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. its not a good video attall . No links to anny research about real facts or what so ever. Its only your story .

  2. Great video I see what you mean by the inefficiencies of hydrogen but the one other thing to consider is range loss and worse performance in the cold both things that aren't a problem with hydrogen

  3. With the amount of money used to extract oil and r&d in engines is billions of dollars. You mean to tell me hydrogen is that expensive to to extract and convert engines to use as fuel is impossible? No sir you are biased or paid to show how inefficient it is but that's further from the truth. Hydrogen is the future after oil reserves dry up or when we have screwed the environment so much that we have no option but to use it.

  4. It's like he's never heard of the economy of scale… fuel cells are still near the bottom of the production possibility curve, while lithium batteries are near their top. He is also willfully ignoring the incredible time and cost and heavy-metal waste in batteries… not to mention the scarcity of lithium.

  5. Why noone talks about biofuel from fermented fruits alcohol and simple water. its a very simple combo and works as good as gazoline.

  6. Thorium/Hydrogen has to be the future; cost goes down with logistical efficiency and engineering. The petrodollar is the only down side, big oil should be investing in hydrogen… Japan is dead right…

  7. The truth about lithium

    Pros and cons of recycling

    With the exception of lead acid vehicle batteries, battery recycling has not been an economic option in the past as it costs much more to recycle a battery than to dispose of it to landfill. Furthermore, although battery recycling conserves valuable metals, according to US statistics recycled lithium is five times more expensive than lithium obtained through mining and uses six times as much energy as the processing of virgin ore. Lithium-ion batteries only contain a very small percentage of lithium, which is not economic to recycle.

    Strategic value of lithium

    One of the key justifications for recycling waste electrical and electronic equipment is that it conserves valuable metals such as rare earths, which are either scarce or can only be found outside the EU — whether in China or in politically unstable regions. In the case of lithium batteries, there is not such a strong rationale for recycling.

    Lithium is not included in the EU's list of critical raw materials because, compared with other metals, both the supply risk and economic importance are relatively low. However, it was classified as a strategically important metal by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee on account of the projected growth in demand for vehicle batteries. In 2011, the University of Michigan carried out a study into the availability of lithium and concluded that global resources are adequate to meet the demand for electric vehicles throughout this century; looking further ahead, though, an EU study predicted that reserves could be exhausted by 2050 if there is high market penetration of electric vehicles. Over 40% of the world's lithium reserves lie in Bolivia and Chile, but Bolivia has not yet allowed overseas companies to mine the salt flats in which the deposits are found.

    Yes it's copy/pasta, so what, you gonna fight about it? Source material can be browsed in detail, here:

  8. I would argue that hydrogen power is not more environmentally friendly than gasoline, as not only does steam reforming hydrogen from hydrocarbons use a lot of electrical power it directly produces a large amount of Co2 as its byproduct, when you remove he hydro- from the carbon of a hydrocarbon you have just liberated the carbon. Where does this go? This does NOT reduce its carbon footprint at all. Additionally if the electricity used to produce hydrogen is produced by burning natural gas, coal or oil, it is further producing Co2 and yet more pollutants like carbon monoxide. Hydrogen pollutes massively the way it is presently done.

  9. Ok fine but what about hydrogen internal combustion, electric cars are fine, but imagine the size of the battery pack for a semi, to convert present vehicles to hydrogen would be better, just means more different ways to produce hydrogen are needed.This is nothing new they ran hydrogen gen sets during the war.

  10. After producing solar panels, or building and operating nature has generators, is it really more eco friendly?

  11. I also think you forgot to include the energy to make the battery. I've read it requires as much energy as a diesel car consumes at 200000 km

  12. There have been advancements in Thorium technology…If it wasn't suppressed we would probably have it already…The basic idea that a small amount of thorium about the size of a golf ball would power a vehicle and a house for 50 years…Sounds interesting of course but the people that dole out energy don't want us to be independent

  13. Using electricity to create hydrogen and then converting the hydrogen back to electricity is why fuel cells are not a great idea compared with just using electricity. However, why not compare EVs like Tesla to a Hydrogen ICE vehicle. Then you eliminate the need for batteries altogether. You still have efficiency losses in the ICE, but less than a fuel cell I should think. Also you have less weight and start to end pollution perhaps.

  14. Electrics pollute more than petroleum does. All petroleum engines burn hydrogen anyway. Carbon dioxide is plant food and isnt a pollutant.

  15. Well, the truth is FCEV's have been tested for over 20 years. The jury is in and the FV hydrogen economy is going to come on stream. Mainly focusing on Buses, trucks, longhaul transport, trains and Marine are all going full bore ahead for implementing FCEV's

  16. Eliminating the electrolysis based on efficiency of conversation becomes a moot point WHEN THE SOURCE IS FREE! DUH!

  17. The truth about the reality of FCEV's is going to be convenience. For families with two cars BEV's are great for the second car thats meant for around town shopping etc. But for long haul travels there will be "0" desire for BEV owners to have to go out of their way to find a charging station, possibly only to find it busi for the next hour and wait around some god forbidden place to charge your car so you can go home. NO — NOPE. FCEV's simply go about refueling in exactly the same manner we are all accustomed to. When Hydrogen refuelling is readily available the human reality of the whole scenario will to drive a FCEV. They will always go further and be more convenient than a BEV. And do not for a moment think your electric bill will stay at $12 bucks a fill. First of all those are highly subsidized numbers. A small 10 amp space heater costs $10 / day to run.

  18. There is a HUGE problem about battery-powered vehicles that you didn't tell. Producing a battery, especially extracting Lithium, pollutes a lot. I read an article that shows that when production-related pollution is counted, a simple electric scooter pollutes about the same as Diesel-powered bus. Not a car, a bus. And buses have basically lighter versions of truck engines so that's a lot for these small things. Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles don't have that problem.

  19. This is a super video, giving a great explanation and showing the strengths and weaknesses of each system. Something that I feel has been missed, and which could have been brought into the total cost comparison, is the price of each vehicle type, including the refurbishment cost of battery powered cars, when the battery pack needs replacing mid-life.

  20. While H2 is a loser for cars, it might be the best option (at least until some battery breakthrough) for electric planes, where the kg/watt is far more critical and it is less easy to recharge halfway through your trip. Hydrogen certainly is far more appealing than burning fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact, and jet engines require far more expensive and frequent maintenance than electric motors driving ducted fans. It might actually turn out to be cheaper to run electric planes than combustion engines, especially if carbon taxes become a thing.

  21. Lithium is our best hope for batteries but I fear it will soon be in short supply OR China will hike the price into the stratosphere because they have the majority of it.

    Hydrogen is promising in another manner. It can be split from water by using electricity. A useful by product is oxygen which is good all around.

    There will have to be a better material for batteries or electric cars will not be able to advance as they should.

  22. the positive argument for hydrogen on the basis of green energy is … if sun or wind are strong .. just push it into the transofmation plants

    by that saving surplus battery arrays reduces the cost for invests into those battery arrays which make up a huge part of the total

  23. love the video but didn't you do a mistake .. you can not add up all losses from transformations with absolute % values .. but multiply them
    i.e. 20% loss -> *0.8

  24. Hydrogen power is stupid, I concur with Mr. Musk. Hell! Why not have plain LPG cars and avoid all this dumb convoluted nonsense? Oh yes, because tightly packed gas containers are not a good thing if an in an accident. Just like carrying your personal automobile bomb.

  25. If Japan (and two of the world's most trusted names – Toyota and Honda) believes in Hydrogen Fuels, I'm ready to give the idea a shot. The problems described in this video would definitely be something Japanese scientists and engineers are aware of. Yet they believe these problems can be overcome to make the Hydrogen Fuels efficient enough to compete with electrical and petroleum fuels. Kudos to Japan for trying to make the impossible (according to this video) happen!

  26. This is one sided argument. Where are the comparison of current methods of generating electric for a battery vehicle? where are the costs involved in creating the batteries themselves? you knit pick to death the manufacturing and production of hydrogen but don't even mention anything in the chain of battry production and the simple fact that you have to replace a battery every 8 years. You only say "If we had full renewables powering the grid" which isn't even remotely the case.

  27. If the Japanese are willing to invest in hydrogen fuel they must be more aware of something that we are not.

  28. Watch the movie Gashole…it was possible to operate a car on water in 1975…both systems mentioned in this video are pure insanity…

  29. I disagree that batteries compare at 100% efficiency, because batteries go bad and degenerate in efficiency

  30. But hydrogen is NOT a fuel (effectively). Hydrogen is a medium of energy distribution, in the context of our uses for it

  31. Iceland has been carbon neutral for years and their vehicles all run on hydrogen. Because of the abundance of geothermal energy in Iceland, hydrogen is easier to optain almost than wind energy 😂

  32. You also assume that electricity can be available pollution free which of course is not possible. Fossil fuel electricity generation is required for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. And the fact that environmentalists are destroying dams and eliminating hydroelectric power just makes the problem worse

  33. its my belief there is more to this whole hydrogen thing and that we're not been told the whole truth . same goes for electricity .

  34. ………the compounding weight issue is overblown. if you operate in generally flat level places then extra weight ain't much problem ,even less driving long distance at steady speeds. Swiss Alps would not be advised.

  35. …….good idea the Irish accent because otherwise I'd think I was watching cold fusion channel in which it is an Australian accent. Some other accents would slip my radar and I'd still think cold fusion..

  36. I love the segway at the end that moves from the idea of automated driverless cars giving us more time to read and develop more skills and Skillshare is a great place to do it……Opportunity taken 👍

  37. Can't understand how a pretty smart man as you seem to be can support windfarm and solar energies that are not renewable energies, but intermittent energies.

  38. <IDEA> Instead of reforming Natural Gas to produce hydrogen for fuel-cells, why not make a fuel-cell that runs on NATURAL GAS?

  39. Hydrogen is liquefied by extracting the heat through COMPRESSION… With proper pump design, this heat can be recaptured and used for other industrial processes, or it can be converted into electricity to power the compressor, resulting in much higher efficiency…

  40. …….. hydrogen was the future go in the 70s and was definitely seen as the ticket,,,but,,, lithium batteries have changed everything and a solid state new generation will soon come along. Solid state originally referred to semiconductor based electronic equipment but it is now being used to describe these batteries with a solid electrolyte…..if circuits weren't thermionic they were solid state.

  41. In the long run, adding up all factors of production cost and fuel cost neither a hydrogen or electric car will pencil out as well as a simple Prius getting 50-60 mpg. Outputting way less Co2 emissions than a cow.

  42. What about just running cars on natural gas? That shit’s so easy to extract we’re burning it in North Dakota because we can’t store and transport it all.

  43. I'm ok with electric cars I'm tired of fixing piston Motor ones electric motors are very much reliable.. I've seen electric motors 40 years old and still working ..anything better than something with oil , antifreeze, gasoline, trans fluid, powersteering fluid, all those things leak eventually unto the street or roads and get into the water …give Eve try

  44. Even though battery powered cars are cool the cost of the batteries is ridiculous high let alone that they have a limited amount of charging cycles. Hydrogen on the other hand is the most powerful fuel we know so let's forget a bit about electricity and fuel cells. Let's produce hydrogen with electrolysis from renewable sources and make modifications to our dirty cheap combustion engines to burn hydrogen. Burning hydrogen will produce water. At the end we will get a totally eco car.

  45. Hydrogen is NOT dependent upon centralized control by the corrupt establishment.
    These biased figures don't count the centralized control paradigms of the fossil fuel and battery industries, not to mention international warfare and manufactured scarcity.
    This is anti-hydrogen propaganda, whether intentional or not.
    We don't need giant water dams and nuclear power stations but THEY tell us we do.
    We could have an abundance of truck-sized generator-barges on all the rivers everywhere, safe neighbourhood thorium reactors, or harvest the non-stop deep ocean currents. And then there's the environment, which mining for batteries are not kind to either.
    CENTRALIZED POWER IS OUR ENSLAVEMENT ! ( Like centralized banking and centralized (social) media. )

  46. The problem with batteries is that they create peak demand every evening when people come home from work and start to charge their EVs. Thats usually also the time when sun no longer shines. Thee means you need additional power stations that can provide that extra energy. What are the costs for that? Hydrogen can be generated using excess capacities that are not required at night.

  47. Wrong
    A typical electric car requires around 0.5 ton of lithium being extracted from soil which produce 10 times more pollution than 1 IC engine car. Besides it is proven cars contribute only about 2-3% of air pollution world wide, most of pollution is caused by volcano eruptions, nuclear power plants and electric facilities which burn coal to produce the electricity for Tesla cars in the first place.

  48. I was wondering.. If I am at home I can recharge the battery of my car, but when I am on the road I want to reload very quickly, Can''t I exchange batteries and be done in 2 minutes at an appropriate tankstation. I guess the car must be prepared for this in design, but is it even feasable?

  49. Disagree ! See, producing hydrogen is certainly a cost effective problem in most part of the world especially where those who rule the world ( decision maker who hold rights and pattent) but back here where I live we could provide the world with enough hydrogen for very very cheap, there are several Hydroelectric power plant unused/missused with endless water reserved behind , where we could produce/ freeze /compress and ship via pipeline thru all of north america and/or by ship by sea to shinning sea all over the world. Pipelines already exist, they're just carrying the wrong stuff. Hydrogen is not the problem, Dumb people are, Therefore have to disagree with arguments in this vid.

  50. CO2 is 0.0415% (415ppm – easily checked) of the atmosphere and human en devour affects about 3% of that ( . So we affect 0.001245% of the global CO2, and crude oil burning ICE engines are a subset again of THAT. So get off the ground….

  51. What about waste? What is the life span of the battery compared to the fuel cell? And what are the costs associated with them (replacement and recycling)?

  52. Very skewed statistics in favour of batteries. I want to see ALL costs taken into account, including those of battery chemical production and disposal and costs of charging time on long journeys to the user. (And I would welcome a charging efficiency of 92% on my car batteries.) How about some honest, unbiased statistics?

  53. I wonder if anyone calculated battery life withing those calculations.. as those age, efficiency decreases, after few year new batteries have to be put in.. so the costs increase dramatically.. doesnt happen in H2 or?

  54. Like others have already noted, you still have to produce batteries. And while it is more difficult to produce and deliver hydrogen, for batteries it's just the other way round and not entirely better. You have to gather all the components needed to produce batteries, build a whole bunch of them and replace them within a decade at the latest. You also have to factor in environmental damages and pollution generated by Lithium and rare metal production. Most of the mines are located in third world or developing countries. The mining conditions are catastrophic and leave behind tons and tons of toxic waste as well as polluted water – which all of it is not stored away or dealt with safely rather than just poured into the closest river or just the ground. This is a key difference, because Hydrogen can be produced at our doorstep already without relying on foreign countries. More so, if we continue on the EV trend as it is now, we're only doing so on the backs of poorer countries which in turn get shunned by us for being a threat to the environment. Just like with Norway, which claims to be progressive in the carbon neutral field all the while funding all of their advances by selling oil to neighbouring countries. While on paper they do emit very little CO2 in comparison to other countries, they still do in the sense that they pay for all of that by letting others pollute the environment. That, in my mind, does not really make them carbon neutral. And we have to factor all of these points into a calculation like that before jumping to any conclusions.

    I strongly felt that you were on the battery side of our boi Elon, but I do strongly believe in fuel cells. It is not possible to switch out all combustion vehicles with EV. Adding just one million EVs to our German grid, they would require more than four times the amount of energy we produce at peak times per day in order to charge while Hydrogen can at least be produced using excess renewable energy.

    Both concepts cannot be our sole effort to try and minimise carbon emissions. That is what I take from this video. We will have to find new and more ways to battle climate change. And one of the best ways to learn about those new ways is Skillshare. Just kidding. Generally, we have to become more environmentally friendly as a society. That means less individual transportation, lower population, less agricultural wasteland, more reforestation and so on. There's so much we have to do and change that ultimately I don't think the debate between fuel cell and battery is the most important one. We will have both anyways no matter what.

  55. most of the world electricity is still produced using power plants that create huge amounts of pollution.

    electric cars don't solve the pollution problem, they simply move it from one place to another. (the power plants will have to produce more electricity and hence more pollution to charge all these cars)
    at the root of it all you're still burning fossil fuels.

  56. Ok fair enough hydrogen is less efficient. However if the range is 3 to 4 times further per fill up then surely that must be considered in the calculation. 3 times more charges equates tho 3 times less efficient per charge?

  57. We have to really stop the silly fantasy that electric vehicles is charged entirely by solar and wind. it is not true… Big Oil and Gas will always have a hand on the charging business … Look, we have distributed energy resources that is not really solar and wind only because many of us are actually installing personal generators that runs on fossil in our backyards.. I am not talking about emergency portable types that you can buy off the shelves in your local hardware stores.. I am talking about reefer sized types that can crank 100KWH or even several MWHs in your own backyards. Yessir, it is for real! Your local utility has programs for that kind of madness! you know, we were long used to big mega powerplants far away from cities that runs on fossil fuels like coal, oil, NG and they are outfitted with pollution controls that cost as much if not more than the big powerplants themselves.. EPA had mandated them to do that to protect quality of air .. Now with DER porgram distributed energy resources,, what makes you think that EPA will be able to keep tab on every reefer sized generator running on fossil fuels around the clock by neighbors who are not as concerned about air quality and heck bent on cutting corners to boost income and next door neighbors be screwed down to heck!
    Granted, there is only a couple millions of Teslas, Leafs, whatnots on the roads now which is not many so this mean that DER programs is not exactly household words yet.. Just wait…..until many more millions of EVs hit the roads with nowhere fast to recharge and the traditional powerlines coming from local utilties will not be enough to feed that many EVs on top of everyday electricity usage like watching TV, cooking, vaccuuming, air conditioning, washing/drying, etc . There will be brown outs or blown transformers , so this is what DER programs were really intended for.. Sure, of course,, we will have solar and wind to help with recharging our EVs but millions more of them?? Highly doubtful! Think hard and fast!
    Why is it that Big Oil and Gas is still drilling like babies?? Obviously, they are figuring that they will continue to supply oil and gas to our neighbors who are earning money operating their home generators as part of DER programs.. Of course, home generators running on fossil can generate 20 – 100 times as much electricity as a rooftop solar can.. More profits!!
    Your next door neighbors are planning on this and if yo dont like it.. Call your city hall to make sure that they do not allow this. or you will be sucking fumes from your next door neighbors around the clock Dont laugh!

  58. We need to develop teleportation tools for the masses. Cars, trucks, airplanes will still have their place in society but the need for them will be very specified. They have already started to learn how to do this using light beams. The day is coming when heavier mass particles will be teleported then teleportation will be in everyone's home or office. Think Big!!

  59. There is no 'carbon free' technology. Batteries, solar power and wind power are artificially cheap due to the fact that China is willing to pollute their environment to produce rare earth metals. They also have cheap electricity for rare earth refinement as well as renewable production. The Japonesse are at the mercy of the Chinesse when it comes to rare earth metals. So is everyone else. Hydrogen production is going to quickly become cheaper. The Japonesse are not stupid.

  60. "FOR NOW…" you say many times in an interesting video. Economies of scale, the weight problem, range anxiety and disposal of dead batteries favour hydrogen in the middle term. The fact that the car industry is in a panic and currently backing batteries in EU countries and the USA does not mean that hydrogen will lose this perceived race.
    Further, because hydrogen will have to be pursued for aircraft and possibly fast railways the odds are on a hydrogen future.
    In the meantime hybrids are probably a wiser choice and give time to develop efficiencies all round, nor do they have quite the weight problems of 'pure' battery drivetrains.

  61. Don't forget the down fall of the battery. The cost and the limited material for building battery is a factor. More importantly the ability for a battery to maintain a constant charge is also another factor. Battery usually would lost its max charge capacity after being recharge and that value continue to diminish till you have to replace the very pricey battery. This effect the miles you could drive per charge as time goes on. Think about your phone and how offend you need to keep recharging it after you had it for a while. Granted Hydrogen tank need platinum to catalyze the process of combining H2 and O2. Platinum is very expensive.

  62. Anhydrous ammonia NH3 is another option that deserves to be looked at. It's a lot easier to produce and transport than hydrogen.

  63. the cost to the environment to produce batteries is horrific the transport around the world does not help. the fact that hydrogen can be produced on site it is quick to refill and can be taxed is a plus don't kid yourself electricity for cars will be taxed the governments need revenue and in the uk we have a high tax on fuel it pays for our nhs social security and schools etc so with lighter cars you will get better bang for your money out of hydrogen

  64. Listen to me you stupid asshole. I let you in my phone. If I want to take it back from your control. Its that easy. I know you are reading me. I will cut your balls off and feed it to my street dogs.

    Do you understand me piece of garbage?

    I allow. I don't give a shit about your fucking lil pervy time. But if you want to be on my phone asshole you better show that respect. Do you understand me lil ducky. Otherwise I will shove my dick so up yours it will take a team of doctors to First search it and then to take it out.

    Am I clear you piece of shit. Fucking Micro dick. You allow it and some stupid motherfucker comes along thinking they are fucking genius around here. You know where i keep geniuses? On my dick.

    I forgot to write something. This is the only respect Micro dicks like you get from me. Understand?

  65. Let's focus on hydrogen, regardless of the cost of production. While the sun, air and water are free and in large quantities for many generations, this is not the case with lithium.

  66. It's easy: use nuclear power to generate hydrogen. It's the cleanest type of energy, and, if pursued correctly, it would probably make fuel almost free.

  67. Our scientist's should be able to switch us over from fossil fuel to hydrogen fairly easily (without rewriting our whole history and future)
    It's extremely less detrimental to our world!

  68. Notice how the presenter doesn't mention what percentage of renewable energy actually goes into producing the electricity for battery run engines or how much fossil fuels will be needed to furnish the remaining electricity required. At this point in time are we going to utilize wind, solar and water to charge our cars and go back to using fossil fuels exclusively to create electricity for our home, etc.? How about reducing the weight of the vehicles and power of the engines to improve mileage? I used to own a Datsun hatchback in the early 80's. A whopping 90 hp engine (or there about) to work with. It had enough power to merge onto highways w/o any problem. The car also got 52 mpg on the highway, imagine that. But I guess Americans want the newest and greatest sports cars, trucks and mini-vans to all have supped up 300 hp to impress every one.
    BTW there as many videos criticizing battery cars as there are promoting them.

    If you are like me and drive less than 2,000 miles per annum, I will just sit back and watch the debate while driving my 1995 Buick (which btw still gets the mpg's listed in the owners handbook 🙂

Leave a Reply

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