Why Haven’t Hydrogen Vehicles Taken Over the World Yet?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Hydrogen fuel cells are promoted as efficient and carbon free, but what happened to hydrogen cars?
Why a Half Degree Rise in Global Temperature Would Be Catastrophic - • Why a Half Degree Rise...
Read More:
Gas guzzlers reborn: Why your next car could run on hydrogen
www.newscienti...
“Now, there are signs of a comeback. A recent survey of more than 900 global automotive executives by consulting firm KPMG found that 52 percent rated hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as a leading industry trend. Japan has announced plans to put 40,000 hydrogen vehicles on the road in the next five years, and South Korea 16,000. Germany wants to have 400 refuelling stations for hydrogen vehicles by 2025 and California has already opened 35.”
Fuel Cells
www.energy.gov...
“Fuel cells work like batteries, but they do not run down or need recharging. They produce electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes-a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)-sandwiched around an electrolyte. A fuel, such as hydrogen, is fed to the anode, and air is fed to the cathode.”
Toyota plans to expand production, shrink cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
www.reuters.co...
“TOYOTA CITY (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) is doubling down on its investment in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, designing lower-cost, mass-market passenger cars and SUVs and pushing the technology into buses and trucks to build economies of scale.”
We need hydrogen container ships and aircrafts. That would really make a difference
Airbus announced their ZeroE concept !! :)
Maybe no fuel cell planes and ships, but hydrogen combustion engines. Maybe turbines?
And how would you suggest dealing with the nitrogen oxide produced by hydrogen engines?
Why? Automobiles use relatively little fuel to run on. Why not pour water into your vehicle and produce the hydrogen as needed. Keep in mind a gas engine only uses a mist of gasoline at a time as it runs. This is why most people can put in 15 gallons of gas and it will last a week.
I'd be more than happy to take the wheel of a Hydrogen car any day!
Jesus Christ isn’t your car powered by the love of god then?
Jesus you have experience with water. Save us!
Thanks for dying for my sins, man!
Could you by an chance take the wheels for my life?
Jesus Christ
No you wouldn't. You can just appear wherever you want you don't need a stupid car. And every one knows JESUS would only drive a Lamborghini or possibly a Bentley or Rolls Royce. But that's it.
BTW Highly disrespectful.
You should go to church if you're going to represent. Word!!!
I was going to tell sodium a hydrogen joke but.. NaH
HeHeHe
Helium finds this funny ;)
I see what you did there
Aditya Mishra
I just died.
Magnesium oxide.
test channel 01 Nobod needs you here. Don't like it? Get thee gone.
You forgot the latest hydrogen news.
Taiwan is building the new twenty station test network using the new Australian catalyst invention that creates Hydrogen from Ammonia . Two big Ammonia carrying ships are being built to ship Solar generated Ammonia from Australia.
Things are moving quickly.
@goff0103 Name one Hydrogen explosion in a car ? Even the Hindenburg was not destroyed by a Hydrogen explosion.
Except for the odd "smoking or phone use" LPG filling event, I bet you would have trouble thinking of any blown up LPG vehicles.
Unlike fuel or LPG, Hydrogen escaping a tank goes UP, not all over the ground, and burns in a second.
Google "burning Tesla Cars", and watch what happens to a battery in a collision. Not pretty.
Yeah. He did not presented any new information. To be fair, I'm glad they mentioned 3:14. Hydrogen makes sense in larger vehicles/transportation.
Most ammonia comes from the Haber process anyway... I think in this case the ammonia serves only as the energy carrier - still doesn't solve the hydrogen production problem not the problem with the expensive catalyst
@@Southghost5997 yes, most does. You didn't read about the new Solar Farm expressly built to process seawater for the production I gather.
The Catalyst isnt expensive - it's only a metal.
"We’ve created a metal membrane that filters out pure hydrogen gas from ammonia. It can then be dispensed into fuel cell cars, buses and even trucks. And the technology isn’t just fantasy, we’ve recently powered Toyota’s Mirai and Hyundai’s Nexo fuel cell electric vehicles using locally-produced ultra-high purity hydrogen." blog.csiro.au/hyper-for-hydrogen-our-world-first-carbon-free-fuel/
@goff0103 What about gasoline powered cars? Get into a crash which causes a fuel leak, it spills on the ground and the fumes stay there because they're heavier than air. Then if the fumes find an ignition source, you have a difficult to extinguish, long lasting chemical fire. If hydrogen leaks, it quickly rises into the upper atmosphere making the chance of a fire/explosion much less. Lithium battery powered cars are more dangerous than hydrogen. Several Teslas have caught fire. So have many lithium powered hover boards, laptops and smart phones. And these can catch fire just from simply discharging or recharging too fast.
1:30 the electricity for electric cars comes from the same power plants
To be replace by solar panels or something in the future...
I wouldn't mind water was use to make fuel, we have 2 much already and we need to get rid of some.
CO2 ain't an issue, you just need more green in the Earth, give it some space and stop with the rabbit reproduction mentality.
What about inefficiency of compressing or condensing hydrogen then the car not recovering energy from the pressurisation? Or the inefficiency of turning hydrogen into a liquid state.
if i'm not mistaken, that's one of the main drawbacks of hydrogen as a fuel. it definitely raises costs and adds to energy inefficiency.
Currently they seem to use some sort of matrices that trap and slowly release H2, which circumvents the need for very high pressures.
Overlooking the big issue for renewable hydrogen:
Energy loss.
Electrolysis is very inefficient. You waste a LOT of electricity as heat - far more than grid loss and losses from battery charging.
You can go 3 times as far in a Tesla than you can if you used the same amount of electricity to electrolise Hydrogen for a Mirai.
That's not sustainable.
Guy listed hydrogen busses but manages to forget London's whole fleet and germanies hydrogen trains
And the hydrogen ferries being rolled out in Shetland and Scandinavia, where they have such an abundance of wind/tidal energy that they are struggling to find a good use for it all.
the US also has hydrogen powered trains.
I'm German and this is the first time I'm hearing about hydrogen trains. This is not a mainstream thing... at all.
@@thulyblu5486 that's because only cargo trains use it currently.
Excellent topic and video!
The other big disadvantage of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is that they’re only around 55% efficient, whereas battery-electric drive trains are around 90% efficient.
Also, 400KW battery-charging is starting be deployed, which will get a battery-electric vehicle, typically, a couple-hundred miles in 10-15 minutes. That’s not quite refueling kinds of speeds, but not far off!
But most importantly, modern battery-electric vehicles (for most people) almost never need to be quick-charged. Most people can drive a Chevy Bolt a week without having to recharge and many people just charge up at home nightly anyway.
As an aside, regarding efficiency, both fuel cells and batteries are considerably more efficient than a pure-gasoline drive train’s typically 20% efficiency. Modern engines do have considerably higher *peak* efficiency (e.g., ~40% on the Prius), but are rarely given the opportunity to run under peak-efficiency conditions.
A couple clarification points: Hydrogen fuel cells are more like 65% efficient, not 55%, and the ~90% BEV efficiency is only when you include regenerative braking (recharging the battery with the kinetic energy of the vehicle), which all EVs and hybrids have, of course, and fuel-cell electrics can have with the addition of a small battery.
There are many more big inefficiencies in HFCs though, like like the amount of energy required to compress the hydrogen, which is pretty substantial.
PEM does not stand for polymer electrolyte membrane . It means proton exchange membrane.
What about protein energy malnutrition?
What about "pulse of electromagnets"?
How about
Plebs eat meat
Public execution Mondays
@@koficoffee because a normal hydrogen atom consists of 1 electron, 1 proton and 0 neutrons.
When the electron is separated from the hydrogen atom, it essentially is just a proton.
The efficiency of hydrogen from production to being used in a car is way way worse than a battery vehicle
www.greencarreports.com/news/1113175_electric-cars-win-on-energy-efficiency-vs-hydrogen-gasoline-diesel-analysis
"The results are not even close.
Starting with all renewable energy for either charging or to process the gasoline or hydrogen, all-electric vehicles managing an overall efficiency rating of 73 percent, compared to 22 percent for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and just 13 percent for standard fossil fuel vehicles using gasoline made with the Fischer Tropsch process."
quoted from the link
efficiency is irrelevant, if you have virtually unlimited ressources (water) that can be prepared with virtually no extra costs (solar/wind), but on the other hand avoid the huge issues battery driven cars bring with them once they make up a relevant amount of vehicles (power production at any given time, power grid limits, ressources, disposal)
@Richard Phillips Not as big a challenge as getting wind turbines to produce energy when there is no wind.
@@alveolate This forgets a critical aspect, namely the weight of Li-ion batteries for long-range and heavier vehicles. Case in point: the lightest hydrogen car with a 300-mile range (by Riversimple) weighs ~3x less than any BEV with equivalent range. Energy use is inversely proportional to vehicle mass.
"Why Haven’t Hydrogen Vehicles Taken Over the World Yet?"
Spoiler Alert
If I ever buy a hydrogen car I'm going to put a spoiler on it and name it Spoiler Alert.
you comment jokes to make people like you
but you never try to understand people
Easy...liquid hydrogen + spark = BOOOOOOM!!!!!
@@RushFan84 liquid hydrogen will not explode. Hydrogen and oxygen explodes very well. Your state of matter is just incorrect is all. But your on the right path.
@Robert Muldoon Impossible....its just plain chemistry.
@@420frankp Sorry due...a puncture and that liquid H2 becomes gaseous...then BOOOM! Just take a look at the phase diagram.
Hydrogen is not free. It takes energy to produce hydrogen so it is just converting electricity to a gas and introducing innefficiency
One sec... so you using electrical energy to split water into H2 and O2 (at a loss obviously) to then turn it back into electrical energy (again with some inefficiency)? And then you're wondering why we don't have more hydrogen cars yet? Seems a pretty big waste of energy and money...
That's one part of the equation. However, hydrogen is more energy-dense (mass-wise) than Li-ion battery charge, which is why the wasted energy in the production phase is offset by the energy efficiency when actually using them in vehicles. This is especially true for long-range (100+ mile range) and heavy vehicles.
want to see them to tackle: bus, school bus, trailer, etc... Things that going back and forth between its routes and stations everyday.
Here in the town of Groningen, all of our buses are either run on hydrogen or electricity. It's really cool, because it has improved the air quality massively. Which is awesome for someone with asthma like me
1:27 the background song, so beautiful
Nice video but it doesn't touch most troubled issues with hydrogen. 1- Storing hydrogen is extremely difficult since it is highly flammable. 2- Energy that is used to produce one unit of hydrogen is more than you can get from that one unit.
The best bet is for fleet services to use this Hydrogen Cells. Have the large tanks at their depot and trucks can come to refuel weekly.
It'd be interesting to know what is the grey energy cost of these as well. Because most of the time new technologies need more resources or rarer ones and are too complex to be recycled or fixed. Then what's the point of having a "green" car if it polluted like hell before you even bought it and if you can't fix or recycle most of its parts?
Engineering Explained did a video on this recently. ruclips.net/video/6RhtiPefVzM/видео.html
No it's not true
I don't know particularly about H cars but electric cars produce 300%-500% less emission after 5-7 years already (in summary including all possible emission from manufacturing this electric car).
They require significantly less maintenance and consumables.
It definitely more green to buy new electric car even if you get part of energy from coal and oil. (In case of more green states you will get less emissions after 2-3 years)
No one is saying go and buy electric car. But saying it is worse it is strait up lie.
But educate me about H car. I would like to learn about it.
It is greener after a few years of use compared to a ICE conventional car/vehicle.
ICE cars are very inefficient in terms for fuel use because of multiple reasons. A huge generator using similar fuel gasoline/diesel is significantly more efficient, producing more power.
A green car recovers the cost of owning it versus a conventional car in 3-5 years. That is cost alone and cost can translate into carbon footprint if you simplify it.
Most of its parts are recyclable. Batteries from EVs are reusable as battery backups before it gets even recycled. It already looks better than LEAD acid batteries in conventional cars which is low cycle and can't go below 50% charge.
The real question is what the environmental impact of all that water vapor is. Because water vapor is a *really* potent greenhouse gas (part of why global warming is so bad: warmer oceans -> more water vapor -> repeat) and you'd put out a *lot* of it. It might be not too much compared to what gas cars put out but it's definitely worse than electric. Well that was hopefully obvious from the beginning on.
Your concern about those rare materials and hard to recycle stuff isn't needed. Gas cars have a _lot_ of disposables needing replacement over the years. It's far, far, far less on the EV side.
Buying a new electric car isn't better for the environment than driving your old car (as long as it still works, obviously) or buying a used gas car. But buying an electric when you've already set your mind you need a brand new car is plain bad for the environment. And probably for your wallet, too.
@@zamundaaa776 the impact of water vapor on the climate is clouds. Those reflect the radiation and keeps it in. But relative to the vapor from the oceans it is very small of impact.
Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles also have battery packs similar in size to hybrid vehicles. Range of current commercial hydrogen powered vehicles is about the same as equivalently priced battery EVs. Given they have batteries anyway and you can't recharge them while they are not being used there doesn't seem to be any real advantage for Hydrogen over battery EVs.
Besides obvious energy density (space, weight, range). Busses are already planned to use hydrogen cell range extender because the range with pure batteries is just not bearable.
dude are you working for a fuel cell company or what?
@@alveolate
Nah bro, just wanna share my knowledge. The thing i most hate about people is that they follow every trend blind folded (for example battery EVs). When someone tells them that this technology is not the holy grail and that their are other technologys than they start to argue thatthis state is not true befor even trying to inform themselfs. So , i'm basically here to shine light on thd matter ;D.
@@mandernachluca3774 Another reason why Hydrogen won't work: using enormous amounts of energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is expensive. That's why hydrogen is usually won by a different chemical process from Methane, so they use natural gas. Hydrogen from natural gas will always be cheaper than from water (the thermodynamics are aligned that way) and since natural gas reserves will last for another 200 years at least, this would be the source of hydrogen. You could skip the step of getting hydrogen from methane and just use methane as a fuel instead -> more efficient, WAY easier to store and to refill, less dangerous in all aspects and there already is infrastructure (pipelines) for mehtane in most countries, etc etc... Hydrogen will NEVER work as a fuel source because Methane is superior in all aspects. Doesn't mean Methane is the best solution, electric cars could very well be better. But Hydrogen is just impractical.
@@thulyblu5486
As imprectical as battery EVs are. What i am trying to say is that , battery EVs aren't gonna cut it in terms of long range applications. They are well suited as city cars but for everything else they are very impracticle. I suggest hydrogen instead of methan because of the change in energy storage we will see in the next century. As we will shift from fossil fuels to regenerative energy sources, we also most likely will go towards H2 instead of Methan. Now methan (besides the infrastructure) has the huge benefit of being made out of CO2 and H2 (you could basically extract the CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it to produce more fuel) the problem however is that this involves a lot of energy as you can imagine more than straight hydrogen production. Therefor i think that H2 would be the better option since you could always store it in unpressurized metalhydrite tanks (german submarines do) and compress it when needed (for example when storing in a 700 bar pressure tank for hydrogen cars). That would make the whole matter much more feasable but nobody seems to think about metal hydrid tanks, sadly...
Hydrogen is expensive compared to using electricity or gas.
username Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Perhaps extracting it and the process of making it fuel is the expensive part.
@@sal191_ I am talking about the cost to the owner of a car using Hydrogen power cells.
Moreover in room temperature, hydrogen is a gas, so compression is needed to be used to store that hydrogen
@@sal191_ yeah. it takes electricity. So why not use the electricity directly? Far more efficient.
@Wade Haden no, but using enormous amounts of energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is expensive. That's why hydrogen is usually won by a different chemical process from Methane, so they use natural gas. Hydrogen from natural gas will always be cheaper than from water (the thermodynamics are aligned that way) and since natural gas reserves will last for another 200 years at least, this would be the source of hydrogen. You could skip the step of getting hydrogen from methane and just use methane as a fuel instead -> more efficient, WAY easier to store and to refill, less dangerous in all aspects, there already is infrastructure (pipelines) for this in most countries, etc etc... Hydrogen will NEVER work as a fuel source because Methane is superior in all aspects. Doesn't mean Methane is the best solution, electric cars could very well be better. But Hydrogen is just impractical.
If Tesla hadn't made the Super Charger network, the Model 3 and S would not be practical for most people. New tech has growing pains associated with it. Also, you can charge your electric car at your house, which beats being at the whim of the daily gas price or OPEC deciding to create a shortage to increase prices like in the 80s.
How is no one talking about the "That 70s Show" reference in the beginning?
"It runs on water, man."
Thank you! Was gonna say the same! Lol that first episode was legendary!
that guy Hyde kept repeating it up until season 7. 😂
What show was it??
How about the fact that thermodynamics says it's a bad idea?
My friends who have leased hydrogen vehicles regret it because even though the stations are convenient enough for them, often they are not operational, so they can't fuel their cars when they arrive at the station. They really need to fix this problem because people who have hydrogen cars in my area at least are not happy.
The solution to clean hydrogen production is very simple: High Temperature gas cooled reactors. They operate at 950 C which is perfect for clean hydrogen production and have all the safety/economic advantages of gen IV nuclear reactors. Japan has already tested and proven the technology years ago.
glad you guys explained this. because I'm all for hydrogen and battery power. but hydrogen has always been more practical to me because you can fill up quick. and everyone else is always saying hydrogen is bad because price and its not as efficient. that's not a good argument to me because batteries wasn't as cheap or efficient before either until they put more money into research. This put things a little more into perspective for me. thanks.
Lakario Davis
So you want to pay 5 times as much than electric car owners to drive a hydrogen car? No, there's NO way around it, it's built into the physics and electrochemistry. (A drive-by physicist?)
Recharging time is far less important than you think. Mostly because you can charge while you are doing something else. Ideally you charge at home while you are sleeping. If that's not possible, there are still many options, like work, supermarket, etc. In the worst case you visit a public charger one in a week or two, and charge for like an hour, while you can read a book, watch RUclips, listen to music, or do most thing you would do at home anyway. And if you have a Tesla, there's a big tablet with internet connection right in front of you.
On long trips you have to stop for like 20-30 minutes every 200 miles to charge, which isn't really big deal, it's actually good for you. And you can still spend that time usefully, like having lunch, or coffee, or shopping.
And in a few years charging will be much faster.
Fuel cells aren’t the only types of hydrogen cars.
I’m patiently waiting on hydrogen combustion engine. BMW tested one a decade ago (hydrogen 7 series)
The problem isn't creating an engine that runs on hydrogen. The problem is storing the hydrogen in quantity and having enough energy density. If you compress it you need heavy tanks to contain it. If you chill it you need insulated tanks to prevent it from boiling off. Plus hydrogen leaks easily and it is very reactive with metal. It's fine for rockets where you load it into the tanks as a cold liquid and burn it all off in about 12 minutes going into orbit. But carrying it around stored in a car that way for several days isn't very practical.
To be fair: We don't have the infrastructure to power battery driven cars on a bigger scale either (and there we have the additional problem that we can't rely to have the power when we need it; e.g. at night, during winter or in times with less wind).
I wondered how having water vapor as exhaust would do in cold climates. I know that in my home state of Minnesota, water vapor instantly turns to ice in the winter. But then again, Toyota tested the Mirai in Yellowknife, NWT. They must have found a way to deal with this.
The exhaust system of any hydrogen fuel cell vehicle would be warm enough to prevent freezing or condensation. It is not a problem since there is a sufficient waste heat. However, this waste heat is part of the inefficiency of HFC technology and contributes to the running high cost.
Hydrogen is a dead end. What happened is that battery electric is simpler, cheaper, safer, easier, more practical and environmentally way more friendly.
@@420frankp that would be an interesting point if not:
- There are also lithium batteries in hydrogen cars because the fool cells are too anaemic by themselves to provide proper acceleration.
- Statistics show that EVs are the least likely car technology to catch fire. The risk being 1/40 that of a gasoline car.
Now go and troll somewhere else.
@@420frankp
Do you even know what hydrogen is? It's very explosive and very hard to contain. Bad combination.
Li-ion batteries in modern EVs are well protected, they don't get damaged easily. And if they are well engineered (Tesla), even serious damage doesn't cause big fire, let alone explosion.
@@andrasbiro3007 you ain't exploding shit without oxygen
@@dschledermann
Yeah, doesn't change the fact that H2 cars are also EVs and are at least as save as battery EVs if not saver ;D.
@@mandernachluca3774 with complicated high grade plumbing containing a colourless, odourless gas that can detonate given the slightest spark? Fat chance. Hydrogen really is rocket science. It has no place in an ordinary consumer product such as a car. Hydrogen in privately owned cars is simply not going to be a success. Ever.
The best way for car to develop is to race them against each other. Major development comes after to make cars fast and efficient to win races.
Most taxi cars in my city are now powered by natural gas. Local government provides allowance to taxi drivers to modify their car's engine to use gas.
The vehicles might be more viable if they could create an in home refueling station. Given a water line and electricity, it could directly store hydrogen in the vehicle overnight in the garage, or store a tank's worth in an auxiliary storage tank that's part of the refueling station using low power draw over the course of a day/week. Electricity could be supplied by the grid or solar panels. Of course, that's probably $30k of additional stuff ontop of the $60k for the vehicle itself.
I dont see a problem with electric cars in the first place. I think they will be the future and not hydrogen cars.
Currently, the problem is the weight of Li-ion batteries. This becomes an issue at long ranges (100+ miles for personal cars) and with heavy vehicles, as energy efficiency is more or less inversely proportional to mass.
E.g. the lightest hydrogen car with a 300-mile range is ~3x lighter than the lightest BEV with a similar range.
"Range for a diesel semi truck is limited more by the allowable driving hours for the driver than by the truck itself. It’s not unusual for a truck to have dual 150 gallon tanks. 300 gallons at an average of 7 MPG gives a non-stop range of more than 2000 miles."
500 kilometers longer than 2000 miles?
It runs on water man! 😂😂😂😂😂
I miss that show
I long ago thought of my own model, which you would fuel with pure water, which it would then electrolyze itself and then burn.
Only problem is the reason Hydrogen isn't already used in all engines, it's *_way_* too powerful of an explosion, but you could just inject a _very_ small amount and, though it burns much faster than gasoline, a small amount shouldn't destroy a well engineered engine and would be significantly more cost-effective, efficient, powerful, and clean.
Ok, allow me to correct some things:
- This setup would simply waste energy. You need more energy to split H2O than you can gain from H2 combustion or a fuel cell. This is ultimately based on the second law of thermodynamics.
- H2 is best used to produce electricity in a fuel cell, as combustion in an ICE is not nearly as efficient.
- Explosiveness is not a major problem in current HFCVs.
Battery car enviorment friendly??
Thats a joke right? Battery manking is a very pollutent process.
Give me hydrogen Car every day.
You gonna kill the enviroment. One heavily maintained hydrogen car
If there was more wind farms utilising the power required by electric cars then they would cost less than hydrogen and standard electricity produced by coal fired power stations and I might be wrong but is hydrogen fuel safe? Considering that they used to make something called the " hydrogen bomb "
hydrogen is the only right variant for future. No other variant ! But we are developing approach, which is not exact now. There must be 2 waves for hydrogen : 1/BUILD HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FACTORIES ON SITES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY STATIONS. 2/ SMALL CARS NEED TO LOAD HYDROGEN BY EXCHANGE WHOLE COMPRESSED HYDROGEN BALLOONS.
We are wrong because we do not firstly build enough hydrogen production factories on sites of renewable energy stations. We are wrong because we are trying to build network of hydrogen loading stations, which are COMPLEX AND EXPENSIVE.
We must change our approach. We should use hydrogen as energy storage method for renewable energy stations first. Then we should load hydrogen for usual small cars by exchanging whole standard sized compressed hydrogen gas balloons. So It is very simple and not expensive to make the global net of hydrogen supplying stations. Any normal mini shops can be a hydrogen supplying point by storing standard sized compressed hydrogen gas balloons. We do not have to use liquid hydrogen, which is difficult to collect. But we can use compressed hydrogen gas, which is not so much different in weight by comparison with liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen is the best solution of energy storage for all energy stations now, for example, for nuclear energy stations, for renewable energy stations. Just install ready hydrogen production modules, and install independent hydrogen fuel cell modules in adjacent areas. Use compressed hydrogen gas at first time instead of liquid hydrogen.
And the last thing to notice is that, hydrogen is not more dangerous than other gases and petrol. Hydrogen has big energy storage capacity, but when burning hydrogen in accidents, IT DOES NOT CREATE ACOUSTIC DESTRUCTING WAVE TO ENVIRONMENTS. It means that hydrogen burning is less destructive than gasoline burning.
I imagine if a hydrogen-fuelled car got into an accident that it would explode like a nuclear bomb.
The CSIRO in Australia has developed an efficient way to convert hydrogen to and from ammonia. Ammonia is easy to store and transport (similar to water) so it may open up both the hydrogen car market and a new form of better battery for homes/electrical grids. Hydrogen can be produced from any water source so long as there is power available so this should be a great use for excess power in the grid(like sunny days where an excess of solar power is currently produced in many parts of the world).
Hydrogen Car joined the server.
Elon Musk joined the server.
Tesla joined the server.
Hydrogen Cars server crashed.
*server
Oculus Universale haha oops
More like you
Elon Musk joined server.
Tesla hoined server.
Both aren't able to produce long range vehicles, not even mentioning aircraft.
Elon Musk and Tesla banned from server.
Mandernach Luca But since Hydrogen is expensive af hydrogen fueled cars and aircraft is a pipe dream.
@@aldeno8055
Lol no, ever heared of economie of scale? What we see at the moment with hydrogen is the same poeple saw when the first cars came out, back than gasoline was just available in small quantities and just at certain pharmacies. Today we have gas station, so if gasoline cars weren't a pipedream, than hydrogen also isn't ;D.
it's just cause corruption, but a matter of time all cars will be hydrogen or electric of some kind.
A complaint here was that hydrogen cars still depend fossil fuels which emits pollution. It felt like they sort of glossed over this fact, but so do electric cars. Until energy production changes electric cars are still causing a fair amount of pollution.
I think the fuel cell and hydrogen will be more efficient for aviation industry both civil and military and they should try it
Infrastructure and reactivity (do stuff when only when need to) and (is there a for) once current fuel becomes more expensive and if hydrogen system becomes cheaper then it will be done
It's hard to believe that the company that made the Supra and LFA also made the hideous Mirai.
Newsflash: we use power plants emitting CO2 already to charge electric cars, what kind of argument is that against H...Ignorance is bliss, half knowledge a curse😡😡
I think this is because some already use their own solar power. Of course, you could use your own hydrogen gas generator and power it with solar panels, so either way BEVs and hydrogen cars are both clean.
Need to build our entire infrastructure around hydrogen for this to be successful. We studied in school of a hydrogen economy in the future where solar farms would create hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. Hydrogen could then be supplied to fuel pumps and for industrial use.
If I'm not mistaken, it's not a platinum catalyst, it's a palladium catalyst.
Because of conversion losses, hydrogen fuel cells will always be less efficient and hence more costly to run than regular batteries. So, fuel cells will only be used in niche applications where efficiency will be traded for an advantage such as faster charging, higher energy density, etc. Such applications might include shipping, airplanes, or long haul trucks. However, since batteries are getting better every day, the fuel cell niche will always be shrinking.
EVs don’t require 7-35 hours of charge time though. And with the specs of the Tesla semi I can’t see why hydrogen will ever be a thing on the road. Maybe for big ships.
Honestly if it ment getting rid of electric/fuel powered cars I’d happily pay the extra, in my opinion it’s way better for the earth, I may be wrong but from what I understand it’s the cleaner way to run a car, i really hope we find a cleaner way of getting around
I firmly believe that continuing to support cars the way we do is a wasteful mistake no matter what powers them.
Hydrogen era is here. Germany has commissioned 120+ trains for DB as of last year and AUDI has partnership with Hyundai to power AUDI cars with hydrogen fuel cell, just because in Korea they do it for the past 15 years :)
One of the WHY single important fact to why we NEED to go HFC is that the polluted air goes in, undergo the HFC process and exits on the other side as O2 vapors!
You should have mention that in your video.
This would work if someone played Ma Bell. Start in rich areas, set up the infrastructure there, and earn enough back, learn enough, to slowly start lowering the price. Sounds like Toyota should be the ones doing it.
Hydrogen is EXTREMELY volatile. Who wants to ride around with a super explosive liquid? And, electric cars (Tesla) fast charge in 30 minutes. They, easily, drive longer than your bladder lasts.
The electricity needed for electrolysis could power MANY EVs. It just doesn't make sense. Plus, hydrogen cars STILL need batteries. 😒
I didn't know there was someone that still believes in using a gas that is not available on our planet without wasting energy to produce it
If investors & manufacturers grew hydrogen at the similar rate to mass produce hydrogen vs batteries. No one would bother with batteries. We are using batteries because its more convenient with out current electrical infrastructure. But the future lies in hydrogen.
The Honda FCX Clarity had a hydrogen fuel-cell and was available in 2008
i noticed im european when he said gas cars have less than 500 kilometres of range .. the majority of cars here get more than 40 mpg so 500 is very conservative. i could easily go 800km on a full tank of gas.
So basicly the hydrogen and electric vehicles have the same downfall. Clean Electricity.
The correct answer is that hydrogen fuel cells are very expensive, hydrogen dispensing stations are very expensive, and producing hydrogen from electrolysis is very expensive. And all of it is very inefficient compared to batteries, which are getting better and cheaper every year.
Do hydrogen gas engines sound like fuel engines? If so, hell fucking yeah.
Since hydrogen is highly explosive, why not use it to power standard cylinder-based engine? The only emitted thing would be water (H2 explosion produces H2O) so already more eco than gasoline cars.
Why haven't FCVs taken off? Because Hydrogen kind of sucks as an fuel. First, it's not really a fuel, in the way we usually think of it, but an energy carrier, like charging up a battery. More energy has to be pumped into Hydrogen production than could every be extracted from the H2. And second, H2 isn't a very good energy store, with the total well-to-wheel efficiency of a FCV being somewhere around ~30%. Energy is lost during every conversion, from the AC rectifier and electrolysis, the compression and possibly transport for the H2, to the Fuel Cell, inverter and AC motor. BEVs, by comparison, lose far less between the EVSE, transmission losses, battery efficiency and the powertrain electronics, with a well-to-wheel efficiency in the 70%
Indeed, for a science channel Seeker doesn't really get into the crux of the problem that hydrogen's inefficiency contributes to its much higher cost/mile (5x by most estimates). This higher cost is the economics of why no company is willing to invest in the infrastructure to make and distribute hydrogen in scale. Contrast that with the existing generation and distribution of electricity and the known costs. It is simply no contest.
This is not actually true. For one, much electricity is still produced from methane, and in this regard, H2 production is about 50% more energy efficient if you use the steam reformation process. Also, for larger and longer-range vehicles, Li-ion batteries become very heavy. Already at a 300-mile range, the lightest BEV weighs 3x as much as the lightest hydrogen car (the 'Rasa' prototype). As such, hydrogen is much more efficient as an energy carrier for long-range and heavy vehicles, and of course ships and aircraft.
@@VVayVVard Agreed. Energy density and refueling convenience are the keys to hydrogen's salvation. The problem is that battery energy density (and not just Li-ion) is currently on an improvement trend. This means that it will be awhile before the benefits of hydrogen will be economically competitive. Still have the problem of creating generation and distribution infrastructure, whereas extensive electrical generation and distribution already exists.
I expect that hydrogen will only be viable for long-haul or high weight vehicles. Already there are battery based ferries (albeit short range) and of course all the battery based buses. So the market hydrogen is somewhat limited to other use cases.
@@VVayVVard Well, yes, you are correct, nearly a quarter of global electricity generation was fuelled by Methane/Natural Gas, and steam reformation of Methane can be made relatively efficient, such as minimising heat loss for the high temperature chemical reactions. However, if the purpose of H2 vehicles is to cut carbon emissions and ween society off of fossil fuels, using Natural gas as the feedstock will just shift and hide the problem. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Although, Bio derived Methane, maybe from upgraded biogas, could be used instead of fossil.
@@TheWolfHowling This is true, ultimately H2 production should be powered by solar energy. Concentrating solar energy for thermochemical H2 production as done on a micro-scale at the Hydrosol-2 test plant seems fairly efficient for this purpose, and apparently there has lately been some progress on catalytic splitting too. 'Waste' energy from solar or wind panels could also be used to power electrolysis as well whenever grid electricity wasn't required by consumers.
Ever heard about a car run by water? I don't know if it's true but there was a demonstration of it in the Philippines
I saw a video once about a patent for a car that takes the ambient heat energy out of the air & uses it as fuel, the air coming out of the exhaust being -40°C.
If all the cars were pumping out freezing cold ant-arctic temperature air the roads would probably be iced over.
The problem is you need a heat pump to do that. Heat pumps still require an energy source to work.
What energy source do you think powers all those electric power stations? If your answer is coal, you are correct.
In the Netherlands, we're burning more coal than ever because we need to power all of our charging stations for our electric cars. Which is a pity, you try to be conscious of your carbon footprint by going green - only to be contributing to the problem 😓
I'm surprised that we're not just "growing" hydrogen using algae. There's _lots_ of farmers out there who could do with a better income stream.
Not to mention there's groups like Ceres Power who are making hydrogen-capable fuel cells that use zero precious metals or "strange" materials.
It's the definition of inefficiency to make hydrogen using electricity rather than directly use that electricity to power the vehicle. The discussion should have stopped right there. Until hydrogen can be produced easily through some chemical process, it's not a viable option.
You mean #FrackedGasCars? Over 95% of the commercial hydrogen we have is from natural gas conversion. Natural gas comes predominantly from #Fracking. So you should be asking what happened to the fracked gas cars.
“Hydrogen vehicles … have a range of about 500km, more than fossil fuel and electric vehicles.” No. That's only 310mi, far less than fossil fuel vehicles and slightly less than long-range Teslas.
one word; Efficiency
Lol, I think people will think differently when, 'helping the environment' means landfills full of burning lithium ion batteries and cars that only last 10 years max, filling up junk yards and poor people cant afford to drive cars anymore, because there wont be OLD cars that are affordable. My 16 year old Jeep still goes the same distance on GAS as it did the day it was new, and it doesnt matter if its HOT or COLD outside...
It would make sense for oil companies to start producing hydrogen. If they didn't , they would be losing business otherwise.
I can't believe you forgot to mention that H2 can also be produced via organic matter degradation.
The only bottleneck for ecars right now is battery. Why spend tons of money to split hydrogen and oxygen. Plus the storage problem would cost $$$$. When accidents happen your pressurize fuel tank would likely burst causing more damage than a conventional fuel.
Funny?? thing about hydrogen cars.
In norther Europe having a car with water as exhausts is really dangerous (ice risk on roads)
Apart from that hydrogen is less effective than pure electric.
Qinby 1 store the water somewhere. And it’s basically the tiniest amount of water made.
WHY CANT THEY JUST USE IT FOR FREIGHT TRUCKS!! They make the same trips everyday and do the most miles and would be taking advantage of it most!
Isn’t it still less efficient than electric? Hydrogen also only makes sense for big ships where volume is less important than weight
Why H2 has such high specific energy ? If H2 atoms are very light and they only have 1 proton and 1 electron ?
I wonder if all the vapor from all the new hydrogen cars has caused a greenhouse effect
1. Why do car manufacturers make new cars so expensive, 2. they need to stop it and 3. if they want the earth to be a better place they need to make it affordable.
Believe me they are trying their best.
Cutting edge technology isn't cheap.
You can get brand new affordable car for price of two macbook pro's. If you want car with expensive gadgets then car will be expensive, there is no way around it.
Globalist alert
1+2- Businessmen care about the profit the bigger the profit, the better.
3- Cars run on oil, oil is produced by bigger cooperations whom also care about the profit which means that their industry will go downhill if another alternative is found. The good news is that oil isn’t renewable or available like Hydrogen (which is the most common element in the universe) and someday it will runout.
Unfortunately most oil companies deny that or pretend that it isn’t going to runout anytime soon.
It's been sold, and sold, and sold, for years. Just like fusion, just like solar. Unless the engineering improves, nothing will happen. Somebody, will get modest funds to dabble with a mock-up, or a prototype, and it'll never escape the test track. TV and writers loves this, because it gives them something to write about, so they can earn money. You can look up hydrogen articles and promotions, clear back to the 70's, where, even then it was being pimped.
Electric cars don’t help the environment, they may not produce emissions but the battery is made in a Coal factory which produces a lot of emissions
HELLO!! hydrogen is NOT a fuel AND YOU SHOULD NOT REFER TO IT AS SUCH - it is a form of energy storage - whatever energy source you use to make the hydrogen can be used much more efficiently directly - and hydrogen is very difficult to store (it leaks through the smallest holes) and it is down right explosive.
Hydrogen cars have survived crash tests designed for ICEV-based cars, so safety is not an issue. Also, although you are correct in that unnecessary energy conversion should be avoided, since you need to store the energy within the vehicle itself, the specific energy ('mass-wise energy-density') of the form of storage becomes relevant. Hydrogen is much more efficient than current Li-ion batteries in this regard, and this difference becomes significant, even when production and conversion is taken into account, once longer range (starting at around 100 miles) is desired, as well as in heavier vehicles and aircraft.
@@VVayVVard "Hydrogen cars have survived crash tests designed for ICEV-based cars, so safety is not an issue." - what do these tests have to do with a tank of hydrogen (HIGHLY compressed gas)?? and - it's not just the safety within the car but within the service stations, the re-fueling process, transportation to the service station and at the hydrogen generating plant.
hydrogen is mostly produce from steam reformation of natural gas - so - why not just use the natural gas as a transportation fuel and forget about the costly and inefficient hydrogen production process? that is what is mostly done.
hydrogen is extremely difficult to store and pipe - mainly from leakage - due to the smallest of atoms. so - again, why not just use the natural gas?
and please - do not say that the only pollutant is water - nitrous oxides are also prevalent in the combustion of hydrogen.
@@phishfearme2 'Combustion' of H2 does produce NOx -- however, fuel cells produce electricity directly in a chemical reaction, and this electricity is then used to power the car. Here, nitrous oxides are not produced, and only H2O results. In fact, in an ideal H2 fuel cell (using pure H2 and without significant leaching of impurities from materials), you can produce the purest water that is theoretically possible, even more pure than with the best water purifiers available for scientific use.
And yes, the storage problems are part of the reason why re-fuelling stations are expensive to manufacture. However, this simply needs to be considered adequately in the design. I have not heard of any major leak incidents, and fueling stations have been in use in many countries for a while now, so they should at least be safe under standard conditions. You are right in that under extreme conditions, e.g. in case a fire occurs, the hydrogen containment system will need additional safety precautions to avoid literally 'adding fuel to the fire', but this is true for every other alternative as well.
@@VVayVVard your optimism is admirable - it recalls to me my mech engr master thesis work in 1981 - I thought H2 was the wave of the future as a transportation "fuel" - it simply was not then, is not now and it is doubtful if it will every be.
our thread here is mostly technical - the 800 pound gorilla though is the cost - cost for the needed infrastructure, cost of the vehicle (the fuel cells alone are well over $100K today and this certainly will be reduced with mass production but how much?), cost of the "fuel" itself and on and on.
a book I referenced for my thesis ("the solar hydrogen economy") predicted 3-4 decades we'll be in a hydrogen economy using the sun. now, three decades later, the prediction is still 3-4 decades. reminds me of my undergraduate work in nuclear fusion - it's always a few decades away - and still is.
so, feel free to go ahead and prove this all wrong - but "keep your arms around the future with your back up against the past" (from a moodie blues song)
@@phishfearme2 The costs of fuel cell production have in fact dropped substantially in the last few years, from 100K USD to around 10K USD per fuel cell. Presumably they should cost even less for very lightweight vehicles, such as the UK 'Rasa' prototype. Research is also underway to reduce costs even further - e.g. Toyota aims to make them cost as much as current hybrids by 2025, although whether this will actually be achieved so soon remains to be seen. Either way, since it is still a relatively undeveloped technology, it seems very likely to me that we will see significant price drops sometime in the future.
H2 production is already more efficient than the production of electricity when methane (possibly from biogas) is used via steam reformation -- assuming of course that it is produced at the point of distribution and no transportation losses are incurred. Applying concentrating solar power for water splitting is also under research, and some very promising results (4x-5x efficiency compared to electrolysis) have been achieved in the proof-of-concept stage.
It is true that a high initial investment is required, and since the benefits may not be immediately obvious to everyone (potential for carbon-neutrality is often considered, but the lack of carcinogenic by-products and H2 being lightweight compared to even graphene-incorporating Li-ion batteries are not), I am not surprised there is still no wide public support for the cause. But HFC trucks, buses and personal cars are now in use around the world, a H2-powered ship is in the testing phase and an airplane is under development, and since this should spur the development of additional infrastructure, I believe it is a matter of time until we see a snowball effect in adoption.
A hydrogen economy was also predicted by Jules Verne in the 19th century, so it has certainly taken a long time to get to this point. But it is normal for R&D to take decades (or even centuries in the biomedical field) to produce desired results, and since in this case there is also enormous inertia due to the widespread use of carbon-based fuels and lobbying by those with vested interests, personally I am impressed at how far we have come in just a few decades.
Because of oil companies, they will put out any competitions
How about the fact hydrogen synthesis requiring more energy then its combustion then produce? I figure it is a pretty solid physical impeachment one can't get passed anytime soon and therefore makes the whole endeavour futile.
There are a lot of people who believe in conspiracy theories about oil companies.
Somebody needs to tell those People about Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines!
It is great feet for trucks. Many countries like India doesn’t have eV raw materials but plenty of sun to make hydrogen. India import 83% oil.
The 500km range is NOT more than electric vehicles. At 507km, the Tesla Model 100S has essentially the same range. And it is WAY less than moderately fuel efficient fossil fuel vehicles. For example, a Mazda 3 has a range of almost 600km using city MPG and a max range of over 800km. Check your facts!
01:14 : "Causes CO2 emissions." *CO on the screen.*
Adds legitimacy. :-)
His eyes were like South Park when they become smug due to Hybrid cars.
Every 4 years battery capacity doubles. That is what happan in Formula E. With one battery now they can do full race instead of stopping to change batteries. Hydrogen is far away from ideal solution for cars, maybe for buses.
Tesla is one HUGE exception to that 7.5 to 35 HOURS of charging time. Their Tesla Semi can charge up to 400 MILES, or over 640 KM in ONLY 30 minutes. Because of Tesla electric will be the future for all motor vehicles.
Highly explosive fuel stations, with hydrogen being harder to store than petrol, put people off. And Hydrogen was originally considered as a replacement for petrol due to it being easy to obtain, compared to other alternatives. But it was not the environment that was the concern back then, (and hydrogen cars have bandied about decades), but concern with the possibility of oil becoming scarce.