Ditto about the music. I would pay a substantial sum of money far an app which could strip background music from videos. In the end i stopped the video half way through because i could'nt stand having to listen to the music anymore.
Dmfc is a good solution for marine application. Ccs based co2 and Green hydrogene can be used to for making Green methanol. Methanol is liqued so storage is easy. Maybe methanol can be used for producing steam for steam turbine.
sadly you seem kinda bored even though that subject should excite everybody. methanol is the best way to store regenerative or even atomic power in vast quantities. it can be artificially generated, biological produced and even excracted from oil too if the need arises. it is simple to handle and quickly recharges the car where no charging station is near. also the kind of lithium required for an only battery car wont ever be able to be sustained for the world wide demand.
Exactly, methane and mehanol are the 2 best chemical batteries, when logistics and so on are all considered. Lithium batteries will continue to be adopted but I bet when you do a full life-cycle analysis, methane and methanol are the best vehicle fuels.
@@mickalinjezerx7104 very complicated and hassle. Hydrogen film is probably either carbon nitride or metal hydrite. These technologies are not very well documented.
The video was too long. You should have just said, "Electric car batteries are big and heavy. Methanol is almost as small and light as gasoline, but equally as clean as batteries. Even if you get methanol from crude oil it is still much much cleaner than gasoline because you aren't burning it."
The best thing to do is use cheaper metals that break down methanol, such as some copper oxide that reduces methanol, or manganese dioxide. Or using a redox chemical reaction to break down methanol and using a sulfur-based polymer for the pem. Or a polycarbonate plastic using platinum group carbonates.
At minute 6;49 its says World top level, volume power density 3.1kW/L.. Does it mean that the top level methanol fuel cell can produce 3.1kW/L of methanol injected in the system?
Its not "1L of fuel cell valume" its 1L of Methanol used to power the FC...the volume or surface area of the FC is not part of calculation... And thx for proving your moniker that your "Opinion Doesn't Matter... Based on using unrelated facts of its power density to come up with a completely unproven and unrelated assumption, "that DMFC has a "poor" efficiency" Where was that stated in the post? FWIW, Power is not directly related energy or efficiency. So forget about referring to its power figures...
@@nc3826 6:47 Volume power density - "In energy transformers including batteries, fuel cells, motors, etc., and also power supply units or similar, power density refers to a volume. It is then also called volume power density, which is expressed as W/m3. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_density Efficiancy is stated to be 10% (on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell), which is quite poor, since even internal combustion engines have several times that. Cheers.
there are 2 definitions of "volatile" 1 is as you say - evaporated the other is liable to change rapidly. Hydrogen will automatically combine with any oxygen in the air and combust versus say methane which will react to a flame/spark/ ( choose your ignition point )
Yes, but if we are using Bio-methanol (or even bio-ethanol fuel cell), it can be carbon neutral because of the fuel production. It's not like petrol that we simply extract from rock reservoirs.
@@EngLhag The problem I see is that it's toxic and its vapors oxidize in the atmosphere to produce CO2. Another issue is that it takes energy to produce which reduces the efficiency and raises the cost. The largest problem I see is that its cheaper to produce methanol from fossil fuels than bio sources, which introduces the likelihood that going in this direction only serves to prolong our fossil fuel addiction. Although it would have a reduction in emissions, it wouldn't have as much of a reduction as BEV's driven by electricity coming from solar and wind.
@@billh2294 when MFCEV come to market, most will have a plug-in port to charge them overnight for short trips and the MFC will just be used for rare longer trips or for towing that BEVs suck at.... So MFC will just reduce the size of the battery pack and the high initial CO2 footprint to produce them...the problem is MFC are still to expensive, so we are left with inferior BEVs for now....(BTW below I explain some of your biased mistakes about MFCEVs and have link for one that will be in production soon) WADR, you have no idea how it works if your talking about being "toxic" or "vapors oxidizes"... there is an oxidiztiation process in the FC.... but just condensed water and a tiny amount of CO2 comes out.....and all energy storage have efficiency and cost issues, such as using much more costly batteries than a simple fuel tank... and BEVs have very high initial carbon footprint to make them.... and using electric that on average produces far more CO2 and other far more toxic pollution than MFC since coal and NG is still used more the solar and wind that will need a storage method too... So while I agree that, the cost effective way to initially produce Methanol now... is by using methane ... its far better and cleaner than the current alternatives... and there are even cleaner alternatives... such as using off peak electric, CO2 and water... So take a chill pill MR BEV, should be our only cleaner option... MFCEVs will take a long time to become a cost effective option, but it does it wont replace BEVs it will just be another option especially things like towing, or long haul truck or power planes....so it will be a good thing won't it?... no matter what the dogma, you have been fed tells you about it... www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/gumpert-reveals-methanol-fuelled-nathalie-production-form
That is not true. What about ships, planes, electric power plants, cement plants, agriculture, etc.? There are official numbers, everyone can look them up.
I couldn't understand everything you were saying because music muffled your voice.
Sound is just a form of heat, hence one can actually hear the inefficiency
Ditto about the music. I would pay a substantial sum of money far an app which could strip background music from videos. In the end i stopped the video half way through because i could'nt stand having to listen to the music anymore.
Dmfc is a good solution for marine application. Ccs based co2 and Green hydrogene can be used to for making Green methanol. Methanol is liqued so storage is easy. Maybe methanol can be used for producing steam for steam turbine.
sadly you seem kinda bored
even though that subject should excite everybody.
methanol is the best way to store regenerative or even atomic power in vast quantities. it can be artificially generated, biological produced and even excracted from oil too if the need arises.
it is simple to handle and quickly recharges the car where no charging station is near.
also the kind of lithium required for an only battery car wont ever be able to be sustained for the world wide demand.
Exactly, methane and mehanol are the 2 best chemical batteries, when logistics and so on are all considered.
Lithium batteries will continue to be adopted but I bet when you do a full life-cycle analysis, methane and methanol are the best vehicle fuels.
You ever heard of hydrogen film?
@@mickalinjezerx7104 very complicated and hassle.
Hydrogen film is probably either carbon nitride or metal hydrite.
These technologies are not very well documented.
Excellent video. Underrated topic.
The video was too long. You should have just said, "Electric car batteries are big and heavy. Methanol is almost as small and light as gasoline, but equally as clean as batteries. Even if you get methanol from crude oil it is still much much cleaner than gasoline because you aren't burning it."
It's not too long.
Thank you for a remarkable documentary.
Please switch off the music, as it hinders one's ability to follow what you are saying. Many thanks
This would be a great source of electricity while camping/hiking. The solar panels and cranks are not very practical.
Excelent video! Very well explained and also great choice of information to present. I would only suggest that you speak more clearly!!
Your trying to talk too fast, your words are mumbling together
Man i can't understand a thing your saying
The best thing to do is use cheaper metals that break down methanol, such as some copper oxide that reduces methanol, or manganese dioxide. Or using a redox chemical reaction to break down methanol and using a sulfur-based polymer for the pem. Or a polycarbonate plastic using platinum group carbonates.
how is methanol manufactured
At minute 6;49 its says World top level, volume power density 3.1kW/L..
Does it mean that the top level methanol fuel cell can produce 3.1kW/L of methanol injected in the system?
kW is a measure of power, not energy
and a kW was correctly label as power, not energy
The 1L of fuel cell valume can produce 3.1kW of power, there is no mentioning of methanol consumption per kWh, just that DMFC has a "poor" efficiency.
Its not "1L of fuel cell valume" its 1L of Methanol used to power the FC...the volume or surface area of the FC is not part of calculation...
And thx for proving your moniker that your "Opinion Doesn't Matter... Based on using unrelated facts of its power density to come up with a completely unproven and unrelated assumption, "that DMFC has a "poor" efficiency"
Where was that stated in the post?
FWIW, Power is not directly related energy or efficiency. So forget about referring to its power figures...
@@nc3826 6:47 Volume power density - "In energy transformers including batteries, fuel cells, motors, etc., and also power supply units or similar, power density refers to a volume. It is then also called volume power density, which is expressed as W/m3. "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_density
Efficiancy is stated to be 10% (on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell), which is quite poor, since even internal combustion engines have several times that.
Cheers.
Hydrogen is going to be net energy negative. Its too bulky and explosive to use as a fuel. I'd like to see a methanol fuel cell vehicle.
The scientific term "volatile" doesn't apply to any gas. Gas, by definition is evaporated. You mean to say "combustible" or just "dangerous"
thx for that pointless pedantic rant.... that has no bearing on the viability of Methanol Fuel Cells....
there are 2 definitions of "volatile" 1 is as you say - evaporated the other is liable to change rapidly. Hydrogen will automatically combine with any oxygen in the air and combust versus say methane which will react to a flame/spark/ ( choose your ignition point )
quality could be better
Thank you
Good video!
poor dulled audio quality.
Dude you need to say little slowly and clearly
I understood everything he said
some dudes obviously need a hearing and grammar test
Great video thanks.
This guy talks to fast and fails to allow you to absorb what he is describing. Plus the drama music is to loud.
Still produces CO2
Yes, but if we are using Bio-methanol (or even bio-ethanol fuel cell), it can be carbon neutral because of the fuel production. It's not like petrol that we simply extract from rock reservoirs.
@@EngLhag The problem I see is that it's toxic and its vapors oxidize in the atmosphere to produce CO2. Another issue is that it takes energy to produce which reduces the efficiency and raises the cost. The largest problem I see is that its cheaper to produce methanol from fossil fuels than bio sources, which introduces the likelihood that going in this direction only serves to prolong our fossil fuel addiction. Although it would have a reduction in emissions, it wouldn't have as much of a reduction as BEV's driven by electricity coming from solar and wind.
@@billh2294 when MFCEV come to market, most will have a plug-in port to charge them overnight for short trips and the MFC will just be used for rare longer trips or for towing that BEVs suck at.... So MFC will just reduce the size of the battery pack and the high initial CO2 footprint to produce them...the problem is MFC are still to expensive, so we are left with inferior BEVs for now....(BTW below I explain some of your biased mistakes about MFCEVs and have link for one that will be in production soon)
WADR, you have no idea how it works if your talking about being "toxic" or "vapors oxidizes"... there is an oxidiztiation process in the FC.... but just condensed water and a tiny amount of CO2 comes out.....and all energy storage have efficiency and cost issues, such as using much more costly batteries than a simple fuel tank... and BEVs have very high initial carbon footprint to make them.... and using electric that on average produces far more CO2 and other far more toxic pollution than MFC since coal and NG is still used more the solar and wind that will need a storage method too...
So while I agree that, the cost effective way to initially produce Methanol now... is by using methane ... its far better and cleaner than the current alternatives... and there are even cleaner alternatives... such as using off peak electric, CO2 and water...
So take a chill pill MR BEV, should be our only cleaner option... MFCEVs will take a long time to become a cost effective option, but it does it wont replace BEVs it will just be another option especially things like towing, or long haul truck or power planes....so it will be a good thing won't it?... no matter what the dogma, you have been fed tells you about it...
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/gumpert-reveals-methanol-fuelled-nathalie-production-form
At count 35 you say that automobiles account for 7% of emissions, but in reality autos account for 70% of emissions.
That is not true. What about ships, planes, electric power plants, cement plants, agriculture, etc.? There are official numbers, everyone can look them up.
Wrong. And also carbon is not a pollution
#1- restart this- " climate change" isn't a real thing lol !!