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

  1. What an idiotic video. 5 min fill time vs 3 hrs compared to 19% more energy loss. Who cares. Time is money, 5 minutes beats 3 hrs, even if you got half the energy production.

  2. I have an electric car.
    I'm using a meter while charging so that I know exactly what the car really uses. I have to use ~30% more energy to fully charge my car than the car iteself told me that it has used.

  3. Tell to everyone to stop buying electric cars ! They pollute so much ,much more than your retarded iq can handle.
    The batteries cannot be recicled ,they just throw the batteries as they are made.
    It is impossible to recicle a battery.
    Do you remember the fact that people are asked to return the normal batteries of every device at the store .
    Eh ,well the same shit is happening to cars ,the car is yours but the battery belongs to that respective company.
    Use critical thinking you stupid androids!

  4. What about countries that have limited capacity for renewables? E.g. Hydrogen can be produced in Australian deserts and shipped to Japan. The hydrogen can be produced from solar or from natural gas can be converted to hydrogen and the CO2 captured and stored. This is perfect for high density countries with limited natural resources and a desire for clean air.

  5. The only low carbon viable way of producing hydrogen is with nuclear power (LFTR – molten salt nuclear systems – water-moderated nukes aren't hot enough), at which point you may as well expend some extra energy and tack on extra carbon atoms to hold things together (there's more hydrogen in a litre of diesel than a lire of liquid hydrogen) and make it easier to handle.

    You neglected to mention the extreme danger of pressurised hydrogen storage tanks and fuelling stations. CNG stations are also extremely dangerous and are subject to siting limitations including minimum spacing between stations (something like a mile minimum) to ensure one blowing up doesn't set off others.

    Pressurised gasses are not to be trifled with.

    In any case the energy required to produce the fuel results in hydrogen (or synfuel) vehicles having overall efficiency so low that you can get 4-5 times the range with an electric vehicle by recharging it.

    As for IC engines: 20-30% efficiency – it's 30% (spark ignition) or 45% (diesel) absolute maximum efficiency and that only happens under maximum load. When you factor in all the non peak loads the ACTUAL efficiency of most ICE vehicles is in the 3-5% range and that neglects the energy expended in the refining processes (at least as much energy expended in that alone as is available in the tankful of fuel that results)

  6. 2:35 – Over 3 hours to recharge? Yes, if you do it home? Not on Supercharger with a output of 350kw/h –? It would take about 17 minutes from 0 -100% on a 100 kw electric engine

  7. Annoying how people always quote EV charging times as many hours but for 360 days per year, it takes less than 10 seconds to plug and unplug at your parking spot. Only when on trips over 400 km would you spend say 20 minutes at a super charger. No one plugs in there car and waits for 3 hours; they go to bed and the job is done by the next day.

  8. This is the future:

    "Nissan Brazil ends initial tests of ethanol fuel cell"
    "Nissan was the auto industry's first company to develop a vehicle prototype powered by a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) that works with bio-ethanol. By combining this and two other technologies (electric motor and a 24 kW/h battery) range is in excess of 600km (375 miles)."

  9. here's food for thought… if hydrogen is held in water (H2O) and is the most common element in the universe, why not use H2O – water to power cars? or go to solar power to charge the batteries in a battery powered car.

  10. This was fantastic!!! THANK YOU so much for producing this! This is easily your best video, and it's one of the most important videos on YouTube.

  11. You havent mentioned potential of capacitors/super or ultra capacitors…why?
    Also, fail to consider dc power conversion for ac motors, what energy loses vs dc motors…i could go on…but you miss a lot of options with a lot of short sightedness…otherwise a good attempt

  12. All I think is important is how much dost it cost? Is it environmentally friendly? How far is the range? Moreover which is better instead of a lenghty explaination.

  13. Fuel cell is better than batteries because how many years can batteries last and how easy is it to rebuild or recycle fuel cells and batteries. I would pay for fuel cell if it has a longer service life of parts. And most of batteries goes to the landfill a look at the lithium mines just google it and you exhale carbon dioxide and tree use it to grow to remove all carbon dioxide would kill all live forms on earth look up photosynthesis and earth science and human biology you may learn something. And automotive in the day exhaust was carbon monoxide not dioxide but with good catalytic converters the exhaust is carbon dioxide and all new automobiles in the United States has catalytic converters on them it the cars outside of the country. But gasoline is not a fuel of the future but the engine in a car can be converted a Diesel engine can run on cooking oil and gasoline cars has be converted to use alcohol and hydrogen gas. Now a ice age has caused mass extinction and global warming has caused a mass animal population explosion in earth history.

  14. Couple of things you didn't take into account with Li-on Batteries is their low deep-cycle re-charging count. The batteries can only be re-charged 'x' number of times before requiring replacement (just like your mobile phone) The replacement cost is horrendous and makes the re-sale value of the car a fraction of the original purchase cost.

    All the environmental waste produced from having to replace these bloody batteries is not small.

    Many hydrogen combustion engines I've seen over the years use on-board electrolysis in the shape of fuel cells powered by the engine itself. The alternator provides the DC power directly to the hydrogen fuel cells. The harvested hydrogen is then fed into the air in-take of the vehicle increasing MPG by over 50% and much greater in some cases.

    While living in a world whereby we don't get pollution like we see in some of the largest cities would be a good thing, blaming CO2 and calling it a pollutant is utter bollocks when you realise that it's a trace element comprising 0.04% (yes, it's that tiny) of our atmosphere and any density of less than 150ppm of said CO2 would be disastrous for the plant life on our planet.

    Still no PROOF from the IPCC, just "we strongly believe…" blah, blah, blah….. Bollocks! And the other lies like, "97% of scientists…" blah, blah, blah – another pile of bullcrap that's been spread around by interested parties.

  15. Might be a dumb question, but because hydrogen’s energy density is 236 times more than lithium ion batteries, wouldn’t that offset the efficiency percentage much higher?

  16. Quite frankly, hydrogen is very combustive, look at the Hindenburg! And do we WANT to replace Big Oil with Big Hydrogen? We're going to replace petrol refineries with hydrogen ones. It's still going to be inefficient, with energy spent just to make the hydrogen to use it in the cars. Really, how is that good? Gimmie a break. It's multiple redundant steps. What we need is to develop clean electricity generation methods. Helium 3 fusion being the holy grail of clean and efficient. No trucks to ship electricity around, no potentially highly explosive tanks anywhere… enough. Time to cut the narrow think. Big Hydrogen is just… trash already.

  17. Well, as you mentioned on beginning, electric vehicle with 125 miles of range would weight around 1,5t – just regular mid size car. Getting to 400 miles give it more than twice that. If regular car will weight 3t, then it needs beefier suspension, more energy to drive and stop, more of everything. That's the kind of energy loss that was not counted in and it easily could balance out hydrogen use for anything else than short distance city driving. Besides that, it's more of range calculated based on small car use in good conditions. Give it full AC or lots of heating in the winter, give it less aerodynamic shape (towing, semi trucks etc) and right away you will see that this range does not translate that much to petrol driven cars. One of advantages of fuel cells that can be used is heat generation. They loose quite a lot of energy as heat and well… half of the year on average you will use heating in your car.
    To make my argument simple. Range is huge factor. Electric cars barely replaced some of small car usage. Small because even Tesla X is quite small for a SUV. How about Cybertruck? From data we have already it is quite obvious it is heavy as hell just to provide some reasonable mileage when driving empty. While towing it will be whole different story. It's very easy to show in which applications electric vehicles will loose. The more fuel you have to carry in current application, the worse it will get with batteries. Regular diesel powered cars have decent torque and acceleration, they carry 60l of diesel and have range around 600 miles. It gives you around 10 miles per liter or 38mpg. To replace that you have to add battery that more than doubles the weight of the car. The smaller 85kWh battery gives around 250 miles of range in good conditions and weighs more than half a ton. To get around 600 miles in good weather you need more than that but wait… it adds a lot of weight. It means that it will have to provide even more power. It grows exponentially as the more energy you carry, the heavier it gets. The heavier it is, the more energy you need. Simply said getting mileage of modern diesel powered car will easily double the weight of the car just to replace 60l of diesel. Now imagine 40t semi truck that carries 600-1200l of fuel. Even if we assume that 1 ton of battery is equivalent to 60 liters of diesel, you will need 10-20 tons of batteries as a replacement to 600-1200l fuel tank in regular semi truck. That's 1/4 to 1/2 of total weight of the truck and most of the payload it can carry. What a waste. Now you can see, the more fuel you have to carry, the more you will loose because of added weight. Now maybe having 3t mid size sedan does not sound that bad, maybe getting quarter of range of daily driven car does not sound that bad. If you count terrain vehicles, trucks and heavy equipment that has to do real work you will see the problem. We can't simply make our truck weigh twice as much. That's basically illegal as you have weigh limits. Cybertruck is compared to F-150 but has weight of F-350 with fraction of its range. With this tendency electric delivery vans would have weight of semi trucks and semi trucks would become trains. It's simple calculations, they use much more energy so they have the biggest issue with energy storage weight. And now guess who is burning most of fuel. Smaller daily driven cars that can be replaced with quite efficient diesel engines and run with 60l tank or trucks, ATV, buses and semis that haul much more stuff, drive much longer distances, have much more payload and should spend most of the time on the road, not fuel stations?
    Now as you mentioned, it's more like 4 times more expensive to run hydrogen cells than battery powered cars assuming that you will have also quite big client base and funding. If it gets more popular, then it will pay off much faster. If you compare semis with cars, then every semi on the road would be equivalent of something like 50+ teslas. Why? Because they work. They drive most of the time, they burn much more fuel and haul much more stuff. It's obvious that semi truck will make around 10 times more miles than daily driven car and will use around 6-8 times more fuel for that, so you can easily get numbers between 50-100 times more fuel consumed by semis than regular cars. It means that roughly 100k hydrogen semi trucks would provide the same client base as current number of teslas on the market.
    Still the problem is that even hydrogen powered semis will be more expensive to drive than regular diesel. Electric is only around half the price of diesel in most cases. In smaller applications you get around half the price of energy because you make it heaver and reduce range by half. If you scale it up then you will have not enough range, long times spend on recharging and much more weight added to semi trucks. If you make them run on hydrogen, then range will be great, added weight will be quite small but still the cost of fueling up will be roughly 2 times higher than diesel. It does not mean that battery powered semis will be the best. They will suck even more. For small applications batteries are better because added weight is not that big deal, reduced range is not a problem and fuel costs are half compared to diesel powered cars. For medium applications it balances out. Added weight to get proper range in more demanding application will add costs for more energy ending up with similar costs to drive electric and diesel although electric will require long recharges. It's ok for delivery trucks in the city that can be recharged overnight. Not good enough for longer transportation. With heavy hauling it electric prices will skyrocket. Who on earth would want 20t semi truck and who on earth would want semi truck with 100 miles range? Those will be useless as workhorses. Hydrogen powered semi trucks are still future in regards of eco friendly transportation.
    Last thing to note. We are going forward with renewable energy sources which mostly come from solar and wind power. The thing is that they are not balanced. Wind can sometimes generate a lot, sometimes barely anything. Solar works in cycles over day and year. The more wind and solar we have, the bigger will be the problem with inconsistent power supply. Solution for that? Some sort of storing excess energy. Sure, we can use smart Tesla power banks that add another battery to the chain but it adds additional AC->DC->battery->DC->AD conversion. Moreover, barely any grid can support supercharging a few Teslas with 150kW each so there is another battery in superchargers that allows such high power to be used in parallel by multiple charging cars. Now you lost 3 times on conversions. Let's say 1 time assuming that we'd install those huge power banks on charging stations. Anyways what I mean is that in near future we will have spikes of excess energy that will have to be used one way or another. Storing it in form of hydrogen is wise move and will make hydrogen much cheaper. Balanced power production from nuclear power plants, solars and wind farms will provide stable and clean energy source with huge spikes during the day and random spikes because of wind. Those spikes will not be used fully but we can use that to generate hydrogen on demand similarly to what you mentioned in video on one of those stations.
    It's worth to note that for regular customer energy has constant price. On the market it varies and can get even negative. Yes, there were already cases when energy production was much higher than consumption and it could not be easily slowed down. It is cheaper to pay someone to use your excess energy than limit production. The more renewable sources we'll use, the more often it will get. With all of that hydrogen is our future, especially for heavy transportation.

  18. Why people are still talking filling station, and internet recharge. All should be free. Cars should come with Hydrogen fuel generator. Users can just fill water and drive.

    TU Delft gives hydrogen a good chanche to win.

  20. Part of the problem with the fuel cell idea is timing. Companies are gingerly introducing it with the result that you can now comfortably drive up the US west coast but nowhere else. The massive infrastructure of EV stations is already in place, with more to come. That puts more money into electric (battery) research making it a sustainable option. You can also charge EV's at your home, a big advantage.

  21. Cryogenic liquid h2 could make up for its refrigeration energy cost by cooling superconducting electric motors via MgB2 coils, which use liquid h2 to cool to their critical temperature. Also, pem fuel cells could be hybridized with graphene or lithium external layering, similarly to a flow battery.

  22. The video although done well has a critical flaw. It fails to take in to consideration the cost of manufacturing lithium ion batteries, the environmental impact of mining the the resources to makes such batteries, nor the immense energy to do so, nor does it take into account that the resources to make these batteries are NOT renewable. The author covers the complete cost hydrogen, but only conveniently covers the costs and efficiencies of charging a battery, while, fully covering the production of hydrogen and it efficiencies. This is totally NOT an apples to apples comparison. Also, the author blindly assumes you must use AC motors in the cars?? Why not brushless DC motors, which have better torque characteristics. It is stupid to take a battery source which is DC and convert it into AC to run a motor due to it's inefficiencies. TESLA uses AC why, because TESLA invented the AC Motor. AC is great for hydro transmission, but it this application,, why use an AC motor?? The video makes me believe the author works or is paid by the battery industry. Hydrogen is virtually limitless and renewable.

  23. Hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.

    Steam reforming of¬†natural gas¬†is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen at about 95% of the world production[1][2]¬†of 500 billion m3¬†in 1998,[3]¬†or 70 million tonnes by 2018.[4]¬†Hydrogen is used in the¬†industrial synthesis of ammonia¬†and other chemicals.[5]¬†At high temperatures (700 ‚Äď 1100¬†¬įC) and in the presence of a¬†metal-based¬†catalyst¬†(nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield¬†carbon monoxide¬†and hydrogen.

    CH4¬†+¬†H2O¬†‚áƬ†CO¬†+ 3¬†H2

    Catalysts with high surface-area-to-volume ratio are preferred because of diffusion limitations due to high operating temperature. Examples of catalyst shapes used are spoked wheels, gear wheels, and rings with holes. Additionally, these shapes have a low pressure drop which is advantageous for this application.[6]

    Additional hydrogen can be obtained by reacting the CO with water via the water-gas shift reaction.

    CO + H2O ‚áƬ†CO2¬†+ H2

    The first reaction is strongly¬†endothermic¬†(consumes heat, őĒHr= 206 kJ/mol), the second reaction is mildly¬†exothermic¬†(produces heat, őĒHr= -41 kJ/mol).

    For every tonne of hydrogen produced, 9 tonnes of CO2 is also produced.[4]

  24. just so the biggest volcano on the planet does not blow and fill our atmosphere with ash maybe we should use all that pressure to make hydrogen. that would be yellowstone. Yellowstone is a giant volcano and it will blow again

  25. I don¬īt know who taught this guy to do math but his engineering degree shall be revoque. There is not such a calculation. First, gaslines can be used for Hydrogen at low pressure and compress at dispach points of the grid. Secondly, it is not true that hidrogen is not that efficient, both systems have the back stage costs which if any should be contrast with the current grid invested upon and the new grid required to support bateries. Finally, batteries are extremely heavy, subject to explote and decay really fast. This is were the business is for Tesla and all the other makers. If one could change bateries at the electrical dispach point that would be other story but no manufacturer comes with this business proposal. It takes about 1,5 hour to recharge an electric car poorly and if one uses a fast charger, it takes 45 min. The worst part is that fast charging wear out the bateries in 2 years. This time taking vs 10 mins tops that takes one to fill up the gas tank is a very inconvenient point. So the solution to be as good as gasoline or H2 cell is to reach the supply station, take out the used battery and put in a new one. This could do the trick. But the weight and decay are constants not to mention the grid extra and storage extra cost that it would required.

  26. What frightens me is the negative effects that moving to electric technology, would have on the environment. Everything has a positive and negative effect.

  27. Saying Electricity is Green is like saying carbon doesn't exist. Electricity has a carbon footprint, Solar panels use space that could otherwise grow plants that remove carbon. You cannot remove fossil fuels with wind solar energy they just cannot make enough energy, Maybe we can cover the Entire State of California with solar panels and see how much of the world that would actually power. I be it wouldn't even power the entire US.

  28. Hydrogen can be produced and stored whenever solar and wind generators happen to make electricity.
    Whereas electricity has to be available whenever drivers happen to decide to charge their battery cars.

  29. Amazing how we now use fully synthetic "oils" to lubricate engines, transmission and other drive components but don't make synthetic fuel?

  30. Your cost comparison of hydrogen doesn't take account of the fact that as grids move over to distributed solar and wind there are periods when the grid operators pay generation sites to cut production. This is to prevent grid overloads or because the electricity is not needed and cannot be stored… A better thing to do would be to use this energy to make hydrogen… The costs could be negligible and similar to refined petrol! In summary the hydrogen option helps a grid overloaded by distributed variable solar and wind… It's compatible with the wider system architecture… You can use pipelines and tankers to move this energy around… The batteries require the grid to transport energy to them… They do not help the grid but rather add to its load… Of course this negates to say that the whole low carbon transformation is just a massive fraud and the man made climate change lie is what justifies wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollers…

  31. Methane or natural gas is abundant in earth crust like rotting veg matter, animal feces, and semi solid in artic regions why no body look at that

  32. The math I would like to see explained is if we go from completely petrol vehicles to battery powered what "strain" this would put on the grid and is it realistic to assume we could be able to power all these vehicles….when I say power grid I am referring to USA.

  33. Is really esy to tell or point at the problems cause they already exist, are recorded known and accepted, but to figure something really new or invent a better way, now that's something not many can do.

  34. I don't really care what my car is powered by. Of course, one should use the most environmentally friendly energy for this. I think the electric car is the dirtiest car you can imagine. It starts with the production and ends with the resicing of the battery. I consider the hydrogen fuel for cars to be the most efficient and practical fuel. And one more thing, I will never do without the car, I think mass transport is a mistake, because every citizen has different mobility needs. This cannot be guaranteed by a train, tram or bus. Too slowly too immobile and, above all, rarely comfortable. In the city, these means of transport have a certain authorization, but if someone has to travel to many points in the city, it stops. The car made us flexible and will continue to make us flexible. If you consider how many employees rely on flexibility to have a job at all, you cannot do without the car in the future. Note: anyone who is against the car is also responsible for unemployment. As simple as that !

  35. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, has been for over 1/2 a century, and will be for another 1/2 century & a half , Fool cells are great!,,a good Rube Goldberg contraption, and Chicken & Egg thinggy. If Toyota didn't give "Free Fuel" with its FCVs nobody would lease the Mirai, I'd like to know if anybody ever BOUGHT One?

  36. E que tal seres honesto e incluir-se os custo de exploração, produção e distribuição do lítio, bem como os custos relacionados com as baterias

  37. China burns more coal than the entire rest if the world COMBINED and uses this to generate electricity to power electric cars…no pollution reduction at all…in fact it is worse. I dare you and Greta to do something about it.

  38. I think a consideration of the li battery mining process needs to be considered along with the potential possibility of battery technology improving significantly to allow for recyclable battery units. That would
    Be a big step. Hydrogen is definitely a good idea but we also need to take into account of future improvements of hydrogen extraction efficiency and also how efficient renewable energy sources such as wind turbines and hydro dams will be at producing electricity as, it will not only power cars but other aspect of our lives. But my conclusion is the technology is available just need to get the political class to give the scientists and the engineers money to get this going.

  39. for me I just feel like hydrogen should be, as it is the most common element in the universe, that it should be the basis of our power, we just need to find a way to use it more efficiently

  40. I'm currently working on a car that runs on ocean water, spits out gold as a waste product, and runs for 3,000 miles before needing a refill. I'm almost finished. It'll cost around $7,500. Of course, trucks will have to bring ocean water inland, to the ocean-water stations, but they'll be running on ocean water themselves and spitting out gold, too, so it shouldn't be a problem. Anybody need a job?

  41. Hydrogen to power high demand of fossil fuel freight trains ships trucks and buses, only is a good start, me think not cars…..just saying !

  42. That calculation is outdated. The Hydrogen must be thought decentralized. Also the video does not real show the energy necessary to build batteries. Hydrogen for storage is great solution. The problem was solved by Berlin based german company HPS Solution > The system is to store energy for house with Hydrogen but is planed to fill cars as well soon. So it will be possible to even produce the Hydrogen yourself, decentralized off the grid and get mobil with it.

  43. I think You should research more. Hydrogen is extremely, extremely good for everything. You brainwash people with graph and data and all you present are irrelevant and fake and you just come up with the graph "they" give you or gave money to make it.

  44. Couldn’t you just put a system in each vehicle that converts water into hydrogen on demand and eliminate all the extra energy losses leaving you somewhere in the range of 60-70% efficiency far outperforming EV’s?

  45. Electric battery cars are more convenient most of the planet has electricity at home to recharge and there is less need to waist energy searching for expensive to built and rip off hydrogen station, plus it is impossible to supply hydrogen stations for the whole planet which means old hydrogen cars can not be sold to poor nations where as old electric cars could be sold to poor nations.
    Just work on creating better batteries.

  46. there needs to be an international agreement to make zero carbon electricity in abundance. feels like an inefficient hydrogen system would then matter less and we wouldn't need to tear the earth apart mining and processing lithium.

  47. It probably isn't more efficient than pure electric in use cases such as cars, but as the inefficiency of battery technology was demonstrated in your video on electric planes; it would be interesting to see a video exploring the possibility of hydrogen fuel cell powered plans, if that would not be less efficient.

  48. The problem of this video is, that it does not take all aspects into account and this "fight" is not so clear as it seems in this video. Major problem of batteries EV is timing of charging and disponibility of power. Try to meet demand for charging (mainly during evening/night) and production pro renewables. So, in fact, there will be needed more storage capacity in batteries for this cycle. Nowdays it seems, people will not be able to cover all just by electricity from renewables, and will also not to cover all storage demand for this huge electricity consumption scale (once everything consumes electricity). Yes, hydrogen performs in less efficient way, but it has huuuuge storage potential. Batteries not.

  49. The fact that Hyrdogen fuel still needs to be converted into electricity should be enough proof that electric powered cars are better overall!

  50. Still don't buy it. The killer is the range to refueling times. A hydrogen fueled car is capable of at least similar ranges to petrol and diesel fueled cars as opposed to the very short ranges of electricity. Factor in the recharge times and it shows electric powered cars are only useful in towns and no good for long ranges. There is experimental tech going on to produce hydrogen from water in-car. Until that happens, I'll continue driving my gas guzzling BMW.

  51. you forgot to count age and efficiency decay in the battery . even battery damage environment after 5-7 years while FC not. please make another video with these points.

  52. "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…"

    That is incorrect. A fuel cell produces electricity. A battery stores electricity, it does not produce it. Which is why a (hydrogen) fuel cell electric car needs a (small) battery or capacitor to buffer electricity when the production starts.

  53. When factoring in the depreciation of an EV due to the batteries, the difference in costs per KM can be smaller. Plus the potential 'economic of scale' effect the difference will narrow further.

  54. Renewable Electricity + Energy Storage + Electric Cars & other Electric Vehicles (motorcycles, scooters, trucks, busses, trains) + nuclear energy 4th gen. Fission + Thorium fuel breeding cycle sustainable etc

    As a system to reduce climate change & air pollution (public health) think Lung Cells Benefit

  55. Talk about what the cost of oil is, the lives lost in rigging, the habitat damage costs, the wars fought. Inflation if gas prices, how much of the gasolines energy is actually used.

  56. You do realize you can make the same points about lithium batteries ?

    You need energy to power the tractors to dig up the lithium than you need energy to refine the lithium than you need to energy to actually manufacturer the battery.and than on top of that depending on where you live your electric car could be powered up with dirty energy…

    Hydrogen will when the battle In the end waaay cheaper and better for environment.

  57. Let's face it. The truth is, both technologies will have their fair share. But due to the fact that FCEVs are more expensive when buying and in filling up, BEVs will have a much much higher market share. In the future its going to look something like 85% BEVs and 15% FCEVs. All of this regards to cars of course.
    Completely different story with long range trucks travelling several hundred miles per day.

  58. what about the damage from making the electricity, most countries are using fossil fuels to make their power or nuclear plants so electric vehicles aren't saving anything and then add in the damage from mining the fossil fuel, mainly coal or the metals needed to make batteries, include also what do you do with lithium batteries after they are unusable, another landfill? T Kiwi

  59. I T E R will set us free just as long as its not controlled but given to humanity….human ego and greed no longer have a place on earth.

  60. We are pushing to hard in the wrong direction…….we want 400 million cars to plug into the wall but we don't have the power to do so yet…..Look up "I T E R"……..we keep arguing on whats the best conventional inefficient way of doing things which wastes time……we are not ready yet but in 20 years we will be…..Fusion is the way..then we can plug in 100 cars at your house with unlimited free energy that is clean in all ways. No nuclear waste buried for the next 100,000 years just clean unlimited…..i have hope!!!

  61. How about to fill it up water and convert to hidrógen through electrólisis make-work a combustion engine with hydrogen.

  62. How this guy make a engine work with water with so rudimentary technology why not the big car Maker can do it.

  63. My brain exploded after about the 20th set of numbers…! And what seemed to be missing is the efficiency rating of solar power to power the grid, the gradual decrease in eficiency of solar panels, the cost and carbon footprint of mining, making, and disposing of solar panels, the cost of mining the rare earths needed for wind turbines, the lack of power storage from both solar and wind, the carrying of the weight of the massive batteries for the BPV compared to the much smaller batteries needed for HFCVs, etc etc. Once the world realises that nuclear power is by far the greenest, cleanest source of power per kilogram of raw material, and that hydrogen can be produced as a by-product, we need nuclear power plants situated around the coast, cooled by seawater, coupled to hydrogen production and desalination, all fed into the power grid and a water grid. For a country like Australia, with tens of thousands of kilmotres of coastline, once the initial (high) cost of building the nuclear plants has been covered, running them would solve a LOT of our problems. Oh, and produce lots of cheap hydrogen too. ūüôā

  64. I‚Äôm not well educated on the difference between these, but I‚Äôd imagine that the environmental impact from acquiring the materials required for each device is going to be different. Putting a battery in a million cars vs fuel cells in a million cars. Also how long do the batteries last before needing to be replaced and disposed of/recycled if possible. Do fuel cells die the same way that batteries do? Something else to take into account ¬Į_(„ÉĄ)_/¬Į

  65. If the Great man Nicola Tesla's wireless energy was followed through we wouldnt be having these questions as your car would never run flat as you'd charge up wirelessly for free. BUT Theres that word that killed the idea off in the first place 'FREE'

  66. Though your video was quite informative… you seemed biased towards battery powered electric vehicles… because one fact which is great disadvantage of battery powered vehicles how are we gonna dispose of the worn out batteries, and lithium poisoning it may cause to our ground water sources…Plus only one country in the world almost monopolises the lithium mining and thats china… so dont really expect the batteries to come very cheap, they'll surely someday will come forward to make a kill on a profit…. request you to read up about china and electric cars, when someone almost monopolises the lithium mining you can actually expect them to push hard for electric vehicles, but in case of chine they seem to be exporting that to outside world, especially India…while in their own country they have stopped subsidising the production of EV, in simpler terms they are exporting this as the technology of the future, yet staunchly making it nearly non viable for this cars to run in their own country… think about it…

Leave a Reply

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