Separating Hydrogen Facts From Fiction - It's Not All Sunshine & Roses, But It's Not All Bad Either
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2024
- No new tech seems to cause as many online fights as hydrogen. Is it good, it is bad? Where does the hydrogen come from? Why are we trying to make fetch happen? Well, I talk about all that and more in this video, but the bottom line here is: This isn't a zero sum game. H2 doesn't make sense for all applications, or indeed a plurality of applications, but I agree with many that there is a place for it in our zero emissions future. What place exactly? Let's try to find that out together,.
EV Tax Credits Explained: alexonautos.com/2022-ev-tax-c...
The Mountain Garden: / themountaingarden
Buy Merch! aoamerch.com
Follow AoA on Facebook: alexonautos/
00:00 Introduction
01:57 Hydrogen (Prototype) Vehicles
05:04 Hydrogen Fuel Cells
08:36 The Hydrogen Itself
11:05 Some Challenges (and Solutions)
26:50 Final Thoughts 
Авто/Мото
Alex seems like he reads white papers for fun but is still cool at parties.
I'll neither confirm nor deny, just leave it a mystery. -Travis
That’s good, insightful humor. 👏
When I want automotive entertainment, I have several channels to pick from. When I want automotive knowledge, I have Alex. 👍
Spot on! -Travis
I've said this on previous videos, but I feel it bares repeating. Alex is the one auto reviewer where 1) Is so damn knowledgeable that he could teach a university course 2) Is very impartial, and will clearly state his preferences and biases, yet it never feels like he's shoving those preferences in my face, or forcing me to share them 3) Doesn't make me feel bad for not liking Japanese cars or maybe not as interested in V8's or not really caring about exhaust sounds or really being into EV's. He gives me the facts, and features and leaves me to like or hate or whatever. And a really cool point: Super respectful to the vehicles he reviews and to us the viewers.
Aww, that's the nicest comment ever! I truly believe there is no such thing as "one size fits all" unless we're talking about tube socks.
sounds like a great motto.... 'the tube socks, of auto reviewers'....
@@EVBuyersGuide hahaha, I meant every word, thank you for all your hard work!
Yet another video of Alex being one of, if not, the most knowledgeable person in the automotive media industry
He's certainly up there. -Travis
I think the best use case for HFC vehicles is in freight trucks. Truckers actually need long ranges and quick fueling, and warehouse complexes tend to be colocated making natural locations for hydrogen fueling stations.
I appreciate your take on the subject. I’m not anti-hydrogen so much as I’ve been following it since around the year 2000 and seen the lack of real progress. Practical H2 vehicles are perpetually ten years away from commercialization. And the economics of fueling are still something of an enigma. It’s fine if companies want to dabble in the technology. But hanging your hat on it seems a fool’s errand
Truly appreciate a car reviewer who would spend time and effort posting this kind of content. It wont bring a lot of views or subscribers, but you still did it. I can sense your care for our planet from bottom of the heart. I wish we have more scientific minded person like you to be the leader of the government - we would have more useful things done for sure.
As an engineer in the hydrogen industry, excellent and unbiased video!
I rarely comment on videos but it's so refreshing to hear objective commentary on this issue for once. You make such a good point about full-sized trucks/SUVs being the ideal candidates for FCEVs and I wish manufacturers took that into account more. A hydrogen Tundra that could tow a trailer for a few hundred miles and fill up in 5 minutes would be the perfect way to showcase FCEVs for the North American market.
Although I understand why that wouldn't be feasible for other markets, it's baffling that Toyota ended up with the Mirai, a cramped and unremarkable sedan that lacks commonality with other Toyota products, instead of something like a hydrogen RAV-4. It's also baffling that there is a plug-in hydrogen CR-V while the regular plug-in CR-V isn't even available in North America despite the fact it would fly off dealer lots. FCEV research might not be a zero sum game but that still seems like poor resource allocation, especially for a company with limited resources like Honda.
Another super interesting video. Really appreciate the information about the promise and peril of hydrogen vehicles from hydrogen production methods to the different use cases. Also strongly agree with your point that we will need different kinds of clean energy transportation to meet the desires of consumers, whether we share their preferences or not. My brother-in-law accurately perceives that a lightning or a Rivian isn’t going to tow his giant camper to the family’s favored state park 300 miles away in any reasonable amount of time but I believe he could be persuaded to drive a fuel cell powered truck. I know it’s not really your target market, but it would be super interesting to see you “review“ some of the fuel cell big rigs that I understand are in use in CA.
If someone reached out with an offer to drive one I might be able to get him to agree to it. -Travis
I honestly think that large trucks and medium duty vehicles are the best use cases for fuel cell vehicles. Additionally, buses that travel on highways and through rural areas where charging infrastructure or overhead wires for trolley buses are not possible. Also, vehicle fleets where you do a lot of long distance driving.
Great video Alex. I’m one of those folks that side eyes Hydrogen as a last gasp push by the Fossil Fuel industry. I was unaware of California’s 33% renewable requirement and would feel better about Hydrogen if CA’s renewable requirements became a Federal Standard.
It's just your scepticism caised by big oil companies being garbage colouring your vision. Fossil fuels do have some marleting BS about clean hydrogen because they try hard to greenwash their horseshit.
The concept to use hydrogen to power vehicles was not dreamed up by oil companies. It's just one solution to the problem of burning stuff to move around. The big reason we have so many BEVs is because one super rich guy decided that was the path forward and spent a lot of money to push it out. If one eccentric billionaire decided hydrogen fuel cell powered trains and heavy trucks should be the norm and splashed the cash, it most definitely would be the case. Rich people generally only care about a sure thing that will keep them rich, which means not taking a chance on new technology that would only be implemented to reduce emissions and might not pay off.
Keep an open mind and remember we just need to stop burning stuff. That's the end goal, and any step helps.
While I believe that Hydrogen has a place in energy storage when we reach a point of renewable production that outstrips our battery storage potential.
For automotive… I just don’t see anyway to get past the storage issues to get reasonable range with the HP needed for the American consumer. If you liquify, you need to be at near absolute zero, if you use hydrogen gas, you cannot get to the density or pressures needed.
Love to be proven wrong but o just don’t see a way you can pass batteries 😂it’s the rate of development in the sector.
I just don’t see how right now at this time hydrogen could be feasible. It takes way more electricity to create that hydrogen. I would rather put that into a battery at home. It also seems like the creation of hydrogen vehicles seems to be the attempt at keeping us going to refueling stations as well as more moving complex parts to keep dealerships with income from repair work. EVs seem to be best at this time.
It makes a lot of sense to put excess power into a battery at home, but how many people have that kind of battery capacity at home? How about any battery capacity? -Travis
And how much electricity is required to pump crude oil, ship it around the world, refine it, and then ship it to a station? Hydrogen is a closer to an analogue of fossil fuels. And isn't that the idea? To stop burning stuff? I think you have no idea how a fuel cell works. There aren't any more moving parts in comparison to an EV.
EVs are better for small passenger vehicles. Heavy vehicles are a completely different situation.
Enjoyed the video and having driven the Honda Clarity Fuel Cell in 2017 for 3 years when Hydrogen was $9.00 a kilogram to start and rose to $18 by end of my lease I was always keeping track of my miles per kilogram each time I filled up. My average was 55 miles per kilogram driving it the way I did. Today at $36 a kilogram I could drive 22916 miles on a $15000 fuel card before I needed to pay out of pocket. Very important for folks who might drive a lot of miles to talk to others and get an idea about how many miles they’re getting per kilogram not tankful to get an accurate idea of how far you can go before running out of money on fuel card.
And if hydrogen vehicles were adopted in a more widespread fashion do you think they will come with tens of thousands of dollars in "free fuel"? How much were your lease payments?
My lease payment was $405 a month for 36 months including tax. I was able to drive 60000 miles during that lease and concluded this technology is best for commercial vehicles such as trucks going out from the port of Long Beach and returning at night. Vehicles at a mining site, etc. They could have a well maintained central hydrogen station to return too. Makes zero sense currently for general public vehicles.
@jethrojackson I agree with you. So if you do the math you paid $14508 and got $15000 in free fuel. Basically the vehicle was completely free. Good for you but that's obviously not in any way sustainable as a business model.
Absolutely. All hydrogen vehicles made available to the public will be heavily subsidized for the foreseeable future. I love new technology and also love a good deal. Would never buy a hydrogen vehicle, lease only.
Thanks for sharing your real world experience. That is useful info.
Glad to see someone talking about this actually knows what's up.
The best way to think of utilizing Hydrogen is that of a gigantic battery that can be refilled very fast, but has serious limitations in how it can be refilled and is not super energy efficient when refilling it. But those two problems can be solved by 1) Having gigantic, relatively static, industries utilize it, such as ocean shipping and long-haul land trucking freight, and 2) By making electricity even more ubiquitous and cheaper than it is now, using either renewable or Nuclear. Lithium Ion battery usage obviously needs cheap electricity too, so in either future, cheap and unlimited energy (in the form of electricity) should be the goal our governments strive for. We've had the technology and the promise of that dream since the 1950s, but we got distracted and addicted by oil. Perhaps, finally, the electricity revolution may be in sight.
I am an outlier. I live in central VA and have worked as a securities litigation consultant for over twenty years and own a tree farm in central VA and co-own a sawmill in SW VA. The legal work is primarily in Greensboro, NC (190 miles away) and Washington, DC (160). The sawmill is 55 miles away and I routinely transport dogs for several foster-based 501c3s that take me pretty much in every direction within a 100 mile radius. My tree related vehicles are diesel F350s because we can easily run them non-stop for ten hours and haul 6 tons, which we routinely do. My daily is a Forester XT, but I have a Suburban for long/large breed dog transports and tasks that need more space or hauling, but a 7k lbs truck would be overkill. I don't give two sh!ts about rolling coal. My trucks are stock other than AT tires on the OE wheels. I can easily put 200-300k miles before those ICE vehicles are toast. There is still no EV or HFCEV that can replace them that I would trust to last that long without a significant failure of a proprietary component. Even if a Suburban eats its transmission every 120k miles it's an easy repair that most mom and pop shops can handle in a few days.
The most likely future for your use case is a gasoline hybrid. And not a fake hybrid that has the gas engine connected to the drive train. A real hybrid that has a an EV drive train, and a combustion generator. Just like the new ram charger. You'll get the benefits of the reliability and robustness of electric motors. Also the gasoline engine would have a much longer lifespan as it will always run at is peak efficiency. No revving, no gear changes, etc. Also, for short around town stuff you could run on electric only, saving a ton on fuel. I think without significant step changes in battery technology that dramatically increases gravimetric and volumetric density, your particular use case will not escape fossil fuels.
Hey Alex, I know you live in California but do you have any information on range loss of a FC EV in cold weather?
I think that some of the frustration around R&D spending are due to Toyota specifically spending so much on hydrogen development rather than battery electric vehicles. That's not to say Toyota hasn't spent R&D money on EVs, but they would have been in a completely different situation had they not spent a decade dead-set on hydrogen fuel cells.
I definitely agree on hydrogen having some potential uses (for planes & ships as well), but the specialized infrastructure requirements make it seem like a tricky non-commercial technology for places that aren't islands. It'll be interesting to see how things go.
Thanks for this helpful overview of hydrogen fuel cell tech and demand for the tech.
Speaking of your personal concerns for a zero emissions future, and no one-size-fits-all approach, what would you want to see in terms of increasing nuclear power production?
Another great video, Alex. I agree there is a role for hydrogen fueled vehicles using fuel cells and I am disappointed thxt there isn't more focus on them for long haul transport. It would also be nice if there was more emphasis on rdcyclling BEVs at end of life. We need a straight forward readily utilized recycling stream like that for your Pb acid battery. Again great video with good points to consider.
Problem is that hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Most of it comes from natural gas. Also too expensive. Auto companies have been promising fuel cell vehicular for years.
Alex the truth speaker!
Isn't one of the drawbacks of hydrogen that it would all leak out over a short time? Like, leave it parked for a week and you would come back to an empty tank?
No, that’s actually an advantage of H2, there’s essentially zero loss over long periods of time.
Not for this application. There were cars that were this way, ones that required cooled liquid hydrogen storage. That’s not the case with standard pressurized tanks and Fuel Cells.
It's never going to happen as anything but a niche. It's not the renewable fuel aspect It's producing, storing, fueling, and repair of the cars. They've been coasting around as this amazing battery/ICE alternative for a long time and for most applications I think will never happen.
It can't hurt to test it further, can it? -Travis
@@EVBuyersGuide nope. I just don't see it ever taking off. Quicker fueling over a battery electric isn't going to be enough to cope with all the other peculiarities/disadvantages and become mainstream. I find it curious that they keep finding money for development to be honest.
@@Bradimus1 It is often other people's money they are using, including tax payers'. I agree it will never happen. If it was going to happen, hydrogen fuel stations would be popping up across the continent. But they are not.
@@arbitrary76 it's so Fetch.
@@arbitrary76 The same could be said about electric charging stations even with massive government funding.
Do you think FCEVs will always carry high voltage batteries?
I think regen back to H70 is still challenging, but I wonder those fuel cell pioneers are seeking such idea.
Yes, HV batteries are needed because FCs don't change power levels rapidly so you need a buffer just like in a hybrid.
A hydrogen fuel cell plug in hybrid might help alleviate range anxiety due to lack of hydrogen filling stations. It could also make the vehicle more efficient by allowing regenerative braking.
My biggest issue with hydrogen is the cost of fuel. With EVs, yes the cars cost more than gas cars but at least the energy is cheaper than gas. Hydrogen is very expensive and the cars are expensive. Hydrogen fuel or the cars or both than to get much cheaper. I hope the tech improves. Thank you for the information.
It's only expensive because there's been almost zero investment in the infrastructure. The same was true for EVs until Musk decided to just will the supercharger network into existence using his massive wallet.
@@Mountain-Man-3000Wrong. There is no foreseeable pathway for green hydrogen to ever be competitive with ANYTHING. It would require magic. It has nothing to do with scale.
Commenting before I finish: why didn’t Honda just make a gas plug in hybrid? With the success of the rav4 prime, it seems like it’d print money and then Honda can use that to build their own hydrogen network.
They probably had government grants for hydrogen specific R&D is my guess. If they have any engineers that can critically think at Honda, then they know there is no future in hydrogen for their vehicle fleet. So there must have been something else to sweeten the deal. Like government grants.
I feel like the logistical capacity for something like biodiesel is so much larger and the technology so much better understood.
Doesn't it make sense to explore a variety of options? -Travis
Biodiesel still pollutes. It just comes from a different place.
@@Mountain-Man-3000 I think the NOx emissions and soot are the big things, but carbon emissions are mostly neutral as long as the fertilizer is. The big thing with biodiesel is that we can make highly efficient cars lighter since tire particulates are extremely polluting and those are very highly correlated with weight.
It absolutely is a zero sum game. It's a worldwide political theater where the energy, engineering talent, and funds are finite, the (theater) producers are global conglomerates with governments in their pockets, and the audience is all facing a mass extinction event (of parts of the food chain, at a minimum) if the theater doesn't get the plot right. There are big losers every time you promote H2 as a possible future.
Japan wants energy independence and the petroleum companies that are willing to harvest frozen methane from the sea shelf in the territorial waters of Japan have convinced them that their way forward is Grey Hydrogen. While every other automotive-producing nation is racing ahead with advancements in Lithium Ion, Japan is playing with HFCs which were invented (and used in the field) 50 years ago in hopes that their national strategy will pan out and that carbon sequestration technology advances enough to nullify Grey H2 production's CO2 (despite all evidence suggesting it's a fools errand). Before they can even get the Grey Hydrogen harvested, they're importing Brown Hydrogen from Australia in order to work on their experiment. That is harmful, here and now, to everyone. Honda and Toyota leasing HFCEVs in the USA is a symptom of a sickness. We're seeing them fall behind during a vital point in a mobility revolution because they aren't getting any pushback for their wasted R&D toward Hydrogen.
You can point out that California's H2 is all Green but that doesn't make it okay. Yes, the a tiny bit of H2 used for limited automotive leases is Green. The lie is that the subsidized Green hydrogen is used to get automotive influencers like Alex, and James May to sing the praises of a technology that's 95% dirty and only being used to hedge the future profits of petroleum companies. When you suggest that these things aren't a big deal or aren't related you're giving a pass on deceptive climate-change-denial marketing.
I'd love to see you look at the worlds' numerous HFC bus and train boondoggles (and why they keep failing) before suggesting to your audience that H2 has a future in large vehicles. The freezing membrane problem, the unavoidable cost of platinum in the membrane problem, the hydrogen embrittlement problem, and the stunning lack of excess energy (to waste on Green H2 production) problem all need to be put into proper context and not that of a Popular Science/Mechanics magazine cover designer.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I like what you said ( producers are global conglomerates with governments in their pockets ).
Does SpaceX use Hydrogen as fuel?
Where are you going to refuel these vehicles? How expensive and efficient are the refueling stations?
How expensive and efficient are petrochemical fueling stations?
Hey Alex! Good to hear some rational words on hydrogen powered vehicles. I whole heartedly agree that hydrogen is fantastic for the heavier class vehicles/use cases such as long haul semi trucks or towing with a pickup. Since the energy density of batteries today is not able to support those use cases, it only makes sense to put more time, money, and effort into researching higher density energy solutions such as different battery chemistries/packaging or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Like you mentioned, the customer base exists, the government is pushing to be more carbon neutral by the year, it doesn’t make sense to make everything work off a battery pack solely if the battery pack cannot solve today’s problems without very large setbacks/sacrifices. Keep up the great content!
Thanks for watching, we love our green(er) energy solutions! -Travis
Hydrogen is dying, Shell pulled out I believe 9 Hydrogen stations in CA, in Europe many stations have been decommissions, with a couple in Norway catching on fire and not being recommissioned, so not a good choice. Fuel cells also have not a long life the precious metals get contaminated over time and are very expensive to replace, EV batteries will outlast them.
Shell pulled out of 7 stations, the future of Iwanti's involvement is in question. Rumors point to True Zero taking over 3-4 of the Shell stations by the end of 2024 but that's rumor. We know that there are 2 stations currently under construction, 19 awaiting construction permits, and 4 open proposals.
Well I'm sure they only opened them in the hopes that they'd gain a potential headstart in a new industry. Nobody is pushing for this technology so there's no immediate gains in sight for them. Giant corporations only care about things that might make them money.
I could see hydrogen essentially being the diesel of the future. But something will need to be done about the price of fueling, as well as the guaranteed short tank life span.
It seems that the HDPE lined tanks should have a lifespan of 15 years regardless of mileage, but exact data is hard to come by.
Give me the chancla!
Its like beating on a dead horse with Hydrogen. Yes, it is good for a very specific application and there is a place for it, but not every day cars. I think airplanes would be great for Hydrogen. In the 90's when Hydrogen was introduced, it sounded great, much better than gasoline cars. But now with BEV has proven to work the best. Perhaps even ships can use Hydrogen as well. As for big heavy trucks like a Hummer, well, they dont really sell that many of them. 18 wheeler trucks, that all can be Battery powered. Batteries are still getting cheaper by the day. So the way i see it for Hydrogen is good for Airplanes and Boats.
Sorry, but basically any vehicle larger than a passenger vehicle which drives outsidea city is much better off with hydrogen. It's not a dead horse, it's something that's had basically no enthusiasm or funding since forever. If it wasn't for Musk I bet EVs would just be a weird curiosity right now and they'd still be unviable as a primary vehicle. A person or group of people need to really push and spend money if we ever want to have a green hydrogen infrastructure that could fuel heavy vehicles.
Alex, What emotion? Elon Who?🤔
The man knows his stuff. -Travis
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so“
You have done your research however in big mining vehicles they prefer batteries to hydrogen
Batteries or hybrid/electric?
That's because a gas leak could kill everyone and/or destroy a mine. Also because fuel cells didn't exist wayback when mines started using electric equipment.
@@Mountain-Man-3000 fuel cells existed well before mining evs
Great video Alex. Some rationality in this discussion is good to hear. My comment would be on use cases where FCEVs make sense. I believe in your video of the Nexo you stated that for those people that can't charge at home or work, FCEVs may be a better option. Given the large percentage of urban dwellers fall in this category, I agree that this consumer will need another option besides a BEV once the no ICE mandates come into place. I get that BEV charging is getting faster but it will likely never be as fast as transferring a molecule. For those of us who park on the street and can't charge, going to a fast charger and waiting even 20 min is going to be seen as an inconvenience. If you don't believe me, the next time you go and fill up your car with gas, wait for another 15 minutes. Plus fast charging costs are going up with some sites charging ~$0.50/kWh and that won't be getting cheaper as local grid constraints start to pile up. So this group of people not only are they going to be inconvenienced, but will also be paying a significant amount of money to drive. As I tell those around me, as you scale up, filling a BEV will get more expensive but filling a FCEV will get cheaper.
There have to be multiple avenues. -Travis
except battery swapping addresses the same issues.... just much more efficiently, cost effectively and has already been proven viable ....
There's great debate about battery swapping efficacy, it seems to make the most sense for taxis and other commercial vehicles (that's the main use case in China), but in the USA customer interest in battery swapping is incredibly low which is why Tesla decided to abandon the project and nobody else is working on it in any real fashion outside of China.
@@EVBuyersGuide Travis ok, but how are any of your points, relevant to its actual 'efficacy'?
They are just common misleading memes. For example Elon was never interested in battery swapping. Tesla set up battery swapping temporarily, because a government program incentivized it.
But let's assume for argument sake they seriously tried and failed a battery swapping. How is that relevant to its viability? Elon and Tesla fail all the time.Look at Hyperloop, or Tesla solar operation. Neither one determines if a concept is viable or not. And I'm not saying Tesla is not a successful company, but even successful companies sometimes fail at something that some other company succeeds at.
"in the USA customer interest in battery swapping is incredibly low"? How much does the average consumer even know about EVs in general? Only about 25% would even consider an EV at this point. That means 75% are not even interested in any type of EV. Battery swapping is a foreign concept for most consumers. It would be like asking somebody in the 1970s what their interest in Mobile phones were? It's a pointless question to ask.
Or"nobody else is working on it in any real fashion outside of China" this is not technically correct.... Google Ample... And if the technology is coming from China so what? Chinese automotive companies are already exporting it.
But let's assume you're first point is correct that battery swapping makes the most sense for commercial vehicles. Let's start there and see if it has any other applications? For example for long distance towing? I have a plethora of examples. Which I will not bore you with here.
It's going to take decades, but it's inevitable to migrate to various regions and to be used for various purposes. Sorry for the lack of brevity, but counterpoints tend to require much more elaboration.
@@nc3826 We're not talking about generic interest, EV shoppers and EV owners are by and large not interested in battery swapping. I've seen the customer survey data produced internally at Ford and Hyundai. Battery swapping is a tiny blip way down the list. Customers want range and fast charging way before they want battery swapping. Sure there are some customers that are passionate about it, but that doesn't make it a viable proposition.
Google Ample falls into the "nobody is working on it in any real fashion". Stellantis has been talking with Google, but you'll notice that none of their EVs in development will use it. A small group of 500e EVs will be modified to use the batteries in Madrid as a test program with car sharing services.
It's worth noting that even in China where swapping has a hold, the cost of swapping is higher than charging and it's not profitable for Nio. The stations are expensive to deploy and maintain, require very different kinds of battery pack integration designs into the structure of a vehicle, and customers don't seem interested in "subscribing" to a battery which is what would really be required to make that work. Nobody is doing battery swaps outside subscriptions, and those subscriptions will likely always be more expensive than just charging your battery yourself.
The key barriers to battery swapping seem to be cost and customer demand. DC charging is not the most common way EV owners charge, and battery swap stations logically could never be as ubiquitous as DCFC stations, so for the 5% of charging sessions that are "fast charge" stops, you'd save only about 5-10 minutes swapping a battery vs a quick charge in a Hyundai EGMP platform car less the time and distance to get to the swap station. Meanwhile you're subscribing to a battery subscription which costs you more for the lifetime of the vehicle and according to Tesla, Hyundai and Ford engineers you'd also be driving around a heavier vehicle because there is a weight penalty for designing a car that's swap capable and the car itself is slightly more expensive to design and manufacture. The use case seems to be too niche for companies to invest in it. If customers *really* wanted battery swapping, you can bet that it would be happening here already.
Alex, this might be one of the myths, but what about the concern that hydrogen is highly explosive and what would happen in a bad crash?
You answered your own question.
@@nc3826 But why is this hydrogen system not prone to Hindenburg levels of disaster? Is the hydrogen itself less volatile or is the tank designed to not rupture?
@@jsonlee01 California requires that the hydrogen tanks comply with pretty strict American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) pressure vessel standards. IIRC, the tanks themselves have to be able to avoid rupture in some fairly extreme circumstances (i.e. literally bullet proof).
@@ScramJett Thanks. That was helpful.
What actually caused the Hindenburg disaster?
$15K in free hydrogen included with the lease becauss this is all an experiment- you probably barely paid that much in lease payments. If hydrogen goes more mainstream these companies are not going to keep providing free fuel. Stations and automakers are both are going to need to make money.
You're talking an exponentially higher coat per mile to drive vs. both gasoline or electric in an EV. Unlike chargers and gas stations being everywhere, you're also limited to small areas where hydrogen stations exist. Converting hundreds of thousands of public stations to hydrogen will cost an absolute fortune, and will nake no sense until millions of people drive a hydrogen vehicle, which they won't because it's too expensive and inconvenient to fuel.
Long story short, hydrogen might make sense for things like semi trucks and commercial jets, but none for passenger vehicles.
24:10 I don't knows why there would be a loss to the atmosphere, as long as you're in a position to use the relatively small amount of gas that comes off in a certain interval. Also: The bigger your container, the better this works.
One important thing people don’t normally talk about for power/electric generation is, the power plants don’t generate EXACT amounts of energy of what the grid consumes, they need to produce MORE than the grid consumes, the excessive energy that wasn’t consumed becomes wasted. Hydrogen would be a good way to harness the waste, if the power plants can dynamically route the excessive power to produce hydrogen.
There is waste in the transmission of electricity from generation. Modern high-voltage lines are not much better than 70% efficient and older lines are less. Renewables require energy to gather materials, transform the materials, and transport the materials. You also have to factor in the disposal, preferably through recycling of the materials. There is no such thing as a fully renewable energy source - but you can be as efficient as possible. BTW, the loss of electricity in the transmission lines probably can't be used to crack hydrogen - unless you run the lines through water jackets.
I had great hope for hydrogen cars for years. Love the technology and I do think they have a niche to fill. However I think the industry haven’t really stepped up soon enough and time is running out. What Tesla did right was build superchargers. With a hydrogen car you could get stuck as there is not enough hydrogen stations
No doubt infrastructure plays a critical role in the successful growth/deployment of hydrogen. -Travis
Tesla built superchargers because they had to. They only make BEVs and initial customers were worried about not being able to go on trips. No chargers, no cars. It was a business decision that is paying off. Toyota, Hyundai etc makes every type of car so if one type goes out of fashion they make more of the other. The problem with hydrogen infrastructure is that it is not considered vital. Yet.
Those taking a jab at hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for not being "renewable"... have forgotten that the manufacturing process of BEVs are not 100% renewable either.
First off Hydrogen is prohibitively expensive, costing roughly 200 dollars to add 300 miles of range.
Fuel Cell vehicles need to be vastly larger than an ICE or EV vehicle to get close the same amount of passenger/cargo space of even smaller ICE/EV vehicle.
Their performance lags behind both ICE or EV vehicles.
The serious lack of refuelling infrastructure for Hydrogen ISN'T going to change anytime soon in fact its likely to get worse.
Thank you for a good logical talk about the positives and negatives of hydrogen. I totally agree with you that there’s no downside of the manufacturers doing what amounts to prototype field testing and that improvements will come. In my mind full BEVs will never be the solution for everyone and that the more alternatives we have that are low or zero carbon emitting the better.
There are lots of prototypes out there, this is just a much more public facing test case. -Travis
My pipe dream for hydrogen future would be to shrink hydrogen production to maybe the size of a residential water heater that could be used to plug into at home so you can top off and leave the house with a full tank.
I think you're looking for a PHEV or BEV. -Travis
In an alternate reality we figured out hydrogen supply/economics/environmental impact and FC vehicles would be better for the average driver than a BEV.
I'd like to start this off by saying I am no Elon Musk fan. He's a jacka$$ and his North American made cars are still not built as well as legacy manufacturers. Your Musk slam seems along the lines of people who tell people to "follow the science" no matter what the topic is or how counter logical their following argument is. The poor efficiency of hydrogen, plus the energy needed to produce, transport, and store it means it's a dead end for passenger vehicles. That doesn't mean it may not have a place in mass transit. There is no way around the double energy conversion loses vs a BEV.
It's obvious that sending electrons directly from a source into a battery will have fewer losses vs producing hydrogen using those same electrons. The problem is that batteries energy density is still pathetic compared to fossil fuels, and even if you can make a battery large enough for large vehicles if they are travelling the highway primarily the range is unacceptably bad. Why do you think the Telsa Semi is still basically vaporware? Because they just don't want to bother making or selling them? No. It's because long route high speed transport uses a SHITLOAD of energy. And recharging a battery massive enough to power a huge truck would take FAR too long and the charging infrastructure would he INSANELY expensive. It's hard enough to keep a few small EV changers working, they would need to be supremely reliable for the logistics industry to take a chance on them.
Hydrogen cars are pretty senseless compared to BEV, but we've gotta do the R&D somehow.
To get people into hydrogen cars because they don’t like evs is a negative sum gain. Better to play the lottery 😂
HFCVs remind me of all the other experimental power plants that automotive companies experimented with over the decades, such as jet engines. That cost a fortune and went nowhere.
While battery technology is massively scaling up. So comparing that spending, to all of the wasteful H2 schemes around the world is misleading and disingenuous. (At least HFCVs makes more sense than mixing it with natural gas and burning it in gas boilers. Which is being subsidized in the UK)
Why are we subsidizing experiments, when there are more pragmatic options available now? Such as fixed and swappable BEV. Since they can already supersede theoretical HFCV's.
But at least we have hydrogen fuel cell forklifts as a semi-practical application of the technology. And methanol fuel cell applications could make some sense in the future?
I get the appeal of HFCVs. Just like I get the appeal of various forms of science fiction. I'm just not betting the house on seeing them coming to fruition in my lifetime.
Have fun on your soapbox Alex. Since we all have a subjective narrative.
Battery technology is rapidly improving, hydrogen technology is not.
We are trying to play the game differently by building industrial CO2 electrolyzers that transforms air 💨 into CO, which combines with H2 into fuels.
This means you can still drive ICE cars and burn ZERO-emission gasoline made from water and CO2 in air!
Hydrogen is basically just another battery. You put energy in and you take energy out.
I prefer hydrogen as a home power source rather than for cars.
🔥Love the Chat🔥
You're beating a dead horse, it's over. Batteries have won. Batteries are getting cheaper and denser everyday and will continue to do so because billions are being spent on them. Companies are willing to spend those billions because there is a market, millions of EVs a year are sold today and that number is growing rapidly. Fueling EVs is a solved problem. Most charging is done at home, you can't do that with hydrogen. The Supercharger network is already extensive enough so that you can get most anywhere and it's growing at a very fast pace, in 10 years you will never be more than a few miles from a DC charger except in those places where there are no gas stations today. There are almost no hydrogen stations and the number is shrinking not growing, Shell just shut theirs down. Nobody is going to build out a Hydrogen fueling network, it's too expensive and there is essentially zero demand. It costs 10 times as much to build a hydrogen station as a Supercharger station and a hydrogen station can't fuel nearly as many cars as even the smallest Supercharger location. The ones in CA can only fuel 50 cars before the tank has to be refilled. That's an unfixable problem because the volumetric efficiency of hydrogen is terrible. And even if that network existed no one is going to buy a hydrogen car because the cost of fuel will always be too high. The windmills to wheels path is three times more efficient for a BEV than it is for a hydrogen car which means that the cost per mile in a BEV will always be at least 3 times cheaper. Even if you could improve the overall efficiency of the hydrogen path it will never be cost competitive with batteries.
Well said. You covered just about everything.
A lot of your concerns are totally valid but I think you're overly optimistic on the current status of EV options, take rate, and charging infrastructure. -Travis
Hydrogen is 97% dirty (blue), hydrogen leaks, hydrogen is expensive to store and transport, hydrogen is inefficient compared to using a battery. Truck and bus companies have tested it for fleets and it was much worse than batteries or evs. Hydrogen has uses in steel and other uses when it doesn’t need to be transported. Fuel cells have a limited life. Making hydrogen fuel by electrolysis is still inefficient compared to charging batteries, has uses where batteries are not efficient.
There's not an argument being made to replace batteries, it's about diversifying power sources and leveraging each strength. -Travis
@@EVBuyersGuide understood, however the evidence that hydrogen is not suitable for transport is extensive and rich in data. You appear not to be engaging with this.
Hydrogen isn’t the future.
Maybe they should concentrate on the major causes of air pollution and CO2 like wild fires 🔥, space heating and leave autos alone
Can't we work on multiple things at once? -Travis
@@EVBuyersGuide yes , take a lesson from many vehicles in the world already use clean CNG LNG . Just about every cab in asia uses it cause it’s so cheap . It’s clean enough to use industrial Indoor machinery like forklifts . Every IC motor cheaply adapted and no $ Billiond wasted on EV auto industry bankruptcy with taxpayers money . More to come $$
@@HailCaesar-lm4bq That only works if your definition of "clean" meets that of the petroleum industry selling you the methane. They've already primed you to accept the name "natural gas". They've probably also sewn some seeds of doubt for human-caused global warming from CO2 production (despite overwhelming evidential scientific consensus), so getting you to whataboutism one type of emissions reduction for another is just a half-step away on the anti-progress slippery slope. The next thing you'll tell us is that replacing clean LNG with clean renewables will simply cost too much as the ocean is lapping at your ankles and you have to describe seafood to children by showing them historical videos.
Damn. Alex went full Leftist on this one. Hope it's not a trend.
Leftist opposed to Rightist? -Travis
@EVBuyersGuide Why be compelled for any "_ist"?
More like thoroughly educated and thoughtful. Saying we should strive for a greener, less polluted world for our kids to live in by exploring & investing resources into renewable energy solutions really is not controversial. If that sentiment is in fact controversial to you, maybe re-evaluate your position.
@Jenna_ Your ideas are useless if they only involve "nice outcomes " but don't take into account the DEGREE to which you implement them. For example Germany invested large amounts of money into SOLAR. It was a mistake. Why did they do it? Because of people like you.
@@Jenna_ Weren't those that suggested Communism more educated than those that opposed it? Didn't they come from academia? The problem is that they have enough IQ to understand part of reality, but not enough IQ to understand it sufficiently to carry out a PLAN. Trillions of dollars of climate "investment" won't even yield a tenth of a degree of heat mitigation. If you have data suggesting otherwise I'd love to read it.