hydrogen).

  7. It seems to me that you should take a view on world wide energy production in the more distant future. Fot instance, you did not take into account that electricity on the grid is not stored, but transported straight from the production facilities. As electricity demand fluctuates in time (daily, weekly and yearly), production facilities for electricity have more production capacity than the average demand. That goes even for present-day traditional or nuclear power plants, but especially for wind and solar energy parks (as wind and sunshine presence do many times not coincide with demand). This surplus production capacity could better be used be used to store the produced energy in batteries or hydrogen. By doing this, production facilities would become more efficient, reducing the overall costs of energy production. It seems to me that hydrogen is a much more flexible storage facility than batteries. It allows for instance production of solar energy in e.g. the Sahara or the desert of Australia and transportation of this stored energy in ships, much like oil and gas nowadays. To me it seems that batteries are not suitable for such type of energy transportation.

  8. lithium is going to get extinct, what then?..they r still not ready …h2 anytime…much better for environment from birth till death

  9. Very good video, very well documented – I’m interested in “small hydrogen stations”
    Do you have any numbers?

  10. Good Video however I think the issue is that you are missing the problem of the impact on climate from building LiPo batteries. It is believed the production of LiPo Batteries for a Tesla is the same as driving a gasoline powered car for 100,000km. Taking that pollution into consideration, pivoting research into Hydrogen to bring down the production cost is a better alternative to electric powered cars overall.

  11. I produced hydrogen in my garage cause I believed all shit on YouTube.
    I stopped cause to split water molecules takes way way too much electric energy.

  12. I would personally say hydrogen wins, it isnt physically possible fo batteries to catch up with hydrogen in terms of energy density which means the only way to improve their range is to make them physically larger, between that an the refill time and potential to convert old preexisting internal combustion engines to hydrogen it really is a no brainer if you assume we live in a world where most of our power comes from nuclear and hydroelectric sources and therefore theres really no need to be concerned with grid side efficiencies apart from cost

  13. For a commercial car or a truck the charging time is expensive. During charging the vehicle does not "earn" money.
    A truck would also loose a lot of space just for the batteries which results less good could be transported.

    Next question is how long will be the area that an electrical car needs during charging on a commercial place be for free. Especially in cities like Tokio, London or Munich where a square meter of ground is very expensive.
    This might explain why in Japan they are going with hydrogen. Ground is there too expensive to be wasted for a car being charged with electricity.

  14. There’s much talk about how green are the ways we produce the energy. But the real question is how bad are the batteries after they end their life. Are these recyclable?

  15. You don't take into account the fact that prices for the production of hydrogen can be lowered by a lot! First of all if hydrogen production is done on a bigger scale, costs will go down for the production (and hydrogen can be produced at a more efficient scale), second if hydrogen is produced using surplus energy (so energy provided by solar panels and wind turbines etc on times when there is more energy produced then consumed, this happens daily, and because we can't use the energy and it can't be stored, it's just not used, so the 'loss' of energy do to less efficiency doesn't matter, because the energy would be lost any ways), then you can produce hydrogen relatively cheap, third if you sell the byproducts of the production of hydrogen (so mostly the oxygen and heat) you can cut down on costs a lot and you can use the heat to provide heating to homes or factories etc, forth you only use PEMFC to convert energy, but you can also use ICE (which means less costs of the motor and you don't pure hydrogen, you could also use methanol or ammonia), SOFC or MCFC, which are more efficient and work on lower temperatures and also don't need pure hydrogen

  16. The answer to remarks about the low efficiency with hydrogen is that it actually isn't even that low, gasoline and diesel have an even lower efficiency (hydrogen is 3 times as efficient as gasoline for the same amount of fuel), it's just because we already use gasoline and diesel that nobody thinks about the fact that those might not be very efficient at all. The second part to the answer is that hydrogen is an energy carrier not and energy source! Every time you convert energy (from source to carrier, from carrier to storage, etc) you loss energy, that is the case with every system, however because you only have to convert electricity from a battery to energy, you don't lose much energy because you only need to convert it once. Often people don't take into account the fact that you lose energy while charging and when the energy is stored in the battery and you don't use the battery (especially for a long period of time). So because you have 'make' hydrogen (using energy), then transport and store hydrogen, then convert it into a FC then use the energy, you lose more energy indeed, but the energy you do use is actually way more efficient, which is actually better for the power etc of the vehicle. Also energy is not really the problem, in theory we can get more than enough energy by solar panels and wind turbines, especially when you put them in the dessert, the bigger problem is the fact that you can't store al the energy the solar panels produce, however if you would use that energy immediately to produce hydrogen, a big part of the low efficiency problem of hydrogen would be quickly solved

  17. Cost of produce ? If i was an engineer i would do it in another way, hydrogen can be made instant and with any amount at very low cost and storage would be just be water, well it is only a theory i have, im not an engineer….

  18. You forget to add $31.50 for the waiting time to
    charge.  Giving minimum
    wage is $10.50 and battery replacement down the line. You also have to add the
    wasted energy to carry the weight of the battery when travel.

  19. Why don't we use our existing natural gas infrastructure to
    distribute hydrogen gas.  Hydrogen can be
    use to burn for cooking food.  We won't
    have to worry about night time or rainy day. We can pipe hydrogen to everyone

  20. Engineering and politics go hand in hand. You didn't mention the cobalt mining by children in 3rd world locations, then place that next to the power efficiency…

  21. "How Dare You!" What about the O2! You'll eventually alter the percentage O2 in the atmosphere and undoubtedly cause Enhanced Global Burning (EGB). I can see a day in the not too distant future when the World will suffer from Global Apollo One Syndrome (GAOS). "How Dare You!"

  22. Why are you including the inefficiencies of hydrogen production for the hydrogen vehicle, but not the inefficiencies of electricity production for the electric vehicle? Coal plants are only 45% efficient – at best – and 90% of the electricity for Indiana'a electric vehicles come from coal. At night, when most people are charging "off peak" and when the plants are running at lower output and therefore lower efficiency (~35%) the scenario is even worse.

  23. I favor hydrogen because if I'm driving across country I don't want to wait for an hour or more for my car to fill up. I want to pump it full of juice, use the men's room, and hit the road.

  24. Supposedly some engineers have sent people on the Moon and planning to do so on The Planet Mars. Well they engineers are responsible for huge chemical process where our planet Earth is getting closer to look like Moon and Mars. No water H2O no Oceans no lakes and rivers. No life as we know it. Fossil fuel and renewable fuels energy works in closed cycle of our planet. In short old way is better cleaner option. Non radioactive self cleaning self healing if not to abused.

  25. this video is better if you calculate the energy needed to recycle the battery (mostly toxic chemical compounds) in both EV and FCV

  26. Interesting to note the morality of technology and how transitioning into new fields is defined by cost. Not by ethics.

  27. A lot of comments point to Lithium being expensive to extract and the carbon footprint of products ing batteries for electric cars. First point but I work in a company that uses lot of Lithium batteries in it's products and when they come to the end of their useful life we have to store them and have them collected to have the Lithium extracted to be re-used to make more batteries. Another point is that all vehicle batteries use hundreds of small cells to make up their capacity. Usually a few fail rendering a loss in capacity but there are specialist companies that can fix the pack by replacing the faulty cells and rebalancing the pack so a complete battery is not required to be purchased.
    Hydrogen fuel cell technology has its place I.e. space crafts, eventual colonies on the Moon and Mars where ice water has been detected and also aeroplanes and flying cars which prototypes are starting to appear but as far as cars are concerned, you could see petrol stations being replaced by hydrogen stations along with the costs of infrastructure, production costs and of course the opportunity for governments to tax the hydrogen like they do with petrol and diesel.
    New battery technology is being developed all the time so, as mentioned in the video, will probably catch up with the range advantages of hydrogen fuel cell cars.

  28. I think a huge thing that hasn't been considered in this video, is that these companies will most likely build these hydrogen plants, inland and use fresh water. Which means the world's aquifers ( that most of us rely on ) are further at risk of depletion.

    These plants, will need to extract hydrogen from salt water, not fresh water…

  29. I don't hate both variants (Fuel cell and fully electric). My personal problem is that it needs one general plug-in for car charging stations.
    The EU has regulations for that but I am not sure if that is the same case for other countries.

  30. The comparison with eVs is disingenuous because EVs remain at a scale where their infrastructure isn't an issue so they appear cheaper. Without a charging network only rich people who own their own house in the suburbs with a garage can usefully use EVs. EVs are not going to cut it in poorer countries without much regulation or urban infrastructure whereas hydrogen could because those countries already have some semblance of an infrastructure for gas and petrol which could convert to hydrogen. The other big issue is that although EVs charging from the grid is theoretically more efficient we have not solved grid level storage of renewable energy or exporting of renewable energy. Many of the batteries do not hold charge for long enough (warm months into cold months) although this may change. The big advantage with hydrogen is that you can bypass the very big problem of grid level storage of renewables. Hydrogen can feasibly be scaled and deployed soon and is even itself a solution to the main problem of grid level storage of renewable energy.

  31. I think there are more things you should point out:
    First, you compared hydrogen with perfect battery(new) and in ideal conditions (ideal temperature), which wont be the case in real world. Hydrogen parts will degrade too but i think batteries are more volatile.
    Second thing that bothers me is that you mentioned that batteries are powered only by renewable's. If you don't have huge capacitor/battery banks that things is just wrong. On the other hand hydrogen can be produced and STORED whenever you have unused electricity which is a lot of times for renewable's (look at "duck curve" for solar).
    Lastly, as you mentioned, hydrogen is the most abundant element, which means that only thing (practically) you need to produce it is energy, whatever the efficiency, you only need energy. If you need more hydrogen just add more solar/wind generators you don't need energy banks. On the other hand batteries are not easy to produce and it is questionable if there will be enough materials for world demand, which is increasing.
    I'm not against batteries to be clear, i am just against over hyped technologies and in particular Elon's Musk failed visions (i am not talking about tesla, tesla is great).

  32. We can keep using fossil fuel but we need to find a way to make it more efficient. The world leaders and government don't care about that their plan will to probably make every thing electric at one point and that will give them even more power than they already have over us. The world is a immense vast and plentiful world there is tons of fossil fuel they just wanna tell us its the cars that are the problem noooooo its the big factories that are making mcdonalds happy meal toys that are the problem get rid of all the useless things and wrry about the necessities.

  33. only 13% of electrical power is renewable in the US, you seem to skip over that.The lost in making electricity is much more than making hydrogen. using renewable forms to make hydrogen for cars is what they are trying to do, so a station would use solar or wind to make as much hydrogen as possible so the sum is o. they use a lot of fossil fuel to make electricity right now. you did not add that in

  34. I didn't hear any mention of loss of battery efficiency due to cold temperature during winter months! That is a significant oversight.

  35. this vid is biased against hydrogen… Hydrogen is the future; electric cars who have a battery that must be charged from the grid are a death end. Also the hydrogen power plant that powers a car, can be used to power a house – off grid… the grid is the enemy
    Battery electric cars will us make more depended upon the grid – and electricity will become as expensive as gas is today….
    Do not buy electric cars with battery..; they are junk… boycot Tesla…

  36. I am missing a discussion of the safety aspects of Hydrogen in cars (or planes).
    I am a student of physics and engineering and there is no element I fear more than Hydrogen not even any of the radioactive ones. I would not enter a hydrogen powered vehicle no matter how much I would be paid to do so. In case of a minor malfunction, especially when the hydrogen is stored in liquid form, there will be a BOOM and it will be BIG. There are several scenarios that this could happen. While car manifacturers like Toyota argue that the "hydrogen will escape in the atmosphere quick enough that there will not be any fire or explosion" that is only a best case scenario. As during a crash that would breach the hydrogen tank, a lot of power will be set free through instant friction heat, that would totally be enough to directly inflame all hydrogen in the tank causing an explosion. The explosion strenght will depend on how much hydrogen is stored in the pressurised container and would be at a stength of 150 kilos of TNT at 5 kilos of liquid hydrogen. Imagine 150 kilos of TNT going off under you or next to you… I mean at least death won't be painful then… the even greater disaster is that the explosion would have a 10-20 meter fireball radius depending on weather and other conditions. Thus a car crash could kill people on totally different lanes going in different directions, blow up bridges etc. The dangers are so insane that no sane person should ever consider using hydrogen as fuel for other stuff than rockets, and even those multi million dollar devices that are strictly checked blow up from time to time. You do not want that to happen on the roads. Now even if the hydrogen container is undamaged in a crash, the way energy will be created from the hydrogen can still cause the car to catch fire. In case of fire the inner temperature of the liquid hydrogen as well as the heat expansion on the container will almost certainly also cause the tank to go boom, so in any scenarios hydrogen cars will be dangerous and I bet my degree that there will be instances of future hydrogen cars in Japan blowing up causing dozens of deaths and potential hundrets of injuries in a single incident of a car going BOOM. Then if you take into account that people do acts of terrorism in our days… well… a hydrogen car has the potential to flaten entire buildings and has more destructive power than a tank… I do not want to rain on anyone's parade here but hydrogen cars are not a smart idea from a sane and also (especially) an engineering point of view…

  37. Is it true that the H2 station need to recompress for 20 min. before a second car can fill in ? 
    If it's true, we have to compare 25 min. to fill in H2 in a car with 35-40 min. to charge with a Tesla Supercharger… right?

    And do you know the price and the space needed for 1 H2 pump comparing the price and the space needed for 1 SuperCharger?

    thx for your answers and congrats for your videos 😉

  38. I'd like to know what this efficiency cost comparison looks like in Japanese terms? Surely the mass scale to which their country is focussing on hydrogen must make it a lot more cost-effective, thus really that should be compared to the cost in the states. Of course, it will be more expensive where the technology is underdeveloped.

  39. Renewable energy has gone up to a grand total of 2%. So when you say green you mean not really at all. In fact I'm not too sure they are not a bigger carbon cost to the environment. It takes carbon to mine lithium and it will take more carbon to try to charge it as the battery wears.

    Why not a solar top??? Because it would be quite clear green energy doesn't hold up. You could sit your car (difficult to move, not a low watt light bulb) all week, all month and not have the power to get out your own driveway.

    If we are going to be more and more depend on natural gas plants to run these "green" cars. Then we might as well be more efficient and make hydrogen fueled cars.

  40. So if you really want a hydrogen car could you just make one where you pour water in as fuel and it goes into an automatic electrolysis system. You would only need a smaller battery than one for electric vehicles for the electrolysis to work. That would make the car lighter too. Then when the hydrogen evaporates its funneled into some sort of machine that converts it into what is needed to power the car. The oxygen that evaporates can simply be released as exhaust which is eco friendly.

  41. Why does it have to be one or the other
    We got petrol and diesel. I personally think hydrogen is better as it is more flexible. But for operations around the a city maybe battery would work better and for long distant use hydrogen is better. Hydrogen lorries, battery taxi etc.

  42. So much disinformation here and some very poor assumptions – while ignoring the the 36% efficiency of coal fired electricity generation.

    It barely recognizes that solar of the roof/awning of the service station will generate off grid with virtually no losses, compression will come from solar/H2 generation and there is no transport to site. At this scale you will generate around 4500kg per month which is stacks in the current market.

  43. did you investigate the odd 1 out?
    the internal implosion engine.
    this has a wicked efficiency
    also, you basically skipped a whole bunch of steps both for hydrogen and for batteries for possible power losses.
    slightly important one is lithium "harvesting" this is incredibly messy and bad for basically every one ….
    also, converting energy to something else and then back is never good.
    already better (imo) is electric –> HHO–> combustion

  44. Don't Forget Stan Meyer. . Water powered dune buggy. Sunday, July 8, 2007

    By Dean Narciso; Columbus Dispatch | After more than 20 years of research and tinkering, it was time to celebrate.Stanley Allen Meyer, his brother and two Belgian investors raised glasses in the Grove City Cracker Barrel on March 20, 1998.

    Meyer said his invention could do what physicists say is impossible – turn water into hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to drive his dune buggy cross-country on 20 gallons straight from the tap.

    He took a sip of cranberry juice. Then he grabbed his neck, bolted out the door, dropped to his knees and vomited violently.

    “I ran outside and asked him, ‘What’s wrong?’ ” his brother, Stephen Meyer, recalled. “He said, ‘They poisoned me.’ That was his dying declaration.”

  45. Lithium for cars, hydrogen for planes. Simple. Using electrolysis is inefficient, but it's more sustainable and eco friendly than kerosene.

  46. So the electricity used to charge a Tesla is free???
    Did I miss where he explained the total cost of producing the electricity used by an electric vehicle. What a ridiculous video.

  47. Just use methane. It's the simplest hydrocarbon, it's stable, can be made into liquid fuel and we already have infrastructure to handle it.

  48. What would be the cost of Hydrogen verses Battery if we also included the the lost hours for the battery powered "hang time" while refueling? With Electric, generally faster charging creates more heat and decreases battery life and total cycles. If I am charging trucks that are battery powered for an hour verses a Hydrogen powered truck for 2-3 minutes, that unproductive time the battery is charging is wasted money. Also, since each battery powered truck hangs 30 times as long as the Hydrogen powered truck, the truck stop would need 30 times the number of charging stations verses tye Hydrogen powered Truck.

  49. Problem with Hydrogen is we'd just stick with the whole paying high prices at a pump. It would be good for commercial vehicles but consumers are better off with BEV. But maybe in the future we'll have both

  50. Yes it takes energy to crack hydrogen from water but if it comes from zero emission sources such as wind, solar and I include hydro (gravity is zero emission) we are still at zero emission. The other advantage of hydrogen is that it gives us what we are used to which is fill er up in a few minutes and go on that road trip. Hydrogen is a much easier sell that way as living in a place that gets what I call Canadian winter which kills battery range

  51. 4:55 if the goal is renewable energy and no emission and if the electricity is coming from renewable sources, what’s the problem with losing some energy in process? If it came from from say a coal power plant, yeah you would have to burn more coal but if it’s from solar, what’s the problem with more sunlight?

Leave a Reply

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