The Real Reason Tesla Doesn't Make Hydrogen Powered Vehicles!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- The Real Reason Tesla Doesn't Make Hydrogen Powered Vehicles!
Last video: New 4680 Battery Cell Production Update!
studio.th-cam.com/users/video4Cal...
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
► Join Our Discord Sever: / discord
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / @thespaceraceyt
►You can use my referral link to get 1,500 free Supercharger km on a new Tesla:
ts.la/trevor61038
Subscribe: / @theteslaspace
Welcome to the Tesla Space, where we share the latest news, rumors, and insights into all things Tesla, Space X, Elon Musk, and the future!
Instagram: / theteslaspace
Twitter: / theteslaspace
Business Email: tesla@ellify.com
#Tesla #TheTeslaSpace #Elon - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![คบซ้อน - วงL.กฮ. [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5MtesqJ0I1c/mqdefault.jpg)
When I was about 8 years old, my dad took me to his work. Circa 1963. He showed me the fork lifts charging with electricity. These were wet cell batteries, 4' X 4' X 4' and about 1,000 lbs. These fork lifts were used indoors because no emissions.
And in England we used to have milk delivery floats as they were called in the early 1960's powered in a similar manner.
Did you know Abraham Lincoln too
@@jk6561 same in the netherlands .. spykstaal electric cars
With forklifts weight is not a problem - if it weren't for those heavy batteries they'd have to weigh them down with extra dead weight to balance the load up front.
Nice comparison but you left out a tiny matter when you were talking about refilling (well, you hinted at it). 99% of the 'fillups' from your typical driver (compared to ICE cars) vanish when you recharge overnight. The only time someone will need to charge away from home are a) longer trips and b) forgetfulness. If you have your future EV automatically remind you to plug in when you get home, you're golden!
Needing to be reminded to plug your car in when you get home is like needing to be reminded to wipe your arse after you take a shite. 🤣
I had a job where the parking lot had some electric recharging spaces. Cheap and easy cuz you can do it over 8 hours. Bad if you have to go back and disconnect to let someone else charge.
Hydrogen is just an energy carrier when used with electrolysis. So let's see how it stacks up to a battery, what you probably should have spent this video doing:
1. Safety: Battery is good. Maybe it can catch on fire, maybe it can't. Depends on the chemistry and other safety factors around it. Not the easiest thing to get to burn, even if it is a chemistry that can. This is overall better than say gasoline, which is highly flammable. Hydrogen is bad. When hydrogen goes wrong, it goes really wrong, as in big boom. There have been some station explosions around the world and it has been catastrophic. This has led to hydrogen being banned in some developed countries. Hydrogen cannot scale up because of safety issues. Eventually you have big explosions and it gets banned.
2. Cost efficiency: Batteries are either moderately or very highly efficient depending on how exactly the batteries are setup. This tends to lead to batteries being cheap to operate. This is key for something like trucking where you need to keep costs of energy down as moving a truck down the road uses a tonne of energy. At this battery electric, at least when done right, is extremely low maintenance, leading to even lower operating costs. Hydrogen has very poor efficiency and will never be good. This leads to high costs in addition to the extremely expensive hydrogen fuel cells. Just way too expensive for a semi-truck in a competitive market. At this trucks run fixed routes and truck drivers, at least in the USA are required to take breaks every 4 hours or so. So for batteries it is easy to plan electrical charging stops to coincide with breaks truckers are mandated to take. At this at least historically hydrogen fuel cells in addition to their great expense have been somewhat delicate. If you have ever paid attention to the trucking lane in a lot of places, it gets pretty torn up from all of the heavy / overloaded trucks going down the road and thus a great way to break a super expensive hydrogen fuel cell. So cost efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is terrible and not something you want to run your for profit trucking company with for example.
3. Corrosion: Battery chemistry used for automotive use is usually a pretty hardy chemistry that can last for a while. A hydrogen fuel cell system needs to be made with special materials as hydrogen is highly corrosive. Any quality control issue with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can lead to massive fires and explosions.
4. Range extension: With battery tech, there have been demonstrations on how to do wireless charging going all the way back to Nikola Tesla over 100 years ago. Wired power transfer has been around a long time to. We certainly have ways to make a battery electric vehicle have basically unlimited range without stopping by electrifying the main thoroughfares, leaving batteries for the surface streets. It is just a matter of selecting a standard and mass implementing it, such as wireless power transfer in the roadway. We have a wireless charging standard for our cell phones already. With battery electric, you can also do things like have a camping trailer with batteries and solar onboard and connect the electrical systems of the towing vehicle and trailer so that the batteries in the trailer act for range extension. Then when you get close to your destination, top off charge and go the last mile on internal power alone so the trailer has plenty of battery for off grid camping. If on grid camping, the trailer can be depleted getting to the destination and then plugged into a NEMA 14-50 outlet, charge up, and also have the vehicle plugged into the trailer overnight so they both charge off of a single outlet. Even the AC Propulsion T-zero back in the day had range extending trailer options built and demonstrated, granted that was more focused on a gasoline engine / generator deal. With hydrogen, all you can do is add more tanks of highly compressed hydrogen rocket fuel, which sounds dangerous to me. Could you imagine for example hauling a big hydrogen trailer around and getting rear-ended or having a hose leak? How many times have you seen a trailer going down the road with something dragging and sparking at the connection point between vehicles and could you imagine if that was a hose with hydrogen compressed to 10,000 psi?
👍👍 Hit the nail on the head! Thanks!!
Power paste is a game changer for hydrogen.
And even for semi it is debatable. First the drivers have mandatory breaks, in france it 45 minutes every 4 and a half hours, I don't know if that hits a sweet spot but that time that can be used recharging. In europe we are also exploring electrifying the motorways to alloy for charging while driving.
Interesting. I agree, there is a place for both technologies. My issue with EV's is in the mix of energy used to generate the electricity. Great if it's from renewables i.e. zero carbon but if the majority of your energy mix is coming from coal, gas or biomass without carbon capture then you are driving a low carbon and pollution free vehicle but the problem still remains at the source of electricity generation. I think if there are times when renewables are generating excess energy and it can't be stored then why not make some clean hydrogen on the way?
Ive seen a couple of videos , they say the best use of green hydrogen would be to de-carbonize Fertilizer production ! . It could also be used to replace gas used in steel production !
I saw a similar video that said electrolyzers used only to convert excess green electricity to H2 at times there is indeed excess will never work economically because there are not enough operation hours annually to pay the equipment. I don't know the background well enough to judge but thats what was said.
Elon has already determined that hydrogen maybe abundant but it is costly to handle to work on mobile devices. For 3 decades, fuel cell has been studied almost throughly.
Mercedes and Ford invested heavily in Ballard/fuel cells in the late 1990’s…nothing came out of it.
Elon didn’t determine that hydrogen is the most abundant element, astrophysicists did.
Fuel cells have been studied for at least 5 decades, not 3. And while scientists may have determined H2 is the most abundant element, Technicians have determined it is not. Water and hydrocarbons are, but H2, while part of these, is not because you can't get ahold of it unless you have energy at hand to separate it from these.
This conversation again?!
I am getting tired of it.
First off, Good video. You pointed out a good chunk of the factors and subjects that are involved.
But a few key one are missing.
Here we go:
1.
As mentioned in the video, Current modern Rechargeable batteries (RB) like li-ion have a vrey short effective lifespan (roughly 2 years in most E-Cars).
Adding to that, RBs are susceptible to temperature changes, Resulting in a loss of efficiency and charge holding capacity.
Depending on the scenario RB-Cars can lose up to 65% (or even more) efficiency. Also it ages the cells faster, shortening their lifespan greatly.
Making them not reliable and extremely inefficient over time in the majority of the world.
2.
Most of the Electric grids around the world (which especially first world countries are affected by) cannot support a full conversion to RB-cars. Meaning the Infrastructure needs to be upgraded which is a enormous, expensive and time consuming undertaking.
3. There are other Hydrogen conversion methods besides fuel cells. Like Hydrogen Combustion engines.
4. Hydrogen as said in the video, is a better medium to store energy in / is more energy dense than BRs.
5. As pointed out by others. Hydrogen could be produced in regions that experience a higher energy surplus.
Or more Efficient methods of electric energy generation could be used. Like molten salt trinium reactors.
Furthermore multiple studies have shown that "renewable energy" solutions like wind-turbine-parks are actually not efficient and seem to have a different negative impact on the environment.
In short No.
Hydrogen is not "Stupid"(which by the way is an extremely weak argument).
Its just the industry around cars, that a short while ago, started to invest more and more into BR-Technologies and doesn't want to be told that they have bet on the wrong horse.
This spike in lithium cell materials is a good thing. It may finally spur someone to get those alternative chemistries (sodium, aluminum, geaphine, etc.) out the lab and on the market.
Impact to the environment from mining battery minerals is nothing compared to that of extracting, refining and combusting fossil fuels.
@@MarkMaxwell-author Yeah. And the battery lasts 20 years, while the fossil fuels last, oh, maybe a week.
Thank you for helping me better understand the hydrogen case. I don't think that it is as stupid as Elon thinks, but he is coming from a whole different point of view with all that he knows. Like you said there's room for both in the market. It will be interesting to see how the next decade evolves.
In fact, using 3 transformations / manipulations and transfer instead of zero, and being, whatever we do , limited by a conversion equation stuck at 60% of efficiency ( by phisc limitation, not technology) when.we already discovered Li-Ion and its 99.9% of cell efficiency is unbelievebally stupid.
Really, it is.
It seems not to be if you have not the datas, but ppl like Toyota boss ( aikio toyoda) have they in mind. So yes, they are stupid.
Toyota is the same shitfuckery. Toyota started to manufacture the MIRAI in 2014, sold less, than 20.000 units worldwide until today. Less, than TWENTY-THOUSAND units.
Tesla build and still expanding Supercharger Network (cost: 200,000 USD/stations with 8 chargers) around the world. What Toyota did? Did they started to build H2 refill stations (cost: approx. 2,000,000 USD/station, with only 1 pump) for their MIRAI models and for their Customers? NOPE. Only 1 single Toyota branded H2 refill station is in operation in Australia.
What is Toyota waiting for?
I'm living in Canada: you can travel throu the country with a TESLA from sea to sea using only Supercharger networks by the Trans-Canada Highway. You can not do that with a Toyota Mirai.
@@gyoergypecsi Yeah, but it takes you a month because: Electric Car Recharge Time. HOURS. Per charge.
@@gyoergypecsi I don't understand there is very little green hydrogen made, so why would you push for hydrogen cars ?, there is no green Hydrogen infrastructure ?
@@2112jonr let’s check it by yourself how long will it take? You can recharge a Tesla while you sleeping… or you need to spend 1-2 hrs on a supercharger.
And with a Mirai this trip will take for 100yrs, because no H2 availability between Vancouver and Quebec City.
Batteries are still too heavy and take up a lot of space. Once the tech to split H2O to gain hydrogen matures, then fuel tankers wont be required because the fuel stations will just supply and manufacture the hydrogen direct to consumer. The advantage of hydrogen is that it can be more useful for large machines like ships, trains, airplanes etc. As for the conventional designed family car, maybe batteries have the edge at the moment. Although a hydrogen powered turbine engine has a high efficiency, can also produce lift or downforce, whilst possibly also generate current for a capacitor to power an electric motor.
If there’s only a small percentage of fresh water on the planet then what happens when you use it all up in engine’s?
@@charlesneilio7861 burning hydrogen makes water.
Great content. Explore all possibilities. Sometimes the early leader is overtaken by a slow starter. Who knows how changing prices of the raw materials and evolving technology will change things as we go.
12:47 Correction: "again, the combination of longer range and faster refilling, is going to make the difference between a diesel-powered semi and a HYDROGEN (not electric) semi, basically negligible".
It depends on where you start to measure efficiency. Do you start after the battery is installed or when the minerals are mined? Do they calculate the energy used to find, mine, ship to manufacturers, make them and then ship them to the assemblers in the efficiency measures?
Exactly. There are alot of funny new "efficiency" calculations. Like it took 2 bananas 1 liter of water for me to type this. $!! Its impressive to take into consideration all of the outside labour required, but at the end of the day how do you justify even driving anywhere when you can bike?
A big surprise to you maybe, but engineers who calculate efficiency are in fact capable of taking into consideration any gotchas you could think of in the ten seconds it takes to type a youtube comment.
The term you are looking for is "lifecycle cost". In which case an electric vehicle running on 100% coal power is still better than an equivalent ICE car by the time you have driven 8k miles.
@@christopheroverbeck3662 I agree with your statement (life cycle cost) is the standard. When you start calculating how much water that engineer needed to drink and shower with while calculating a life cycle. Nobody does it. Because its bs. And when someone is trying to put down battery operated car, or hydrogen car suddenly there are only 2 or 3 ways to do something and they all have to include the most inefficient means of extraction. Or process. If you care. And truly wanted me to elaborate you would research
I've often wondered about hydrogen cars and I now have a better understanding
This analysis is referring to useful but highly dated tech in hydrogen arena. I encourage you to google more tubes about Hydrogen tech
Whatever works best I guess. But with hydrogen you'd have to store it, transport it, manufacture it etc. And you'd have to make all the manufacturing plants to make the hydrogen cars or convert diesel plants to hydrogen. But that hydrogen has to be kept cool and it's under pressure.
What ignited on the Hindenburg wasn't the Hidrogen, man. It was the aluminium paint used to weatherproof the skin... not that the H2 isn't flammable, but then, gasoline is too, very much so.
Exactly!
The hydrogen fuel cells aren’t the issue. The storage and transport of massive amounts of hydrogen around the country is the problem. It’s very expensive, dangerous, and inefficient.
It’s much for efficient to get your vehicle’s fuel directly from the power grid.
Genuine efficiency is burning liquid fuels and using electric drive, stopstart as range extenders. 10% electric car load vs. current traffic totally demolishes electric grid. In US NE a Tesla and all other electric vehicles are COAL BURNERS.
A VW 1L Diesel electric with a small battery (10 miles, 35mph max) gives max FREEDOM to owner with minimum emissions in current infrastructure.
I agree, It's very expensive for hydrogen. Even if investors and pioneers of the technology develop a way to make hydrogen on-site to reduce/eliminate transport costs, it's still going to be inefficient and expensive.
Hydrogen fuel cell drones have three times the range of the best lithium batteries. Elon either didn't do the math or he is worried that he can't compete with Toyota.
I think Tesla (this is much more than just Elon Musk), has no real reason to worry about Toyota. It was figuread that range is not the big issue that many people think it is. That is why a 3 times the range-value on a drone does not make H2 a good solution. The Toyota Mirai for example has less range than most of the better BEV's.
There has been a lot of news in the last few years about improved catalysts to improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process.
Green hydrogen stations can be put anywhere a charge station is and excess power used to convert water to power hybrid EVs that use smaller batteries and ICE H2 range extenders.
In total, hydrogen is way more versatile. But I think it just can work if money doesn’t play a big role in the first place.
I really like the idea of a hydrogen powered society. But at first you have to take the cost factor out of the variables.
I think it has to be subsidised for a long period of time in order to make hydrogen greener and environmentally better.
Greetings from Germany.
You can make anything work if you throw limitless amounts of money at it. Even tech as garbage as hydrogen.
I totally understand your assumption. I just want to point out that the 'costs' to create & distribute hydrogen that you are referring to much less of a cost when you compare the life cycle of a hydrogen vehicle to the life cycle of a EV lithium vehicle. Most H vehicles do have one 70lb lithium battery onboard to perform on-line support but that is about the only toxic thing to recycle on the vehicle when it need retirement. Now compare that 70lbs of toxic lithium of an H vehicle to the 800lbs of toxic lithium to be recycled on an EV lithium vehicle when it retires some day. Now you have a better comparison of environmental costs as well as pocket costs.
@@palirvin1871 You forgot to listen when it said in the video that the fuel cell is approximately the same as a battery. The H2 car would require recycling of the fuel cell which is approximately the same as recycling a 600 lb battery pack.
I find this presentation very honest and sensible...thank you for you efforts. I regret that, as a practicing physicist and engineer, I must agree with EM on this particular topic, as well as the specifics given below by the other critical responders before me who gave 90% of the bad news. All I would add is that, at around the 9:00 time mark, any defense of hydrogen gets worse by the attempt to bring in "green hydrogen" from solar and wind sources. These latter electrical sources are anything but actually green : land hungry and intermittent in character, with equipment still intensively produced by existing industrial methods that are barely an improvement in the overall scheme of things to just raking coal into the thermal power stations. With years occasionally advising venture capital groups on this from I hope a God-honest perspective, put your bets elsewhere -after all, as I have to relentlessly explain, it must be economically measured as an energy conveyance, never an actual source as certain chemical industry consumers of hydrogen are entitled to see it. Best regards.
Agree that so called rebewables are anything but , personally I think quit messing around and use fast breather nuclear fission until fusion is perfected. However wind and solar are being adapted on huge scales so this will lead to high latentceys to try get away from gas , i.e 2x capacity to meet demand at 50% capacity (those are my own predictions but are just for an example) so at 80% capacity there will be vast amounts of ecxess power leading to curtailment , which is already happening in scandenavia, current battery tecnologies wont come close to meeting the TWH scales to meet this imbalance , DC UHV interconnectors may have a roll but are unlikely to completely solve the issue , this is where green hydrogen will step in using cheap excess power to run electrolysers. This will firstly displace grey hydrogen but will scale up quickly, on a side note hyrogen has been transported for industrial uses with few issuess and is relatively safe in cars as it dissipates quickly as it is so light. On the EV side minerals will become increasingly expensive as battery production continues to increase exponentionally and in reality most people rarely need more than 50-100 miles of rage per day. So it will not make sence to make a 400-500 mile range battery , this is where I believe h2 hybrids will fill the gap on the occasional time you need a longer range where a small h2 cell will continuously top up a battery on longer journeys.
@@johnowens8992 Hello John
Many interesting and good points - too many to address at once (perhaps due to the edit applied to your original submission?). As primarily a nuclear industry person in my earlier career, I am very prejudiced towards the fission option, especially if we can get away from U235-based (i.e., open, wasteful "cycles".) I would mainly add that adding more nuclear does play primarily into the EV industry goals, with a potential for secondary hydrolysis-based energy storage use - for what ever purposes. Still keeping the nuclear engineer's perspective, we DO like technologies that help to alleviate load shifting, as almost all fission modes of energy generation are best applied to providing base load and NOT swinging demands (e.g., of the typical consumer day-time use cycle.) Forcing most cores to work in demand mode runs the risk of instabilities.
best regards Domenico
Non peak times from nuclear plants when peak is over instead or running the cooling towers make hydrogen and from Hydroelectric plant in non peak if plenty of water is available. Would be great if we could use it in regular engines because fuel cells are very high and platinum is hard to mine for fuel cells.
The chart at 11:49 is wrong. Where is the USA as of 2021 via google "As of January 2021, there were 45 publicly accessible hydrogen refueling stations in the US, 43 of which were located in California." I've had one station 1/2 mile from me at a Shell station off Lincoln and North of Manchester. And as of US 2022?
There are currently 107 hydrogen fueling stations in the United States that supply hydrogen for sale to the public and other supply points for private fleets.
Excellent review. As someone said, no one technology will suit everything, but all inovation will fix a lot of the issues.
Innovation is being halted by government. Look what's going on with banning of gasoline vehicles and requiring electric vehicle sales. Not only is it tyranny, but it hinders innovation. I want to hear all options. All options are not good for insider trading.
@@keilmillerjr9701 I love the idea of getting rid of fuelled vehicles and going electric. Crude oil is used for many things from manufacturing to pharmaceuticals. What do we do once it runs out? We need to preserve it as ling as we can. Electric cars save burning this. There are a couple of ways to recharge them. From the grid uses less fossil fuels than burning it inside an engine. Yoy can charge them from your own solar panels and house battery. Or, and I love this one, there are a few cars coming out soon that have built in solar panels.
@@SimonAmazingClarke your response literally has nothing to do with your original comment or my response.
Seems like hydrogen is an obvious choice for airplanes and shipping, which would be a massive improvement. For the rest electric vechicles have me convinced
Tesla semi would be excellent at short to mid range, but would suck at long haul. I heard that would cover more than 50%-75% of the semi usage, (I am not sure from where.)
Hydrogen semi would be seriously overkill at short to mid range. But if you only use the hydrogen semi for long haul, you can get away with not having any filling stations at all, because you can cheaply transport the liquid hydrogen from the nearest industrial site (relatively speaking). Basically you can have mobile filling stations, because hydrogen energy density is so amazingly high.
The technologies complement each other near perfectly.
@@adamrak7560 Need to get off the Musk band wagon. Nothing overkill with hydrogen fuel cells in the trucking industry. A battery powered truck is laughable when you consider the actual weight vs range of the vehicle. The weight of small electric cars are one of the biggest drawbacks. So how can you even plan to upscale that?
I did the math I’m using hydrogen for an airplane and it does not look good. The problem is for the same quantity of energy they would get from aircraft fuel, hydrogen tank would be 3 1/2 times the volume of existing tanks.
There is simply not enough room in aircraft wings to fill them with hydrogen. Add to that that the tanks need to withstand 10,000 psi and he quickly see that aircraft fueled by hydrogen is a virtual impossibility. Just take a look at the size of the hydrogen tanks on a Toyota Mirai to put things in perspective and that has a tiny motor in it which is necessary because they simply can’t stuff that much energy into a vehicle.
I doubt you’ll ever see a commercial application of hydrogen aircraft ever.
As far as trucks is concerned the economics would prevent hydrogen from being used since it cost twice as much as gasoline. The fossil fuel companies would love us to be enamored with hydrogen because they would like to supply it from natural gas.
Hydrogen is simply a scam to sell more fossil fuels.
@@colingenge9999 lol. Okay did you dig out your own carbon and precious metals from earth to make your own batteries...No they were stripped minned in China. Lol You clearly have no idea what your talking about. It's lack of common sense and I want to feel good environmentist thinking that lead us to this plastic disaster. How many tons does the average Telsa weigh? How many tires does it burn through and how are those tires made? A fuel cell plane is possible because Hydrogen can be stored in a liquid or gas...a battery powered plane simple is not possible because of the weight of the batteries and the amount of energy that would need to be stored.
@@mkgriff1492 battery powered aircraft are already flying. If you look up Harbor air in British Columbia you’ll see that they are providing a one hour flight from Victoria to Vancouver on a battery powered aircraft with 1/10 of cost of using aviation fuel.
If you are suggesting the hydrogen can be stored as a liquid you are correct but it needs a cryo-genic cooling system that keeps it at -260°C which requires a massive amount of energy not to mention insulation on the fuel tanks. This only works at extremely high cost for liquid fueled rockets and will never work in aircraft. Throughout your comment you use “LOL“; if you want to be taken seriously you need to write seriously.
Very good plain simple informative video. We need more pragmatics like this. Having said that I believe H2 is going to win the race and not by using in Fuel cells but in COMBUSTION engines like Omega 2 which is going to revolutionise the transport industry. I am waiting for someone more pragmatic than Tesla Elon to bring onboard a Semi / SUV with a very small light weight Engine with a Tank of Hydrogen which can be either pumped into or H2 made on board with Lead Acid battery (24/48V) - just one battery like the ICE machine. Making Onboard H2 has been around since 1930’s and we know how it happens very well. Just the amount of how much more can be generated onboard can be determined with the size of vehicle it will be installed. I am looking forward to such a vehicle before I close my eyes for the last time on this Earth….. and I am 80 yrs old so YOU better hurry up……
H combustion is just as inefficient as ice. And, do to H embrittlement is unlikely to last more than 100,000 miles when the valves start breaking.
If we can then use that CO2 with CH4 to produce graphene and water..
that would bo very useful.
May be the real issue is over complicating the systems in the name of making cars dealership dependent only for repair to further monopolize car industry ,how many independent car technicians are out there with industry training for electric vehicles as an example or hydrogen probably can counted that on 1 hand ?
Mike Copland has been working with some of the automotive manufacturers like Bosch he has put together a couple of modern current power plants GM LS, and Ford coyote powered and with hydrogen gas power that could help bridge the gap between something that's current but with more modern technical twist to it to let every one else meaning independents in the field catch up to what Toyota ,Ford , GM Tesla BMW is moving towards .
Mike Copland you tube videos are informative too because built and used .
There is a very good reason for focusing on energy efficiency that rarely gets mentioned.
We are currently in a race against time to reduce our GHG emissions and there are fundamentally 2 actions we can take to achieve this;
A. Use energy from zero carbon sources
B. Use less energy
Both BEVs and HFCEVs can use zero carbon fuel in operation but, due to efficiency losses in hydrogen production, distribution and the fuel cell, an HFCEV requires 2.5x to 3x more green electricity for the same number of road miles.
"race against time to reduce our GHG emissions" WHY ? is the sky falling ? CHICKEN LITTLE !
We could use electricity produced by Thorium molten salt reactors for electrolysis. This would result in green hydrogen with no CO2 involved.
Agreed
It is not. And these phantastic reactors are still phantastic. Not really real.
Hydrogen is not a fuel "source" its a form of energy storage.
If electrolizer is cheap, you can install it in car and then charge the hydrogen car by electricity, when you don’t need batteries at all.
Another option would be to install cheap electrolizer to a power wall…
Electrolyzers aren't cheap at all and probably never will due to the need of very expensive catalyst materials. And on top of that, it is not good enough as you also need a 700 bar high pressure pump to get your H2 into your tank.
Totally agree, Hydrogen fuel cells are not for consumer vehicles BUT good for other vehicles especially used in construction, ships, and possibly aircraft. One thing I think some people get wrong is they think hydrogen is burnt in the engine!! - while mostly this is wrong, JCB is making an engine that does burn hydrogen - maybe you could make a video about this?
Batteries are improving at over 5% yearly , both in lower cost and longer range.
By 2030 all EV range will be over 600 miles. Cost will be 1/2 of current prices.
Recyclable to almost 100%.
So who paid for this hit piece ?
EXXONMOBIL or Buffets Chevron ?
Batteries? Recyclable? Hardly. And they're no improving much either, certainly not at a 5% rate, nor are they getting affordable. £50,000 for a micro car is NOT cheap.
Most batteries get dumped once exhausted, NOT recycled, as it's difficult and not cost efficient.
So, I'd say the real "hit piece" is you hitting on hydrogen. Neither Chevron or Exxon have any vested interests in hydrogen. If you stopped to think before typing for one second, you'd realise just how stupid your statement reads.
Bought an electric vehicle recently have we?
@@2112jonr
Texas Instrument calculators initially would've been more than a computer today.
U still use VHS ?
Got a CD player in your car ?
Fossil Fuel is dead energy. Hydrogen as a derivative of Natural Gas is not green energy. Sorry pal.
The biggest problem with all of the alternative fuel / power sources is gasoline, fossil fuels are hard to beat. It cheap and easy to make and store gasoline when compared to what is needed to make electric, hydrogen, even ammonia as energy sources. And all of these alternatives require more fossil fuels and rare earth metals in order to work. I’m all for cleaning up the environment, but we have to do it smarter.
And we owe our soul to the company store
Hydrogen works well for fleets where production can be concentrated at the garage. Alameda County CA has had several hydrogen buses for a few years.
Almost as well as BEV with battery swapping.
I agree with Elon on this. The materials industry to make batteries is already growing. Batteries will continue to evolve. Battery recycling to supplement the raw materials for new batteries is also growing.
With renewable energy picking up speed and being used to make hydrogen, then it can be used also. But I don't foresee hydrogen vehicles ever holding more than a small slice of the vehicle market.
Government is the reason we won't have options. They are forcing us to use the same option they bought stock in.
• Nano aluminium powder (ie a gallium/aluminium amalgam) is oxidised in water to release 100% heated hydrogen gas and an alumina residue (the gallium catalyst is fully recoverable).
• The hot hydrogen gas self-ignites in a venturi to form an ionised gas or plasma that drives an MHD electrical generator.
• Aluminium metal and useful metal oxides can be reconstituted from the alumina residue (without electrolysis) by adding highly reactive metals such as potassium or sodium (eg 5.52 gm of metal sodium reacts with 6.52 gm of aluminium oxide to yield 1.50 gm of metal aluminium). The chemical reactions are:
Potassium: 6K + Al2O3 → 3K2O (potassium oxide or potash) + 2Al.
Sodium: Na + Al2O3 → Na2O (sodium bicarbonate) + Al
Potassium oxide also reacts with carbon dioxide to produce potassium carbonate so it not only forms a useful industrial product but it can sequester a climate warming gas.
K2O + CO2→ K2CO3
Similarly, sodium oxide reacts with carbon dioxide to form sodium carbonate (washing soda) so it might also form a useful industrial product along with sequestering a climate warming gas.
2Na2O + 3CO2 → 2Na2CO3
Cogratulations for this most focused well balanced analisis & sinthesis . 🎯💯⛳👏
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂. Tesla is building three models of hydrogen cars and you people can’t stop patting each other on the back!!
Holy shit this is hilarious!!!! A bunch of nerds with zero research skills!! How does that even happen??? 🤣😂🤣😂🤦🏼
One thing that is overlooked in all these kind of videos is the part where the car/truck has a technical problem.
Like all cars and trucks the electrical ones will brake down ones in a while. For cars the problem is not that mutch of a deal, but for trucks this is a big deal.
Have you ever seen how they tow a truck, it's not on a flatbed; it's by lifting up the front or rear axel and driving them this way to a save place or the garage. With ICE trucks there is no problem; the tower "just" has to disconect the motor from the wheels (via the shaft) and it can be towed. But with electrical transport the motor is right on the axel; so it can't be disconected. In other words if you tow a electric vehicle in that way you are spining the motor. And if it is for short distances, like pulling it up on to a flatbed, it's not a big deal. But to take the truck for a tow that can be over several hundres kilometers, it will be a problem. There are two major problems, first the motor could get stuck and break even during he tow (becource there is nothing cooling the motor down, for the truck is not powerd on), he second problem is that the motor can become a dynamo (recharger) and it will produce power (or back to the batterie, or it can be conected to something that draines that power), but this is a great hazzard. This is a big problem for towing companies, and the companies that have the bad luck that theyre truck had been broken down. Becource who is going to cover those repair costs if these problems happen whyle towing.
And the biggest problem is when a truck had an accident, where the batterie has sufferd damage; it may catch fire (expecialy when towing). I don't think that any person in there good mind wants to be towing a truck that starts to burn.
And now we are on the subject of burning electrical trucks; how can you shut the fire down? With an electric car that car needs to be lowerd in an container filed wih water for 48h, to avoid restarting fires. How in heavens name would you do that with a truck?
Don't get me wrong I love to drive a Tesla semi in the future (I'm a truck driver in Europe), but there is nobody today that can solve the problem of a burning electrical truck. And I know that in normal use this is not a problem; but if it happens in an accident (between trucks) there is no option of "just" letting the truck burn out, becource that will hapen next to a highway or a big road, and it would take a long time for the truck to stop burning, and the damage to the road and suroundings would be enormes. Not to mension the toxic fumes that will be set free from the fire.
And with hydrogen the problem will be even bigger, becource trucks will have (small) batteries (to charge when slowing down the truck) but the hydrogen tanks are litteraly boms when the truck would catch on fire. And that is even a bigger problem for everybody close to the truck on fire.
Just some thoughts regarding the future of oure transportation.
Greetings from Belgium.
seems like an obvious problem and im sure it isnt one. because if it were a problem, with all the companies and people making a fuss every time something happens with a tesla, they would be all over them if they couldnt be tower.
in general, to deal with the fire, you just need to douse them in water to cool them down because its the heat that makes them burn from a short circuit in the batter from damage. So you could dump the battery in a pool of water for a few days until any damaged cells fully discharge, then they wouldnt be at risk of shorting and burning. not exactly simple to do on the highway, but there is a path forward and in general crews are pretty good at handling EVs. Accidents do happen less with teslas, but once self driving tech is here and working, accidents will start to become a thing of the past.
Some companies are also sealing batteries in a compartment with no air to prevent a fire from starting, they just burn out in place. There was actually a car company doing this and some news awhile ago about them scamming customers, i cant remember which brand it was off hand id probably say the wrong one if i guessed. But the story is basically that the battery is bigger then expected without the drivers having full access to it(and no i dont mean teslas) in some cases the cars were losing range and it turns out the battery sections were burning up and the battery stopped charging them when it senses this but it results in a permanent loss or range. This company would "fix" it by "replacing the battery", but they were just unlocking part of the unused battery, which also suggests they knew this was a problem from the start. The problem is that despite the cars being under warranty, they were still charging people and arm and a leg to "replace the battery" when they were really only doing a software fix that isnt a permanent solution. I havnt heard anything about this in about 4-6 months and i had forgetting it until just now, i suppose this ended up in court with the situation sealed and resolved, you know those NDAs "if you want it fixed for free, sign this and agree to not talk about it". For the record, BMW had issues like this as well, their ICE cars were bursting into flames and they had no idea how to fix it, they just told owners to park them in the driveway until they could figure it out at some point. If you wanted the fix you had to sign their NDA, but someone leaked it anyway.
If you own an ICE or hydrogen car, you need the massive production industry behind you to make your fuel. With a BEV, many owners will have the option to make their electricity at home via solar cells. I think this is why big oil would like to transition to big hydrogen to keep us dependent on them.
Wouldn't you then need the massive production industry of Big Solar Panels and Big Battery to make fuel for your EV or do you manufacture those in the house too?
@@Boobeinstein There is no "big solar"
no small group controls the production of solar panels
and once you buy a set , they are YOURS you are no longer dependent on the company that made them
@@mariolis By that logic I can just buy an electrolyzer and hydrolyse water into H2 and O2 in my house and fuel my hydrogen car without needing Big Oil.
I live in the UK and have owned a Tesla Model S P85 since 2014 now 125,000 miles. Since 2019 Ive owned a Zero electric motorcycle. My house has 4kW of tied grid solar (thats a standard and common system in the UK and actually 3.8kW max output by regulations) so when Im in the car the bike is on charge and when Im on the bike the car charges up. Thats 25 miles a day in the car and the bike fills up so 100 miles. So when you say "many owners will" I already do make my own electricity to provide my own transport and I have a basic system.
Theres no way you would convince me to go back to paying a fortune at a filling station or wasting the time and effort with filling up.
Actually the EXACT OPPOSITE is true... People can build solar powered electrolysis machines in their own backyards... (look up Bob Lazar - hydrogen Corvette) in fact THAT is the PROBLEM... TPTB ALWAYS WANT "CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION"... sorry my friend, get your info straight...
Fair enough about the others, however Aluminium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earths crust.
There are a few more problems not mentioned here.
#1 There isnt enough platinum in the world to make fuel cell for every vehicle to be hydrogen powered. Thats a big issue. It has one potential solution, a few years ago a really big asteroid flew by that was made up entirely of platinum, so much so that if we bring it back to earth, platinum becomes worthless. So there is a way to get more, it just may be really hard and really expensive to get it.
There are alternate materials, like copper, but they are FAR less efficient, their are combo materials, that have tradeoffs, but still no great and work to make new materials, but no breakthroughs yet.
#2 Hydrogen is so small that its impossible to store, it leaks out over time and this cant be stopped.
#3 hydrogen makes any metal its contained in more brittle with time, this is bad as hydrogen is explosive if ignited and you are sitting on a tank of the stuff. Even if repairs are made to parts every few years, its not cheap the replace the guts of your car every few years.
#4 if dangerous to transport, its explosive, enough so to blow up a city block, so its too dangerous to transport at scale and must be made locally.
#5 alternate method to transport it is by turning it into ammonia(which makes things even less efficient), that is 3 hydrogen molecules instead of the normal 2, it also makes it more dense, great for transporting it. But it has a problem, if it leaks it forms a white cloud below 10 feet of an incredibly strong acid capable of melting organic matter, humans are organic. So if a tank pops you see a white cloud "thats weird" and if you breath it in, it will MELT your lungs. This stuff in a city being transported at scale is a nightmare, i dont know which is worse, #4 or #5. Again, hydrogen made locally is the only option.
#6 real world issues popping up now that its in use. Hydrogen is fast to fill up your car, right? wrong... as people are discovering, hydrogen is really cold and when moisture hits cold surfaces it freezes into ice. over the course of 5 minutes it makes so much ice that the nozzle is freezing to the car and you have to wait 10 minutes for it to unthaw. Not exactly fast... but you can build a heater into the nozzle which makes things even less efficient? not a problem that cant be solved. But lets look at that "45 minutes to fill up" figure, that may be true for some EVs, but charge speed peaks at the start and goes down towards the end, that last 10-20% takes the longest, there is just no reason with all the tesla chargers around to fully charge up, and if you do that, it takes to 15 minutes instead, most people find that taking a break on a trip takes at least 15 minutes so its not exactly a problem, and there are enough chargers where you can fill up twice before you run out even if you only go up to 80%. Most people also dont travel that much, you could opt for a lower range model and save money and simply rent a longer range car for a trip. Overall, the benefits of hydrogen are not huge and the benefits of batteries arnt as bad as people suggest and it does improve with time.
#3 - I believe Hydrogen is stored in special tanks constructed from woven carbon fibre - not metal ?
@@surreyhypnotherapy4402 maybe, but the rest of it is metal. fittings, pipes, fuel cell etc.
There is a role for hydrogen and fuel cells, but only if the hydrogen can be produced affordably and not add to our current greenhouse gas problem. Like you say, there are some applications where hydrogen fuel cells are potential more beneficial, but let's not forget many of today's hydrogen fuel cell vehicles still need batteries (although not as large a battery only EV) to temporarily store the energy produced by the fuel cell before it is fed to the electric motor(s). May be in the future we will be extracting hydrogen gas from the gas giants in our solar system.
that depends on how much we rely on hydrogen in the first place as we can make it in various ways here on earth already, besides once we finally get everyone to agree on nuclear power there will be no need for hydrogen/battery hybrids
@@justicegaminginc And that is why we are still researching & improving battery, solar, wind, pumped hydro, HFC and Hydrogen Fuel technology mate.
Nuclear has it's particular necessary uses, limited as they may be.
The vast majority of cases Nuclear just isn't needed.
@@soulsurvivor8293 well yeah but nuclear energy doesnt always require you to burn anything, nuclear energy is good because there are very limited things you can do with the material, that means if we eliminate things like making weapons out of it you could run power for the entire world a lot longer than oil, not to mention learning how to master it in a way that is not destructive could allow us to travel outside our solar system just because its that much better of an energy source
It’s only producing and energy wasted when turning it into fuel is the main problem and why I prefer electric over hydrogen. Simple asteroid mining would release pressure of our 🌏 and produce more resources which benefits the environment and industries even investing in space would benefit humanity while expanding are race to the stars
Yeah but electric uses rare earth metals and no middle class person can afford a damn electric car
Same with hydrogen cars as well. But battery advancing at a rapid paste so is he costs would go down eventually. The battery of the car is the main problem also middle class can afford a model 3 Tesla or other electric cars equivalent to the same price; since the price went down to to make it a affordable for an average full time working person. Even on my road I see people owning electric especially teslas that are real popular.
There is also thr possibility of using hydrogen in modified ICE engines.
Hydrogen is not explosive, it implodes and if detonated for power it must be a vacuum engine design or combined with a secondary molecule that will expand when heated in the combustion chamber.
A mix of batteries, including lead acid and hydrogen fuel cells, all on board. Make the hydrogen right in the car instead of mass producing. An all of the above strategy. Net result: 1000 miles of range for less than unleaded gasoline.
The electric grid will NOT be overloaded. Governments (already happening in Europe) will be MANDATING Internet (aka Smart) connected car chargers. This way, government regulators can shut off your home car charger remotely and ration how much they will allow you to use it. Because of solar panels, there's more power available during the day than there is night (or cloudy weather). They're using this to prevent electric car owners from charging at night, or when the electrical grid is under heavy use. The best solution is to own 2 electric cars so that you can have one "available" to charge while you're driving the other one.
HHO on demand works well with diesel engines : boats , trucks , tractors , & cars .
Look at BB11 engine. It’s a four more efficient internal combustion engine. It’s shape is literally round. Thus, put magnets on outside, you have a generator to produce hydrogen on the go. It’s easier to make hydrogen as and when required. If BB11 was used on hydrogen, problem solved. Especially for super ships or trains as in USA or tractors where room no problem.
Patent agent blown away by design and wanted me to meet Mercedes Formula1, then silence as first invention that took me to The Palace
Very well done video. You presented information in a very detailed and easy to understand concepts. Thanks. Subscribed and liked.
I disagree with respect. This was not a well done video because it referred to dated approaches an totally excluded new tech for acquiring H and delivering H. He only referred to old 1970's tech which is not as useful in comparison. I hope you will also consider my complaint above @Pal Irvin for instance.
@@palirvin1871 Please fill in details of what is different and why it is better.
Hydrogen fuel cells also have another completely overlooked downside - they need quite lot of oxygen (approx. 8kg of oxygen for 1kg of hydrogen). That could be huge problem for scenarios like underground parking, garages and closed spaces dependent on air ventilation in general. Even long uphill tunnels could be problematic if majority of cars would be running on hydrogen.
For example, if you turn on air conditioner in hydrogen car parked in small garrage (which can be done remotely in modern cars), oxygen level would drop below minimum required for human survival in about 30 minutes.
H2 has roughly 3 times the energy-density of petrol per kg, and Petrol needs roughly 3 kg O2 (14,8kg air) for the combustion -> combined with the higher efficency, a FC would need less O2 than an ICE would for the same ammount of power..
I would assume if you had all the gas cars running at the same time in an underground tunnel or parking facility one would have other issues to worry about, such as breathing. However, in both cases increasing ventilation should take care of this.
The bottom line is.....
1) Electric motors are very efficent.
2) Electricty can be produced in many ways'''
- Spinning a coil in a magnetic field. (generators powered by coal, oil, neuclear, falling water, etc)
- Spinning a magnet in a coil. (generators powered by coal, oil, neuclear, falling water, etc)
- chemically (Batteries) (LiIon, Lead Acid, NiCd Carbon-zinc, etc)
- Mechanically (Fule cells)
- Directly (Solar cells, Thermo-couples, etc)
3) Electricity can be stored in many ways....
- Lithium batteries.
- Silicon batteries.
- Lead-Acid batteries.
- inertially (Spinning masses, etc)
- Gravity (Water, hanging weights, etc)
There simply are more options to explore with electricity than any other fuel source, and we've just begun. Tesla understand this.
I like this content very much. Technology is always there. I guess the restricting factors are the availability and cost of important ingredient materials in manufacturing of any vehicle. Oil is a limited resource that we have been using for very long time now even when the use of this resource had increase very dramatically since its discovery.
Great video, but you left out one glaring point, which showed your bias. Despite the inefficiencies of H2 its energy density is MUCH higher than any BEV will ever be. So, the efficiencies will improve in both cases, but H2's ability to move heavy things around will never be caught up.
He called CO2 Carbon Monoxide when it's really carbon Dioxide. The real reason why Gas and batteries
merchants don like Hydrogen is because you can produce it yourself from a number of sources including any type of water specially sea water.
Why not use electric and hydrogen cell together
in a practical manner?
Ford Lightning uses a lot of lithium-ion battery
that just rides around for an occasional long trip.
Take out all but a hundred miles of charge that can be economical at home = fifty cent equivalent for a gallon of gas! Add a small hydrogen cell that can be turned on only for a range extender on a long trip. Use a small driver replacement bottle to be exchanged like a profane cylinder. No infrastructure pumps needed! I'm driving a Honda Clarity that would work the same way. I only use an average five gallon of gas per month so it wouldn't need much hydrogen.
JCB is now selling a hydrogen-fueled contractor plant that uses a conventional diesel engine with the top half replaced to include a high-pressure boost turbine. This means they have not had to change much of their engine manufacturing plant and users do not need to train mechanics in a new technology. The lightweight carbon fiber fuel tanks allow a day's worth of fuel to be carried by each type of equipment from loaders to excavators and be refilled from a mobile bowser. The engines are already being produced in the UK and India pointing the direction in which industry will go and it will not involve batteries that go on fire. A recent technical review of wind farms over a ten-year cycle has demonstrated that they are not fit for purpose bringing instability to the grid and requiring the same power from dispatchable backup and a recent auction in the UK did not have any takers to build new wind farms. So the EV will end up in a small market niche of persons living in southern climes with large houses that have enough roof space to produce the power they need for their home and EV but for Joe Blow it is a wash since he cannot afford the second-hand price of EVs that need a new battery and the cost of charging them is now exorbitant.
its not stupid, even if it looks stupid now in the future we dont know what potential it still holds. so at least exploring other directions is never stupid in my opinion
I think that Musk is saying that it's stupid for automobiles. It's hard to argue otherwise. But there certainly are other use cases that hydrogen could be used for that may make sense.
Man did you simplify a very complex subject.. sadly in the simplification you really didn't show just how bad hydrogen is...Hydrogen isn't anything but stupid. It's efficiency is much lower than a battery powered vehicle. You use electricity to make hydrogen they compress and deliver the hydrogen to the refill stations. Then folks fill up and the hydrogen is turned back into electricity to power a vehicle. That's multiple steps, lots of cost, and lower efficiency than just using the electricity that we are already surrounded by. Battery electric cars are about 75% efficient based on the total electricity produced while hydrogen is about 30% efficient. That's not to forget that hydrogen is hard to store for very long and to use as a fuel must be either liquefied, pressurized, or mixed with something else to act as a carrying agent. None of those options come without cost or problems. Who spends billions of dollars to provide the most in efficient of two systems? Elon doesn't product hydrogen fuel cells because they don't make sense. Not because he has an interest in battery electric cars. He could easily produce all the Tesla semi and simply put in a fuel cell and storage tank with little problem and he would if it were a good idea. This is certainly the most disappointing video you have produced. It's just fuel to feed the FUD around hydrogen. Do some real research and quit spreading the narrative that big oil wants to promote. They would love to just produce another fuel that we go out and fill up with so they have something to replace the oil/gasoline business.
Engineering Explained did a nice job on this. Solar electricity used to make green hydrogen, then the hydrogen is used in power plants is more efficient than a hydrogen powered car.
Wave action generation to separate atoms of hydrogen and oxygen is the stuff of water it makes no carbon but turns back to water.this makes clouds and rain to clean the atmosphere. This might be better than changing your vaccume cleaner,or washing machine into a cat instead of $92,000 un inflation dollars that an EV is .you can make a hotter burn by mixing ,the two gasses in a burn untill the reciprocal engine already in an everyday car will run. If you want to push for better efficiency, the closest you can get is just before it melts the engine like these new ones burning on the side of the road. The exhaust is the combination of the atoms making water vapor. The problem with moving faster and putting all your eggs in one basket is stumbling and breaking breakfast. LOL we can figure it out in real use. If we don't forget even a setup to oxygenate coal to burn it without the nasty black carbon smoke. There are options that may surprise us all. Using u nuclear waste as a molton salt fusion generator which is much much safer than fission like the bomb plants. If you can afford one and the depletion of minerals, doesn't bother you, an EV is fine .
he did mention that and had a nice graph in the video showing the efficiency, not sure how you missed it.
You either didn't watch this video, or didn't understand.
@@kosisochukwuchiude7790 you have much to learn... LOL
I’m sorry, but efficiency table are wrong. Fuel production efficiency for BEV can not be 95% because it’s include electric power plant cycle in it. And since the most of the electric power produced by the heat power plant such as gas, oil or coal power plant you should consider its efficiency which is around 30%. And that’s gives us an overall BEV efficiency similar to HEV - around 22%!
Ammonia seems to be a better idea. Liquid NH3 is easily made, safer & cheaper to store & handle than Liquid H2. Even better is that it carries nearly 45% more Hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen itself, for a given volume.
Ammonia easily splits at 500-600°C to yield hydrogen. Gas-turbines have run at high efficiency & no emissions when fed with ammonia. And there are fuel cells under development that consume NH3 directly.
So the hydrogen economy when it dawns may indeed See a huge role for NH3.
A $32,000 profit sent to my portfolio each week, Ms. Olivia Renae Marks is amazing.
@Adam Mieke Most people do not know that trading is the best step to growing more income and generate wealth. I realized this after I came across Mrs Olivia R. Marks.
My uncle from Louisiana made over $3.7million USD directly to his portfolio and same as my other family members who started trading with Mrs Olivia Renae Marks services few months back..
@@timothyhelgren6895 yeah most people don't know that trading is another way to generate wealth..
When I first met with Mrs Olivia about crypto trading I took the opportunity regardless but now I am happy that I took the step to success by trading with Olivia Renae Marks. You know Ignorance can be the worst thing and mistake that most people always do.
@Jimmy fallon Jimmy You can easily communicate with Olivia Renae Marks directly on👇🏻👇🏻
Love the content. Im with Elon on this one. Inefficient and non renewable fuels logically have no place in our future!
i think you forgot to mention the high pressures required and the corrosiveness , aswell as the extreme explosiveness of hydrogen
Gasoline is also extremely explosive. Housewives, pensioners and teenagers somehow deal with it safely every single day of every year without incident.
It's just scare mongering to be honest.
Hydrogen will no doubt be another means to storing green energy from solar, wind and others for hours when that production is lowest in production. Other storage examples are water pumped to high ponds, gravity devices, batteries, and more. Stationary uses seem the most practical to me.
This video plays better on 1.75x speed. Otherwise than that. Good video.
"Casted" at 1:00 is wrong. The past tense of cast is cast. You don't add e d.
Oh and for that platinum catalyst well your existing gas card has way more platinum in it than a fuel cell why do you think people keep stealing Cadillac converters there after the platinum and a few other metals
TSP: talking about cons of hydrogen then doesn’t say anything about it’s low density
Me : INTERNAL PAIN
Solid Hydrogen with a metal lattice to hold it is denser than liquid hydrogen - does not require very low temperatures. But if you are talking about rare metals - Platinum is a rare metal. There are newer battery developments that use more common materials that are cheaper.
Do a deep dive into the storage of hydrogen in this solid lattice and you’ll see that it’s a scam. It simply does not work to produce any significant volume of hydrogen unless you maybe want a hydrogen powered birthday candle.
@@colingenge9999 There are technical difficulties in getting the hydrogen to release from the lattice - is that what you are talking about? The density is there - but there is still more investigation and experimentation to find a solution to the problem. But I agree that the technology is not ready for prime time.
making H2 so that we can use it for fuel only makes sense if energy required for making H2 is free and non-polluting. If H2 can be made with geothermal, then it should work well.
Thankfully we have Elon who actually use his brain and make the world better. 👍🇳🇴
Make ammonia out of seawater, it stores more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen but is far easier to store and transport and can be used (with modification) in a standard ICE engine or heated to release the hydrogen and then put it through a fuel cell...or buy a battery electric car with its legacy of dirty mining for the rare earth elements needed to make it...and on top of it all, we need less seawater.
We're getting better over time, sadly we've really screwed mother Earth along that bumpy road. Hopefully we'll be able to reverse some of the damage we've caused as we learn new things.
what damage? You bought into the lies.
I honestly believe in both of these energy sources. Costs to our planet and our survival as a species demands that we not only venture in their direction but continue to seek viable and non destructive means of generating them. As its been said "Nip it in the Bud"!
Stan Meyer’s Car With a Water-Powered Engine Meyer’s invention promised a revolution in the automotive industry. It worked through an electric water fuel cell, which divided any kind of water - including salt water - into its fundamental elements of hydrogen and oxygen, by utilizing a process far simpler than the electrolysis method.
range during winter is a serious problem with electric, batteries are so expensive to replace $26,000 for Tesla and very difficult to recycle as the whole assembly is encased in a foam and secure structure. the whole body of the vehicle must be removed in order to change the battery. plus the long recharging times seem to drive us back to stagecoach days for recharging. there is not enough electrical power anywhere today to provide power to a all electric nation of cars and trucks. All "green" type sources of electricity need another source as back up because the green sources do not produce all the time. so countries build gas fired electrical power plants. there are many more problems with electric, fires, what happens at the end of life of vehicle? also apparently the cost to repair an electric vehicle from accident is high and thus insurance companies are writing them off. Electric vehicles are also much heavier than gas, this leads to more road wear and harder to stop vehicles. roads will need to be built differently or rebuilt more often.
Hydrogen or Ammonia based vehicles seem to have less problems while providing a fast recharge and long distance range. any change to the present vehicle fuel source will be costly and challenging to implement.
Electric may be good for running around a city, but pales to intercity driving. Winter makes electric even a worse case situation. How many people will drive 200 miles or more with no heat, when it is -20C outside???? Summer A/C needs also impact electric vehicles range greatly as well.
Pushing the world to an all electric soLution is likely a serious fault in thinking one which will expose many expensive issues.
is it possible to combine these 2 technologies? like using batteries for moving the car and recharging them with hydrogen when we are in motion. isnt more effective?
This is called a "hybrid vehicle". They are always garbage for the obvious reason that you have twice as many parts that can break.
I'm thinking of a system where the road wheels turning an electrical turbines charging a battery. My idea requires two batteries one fully charged on stand by while the other in use. Once the using battery is used up the electrical system swaps the batteries over. The used battery is recharged by the road wheels while the stand by battery becomes the main battery where the cycle repeats. The problem with my idea is the lasting power of batteries is finite. Batteries can only take so many recharges before they become inefficient at being recharged to a extent we have to replace them which is expensive for the age of the vehicle. The second flaw slow moving city traffic jams is an insentient electrical generation at slow moving stopping and starting in life of the vehicle. Besides I foresee hydreon power as a wet whether promoter. Hydreon power engines generate rain in the atmosphere. There would be an endless and possible thunderstorms wet weather. conditions In other words hydreon power engines are water dirty. If we view the engine in action with any infrared camera and military night goggle would see in all electrical devices including EV radiate an aura of electromagnetic radiation our eyes don't see radiating from the vehicle. Hydreon as all electrical devices are electromagnetic radiation dirty.
Thermodynamics literacy: Without going into differences between free energies and enthalpies, however, we are able to express ideas so math gives good practical insight; namely, available energy = fuel mass * energy density * efficiency. Energy densities are easy to look up:
In the vast mosaic of energy sources and uses, there are many applications that are yet to be researched. Opportunities everywhere.
Green H2 is great to use as a storage for the uneven renewable energy production, make green H2 when the spike comes, then use it in the heavy industry
H2 is expensive to store, taking either high pressures, requiring expensive compression, or cryogenic temperatures, requiring expensive cascading refrigeration.
@@CraziFuzzy i agree, i think Indeed Is not great for commercial use, but maybe useful with some in-situ production and use (for example big factories with solar production)
a hydrolyser is extremely expensive (Platin) -> to come to a even halfway acceptable H2 Prize it needs to run 24/7 in it's most efficitent Load-Point. (ignoring the huge infrastructure Problems of H2)
You forgot to mention the part that hydrogen gas can be used as direct fuel like LPG for example. which the best way. Every house in a windy or sunny area can self produce more than enough hydrogen for their car.
WAS IN THE DENTAL LABORATORY BUSINESS , MY ORTHODONTIC DEPT
USED A HYDROGEN GENERATOR THAT PRODUSED A GAS FOR A TORCH FOR WELDING STANLESS STEEL WIRE ,IN THE FABRICATION OF ORTHODONTIC REMOVABLE APPLIANCES !
For passenger vehicles, batteries may be the best answer. Certainly not for storing “renewable” energy. Hydrogen need not be turned into electricity with fuel cells. I can be burned the same way natural gas is burned in power plants today. Once “green hydrogen” is cheaper than trying to store energy from renewable sources, they will stop trying to store it in batteries.
If green electricity was used with CO2 and water to remake octane, a gasoline liquid fuel, then the current existing carbon based fuel system could be continued with little to no change. I can't see that being too difficult.
it would be carbon neutral but too expensive and nobody would want it. EVs are just better, cleaner and more durable. no point keeping mechanical cars around with liquid fuels.
A FEW YEARS??? I WOULD SAY 10 YEARS OR MORE OF BATTERY LIFE
If Toyota think Hydrogen is worth investing in, then others should too
there will be a use for both.
I will put it this way. it's the same thing we run into with AC versus DC power. in the end they're both useful for different purposes. AC is good for long distance distribution. DC is useful for small systems computer electronics.
Hydrogen will have zero use. Batteries are better on a cost basis, and if you care more about range or energy density than cost, then you will be willing to pay the extra cost to synthesize gasoline directly.
Where does the high pressure H2 come from? Made from oil & gas thru a complex system adds cost all the way to the wheel. Ammonia is N2H3 and is a liquid under 150PSIG. in the 1970 a company made a gasoline car that can run directly on ammonia.
How are difficult and expensive would it be to have personal size, Solar powered, green hydrogen generators? If people could generate their own hydrogen from water or from the atmosphere, hydrogen powered vehicles might make sense for them.
Can you run a hydrogen fuel cell in reverse if you pump electricity into it? Can you charge a hydrogen fuel cell that way?
Maybe it’s better to have improved batteries. They’re working on it.
Hydrogen is not such a good idea.
[6:00] you said Carbon Monoxide (CO) not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that you showed.
They picked the most savage photo of Elon musk at 4:07
I felt as though you "half covered" the story. As an example, what happens to the range of EVs in very cold weather? Or the possible heat issues with EVs. And with hydrogen, if it becomes the standard for long haul trucking, wouldn't that require (at the least) hydrogen depots for trucks, strategically located around the country? Are there temperature issues for hydrogen? What's the expected lifespan of fuel cells? How long would it take to charge a heavy EV truck? What's the procedure when either one runs out of fuel? If you want to keep your vehicle for a longer time (say, 10-20 years if you're environmentally concerned), which fuel type is less expensive over the long run? What's the environmental cost of making a Tesla vs that of making a fuel cell vehicle, and how many miles would you have to drive each one (given green power sources) to neutralize the eco cost of actually building the car?
Much people that proppose hydrogen, oppose wind & solar, coz they dont care for details and dont understand the concept they worship, they only know hydrogen&oxygen makes pure water and thats great. We will always need hydrogen coz most plastics and protein contains it, i guess ships will work with batterys, with planes we will see, electricity is just the way to go. The most valueable and versatile kind of energy comes from one of the most simple things you just lay on your roof, thats unbeatable, engineers tend to complicate things, but luckily they dont make all decisions.
The focus should be on advanced tech elecrolyzers.
Hydrogen is a back to the pump technology that will keep we the public exactly where we are with our disposable cash going to very specific pockets. At least with Elan's technology we can charge a car with solar or some other cheap electricity, trying to make 99.999% pure Hydrogen at home is not really feasible.
We could make hydrogen at home using electrolysis but the equipment is very expensive and we only wind up getting 25% of the energy back that we put into it in the first place so that conclusion is just start a new battery and get 90% of it back. A whole lot cheaper all the way around.
Until electricity starts to need government approved chargers and gets MEGA expensive to compensate for fuel revenue.
Once the current battery honeymoon period is over.
@@2112jonr The amount of revenue collected by the American government is a pittance compared to Norway for example. I suspect the costs to society for mining and selling oil in America is probably greater than the benefits. Converting America over to a mostly renewable power grid is eventually our only future. We should get on with it.