Musk laughed at Toyota's work on hydrogen and now toyota is laughing at him with their hybrids. I trust Toyota to develop the future of transportation and I think they will have the last laugh at the clown we know as Musk.
Toyota is plain wrong about hydrogen. Laws of physics are there and Toyota will not bypass them. Hydrogen is an energy vector, like electricity, and not a primary energy source. The issue is, it's a very inefficient energy vector.
They can. Japanese thinking is:lithium is in short supply and Japan doubt have any mines =risk for them. Japan is surrounded by water and can buid wind turbines + nuclear power stations. Japan is different and thats good
@@ironman8257There is 230 billion tonnes of lithium in the ocean. I don't think Japan has any uranium mines either but uranium can also be extracted from sea water, which I think the Japanese actually pioneered.
Toyota want you to think Hydrogen is the future. The truth is, Toyota are so far behind on BEV, they are playing catch-up. They did two things. Put out the message they have developed solid state batteries, which in the future will blow away the existing BEV tech. And secondly, try to make it known Hydrogen is still a thing. As a consequence, customers are delaying their buying decisions.
Japan found out the hard way that a preemptive strike to secure a supply line abroad is not a wise strategy... As they Imperial Japs tried and found the US choked everything dry. @@ironman8257
I thought this was going to be a video where James May spoke about hydrogen cars, but instead what I got was "James May being interrupted by another man, who prattles pointlessly while demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding about how hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells work". Almost three minutes of this video are of the interviewer wittering, including a stretch more than one minute long from 3:11 to 4:24 where he talks nonstop without actually making a point or asking a question. James' point on BEVs in your other video were brilliantly measured and I was really looking forward to hearing more from him. Rubbish interviewer.
I totally agree with you... he also dragged out some of the old misinformation myths and sprinkled them into his monologue. I got the feeling that James May chose to gradually change direction in what he was saying, rather than enter into conflict with the interviewer.
In Norway there is only one -1- hydrogen station now for private cars. Shell dropped everyone in the US. Shell will now change their petrol stations to EV hubs.
And at their peak there were what, four? And one of them caught fire. It's just pointless inefficiency, expense, and danger. It's far more dangerous than gas or EV.
If they used solid hydrogen people could refill their car from hydrogen they produce at home. Electrolysis is not that complicated. Probably Big Oil would not allow it?
This is the second clip from this interview I've watched and I'm beginning to wonder about Jame's grasp of reality. At 0:44 he says he's aware of the inefficiencies of hydrogen but still thinks it's a good choice to fuel transport. Yes there's MAYBE and argument for shipping, but that is as far as it goes. The other guy talking 3:40 clearly has nothing more than a GCSE level understanding of the properties of hydrogen. If you're going to get yourself recorded talking authoritatively on a subject, do a bit of research beforehand.
He seemed to like the idea from an engineering point of view which I guess makes sense, there's a hell of a lot going on to make it work and a hell of a lot that could go wrong with it. Instead of simply, you know, charging a battery.
I disagree that there is ‘an inherent rightness to hydrogen’. Hydrogen may be abundant, but it’s spoken for. Oxygen already called dibs on it and won’t give it up without a fight. This means the whole system efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell is poor. The energy needed to extract hydrogen is better off being put straight into a battery. Batteries, though resource intensive, will get cleaner too as more are recycled. They are also needed to help buffer the varying supply from renewables. The base demand will go up, true. But we’ll likely meet this with nuclear power, most likely much smaller and more modular reactors than we’ve seen before. Whichever way you look at it, BEV has already won the argument for private cars. Trucks, ships and planes are a different story.
There's LITERALLY only one thing in which hydrogen cars are better than pure EVs and that is speed of refueling/re-charging. But then again they are still slower than regular gas cars in that and charging times for fast chargers for EVs continue to go down. Adding the fact that hydrogen refilling infrastructure also is much more expensive, it is a flimsy argument for hydrogen in cars
Speaking purely from a uk perspective regarding the infrastructure perspective. The uk will require tens of millions of charging points if not more assuming the vast majority of the driving population adopt EVs. That requires a significant infrastructure investment both in terms of cost and space. Petrol (gas) stations are compact and probably do not have the square meters needed to accommodate significant charging, services stations (the big gas stations on highways) will require charging points in every single parking bay, the same with shopping centre car parks etc…. This requires significant infrastructure investment, probably improved power network. That doesn’t tackle the problem of where the power is coming from to power these impending millions of EVs. One could say, from a practical perspective and considering the re fuelling time for hydrogen and existing petrol station infrastructure I.e. the physical set up (yes hydrogen tanks will need to be installed) is a slightly more efficient solution. Considering the huge remediation costs and carbon footprint of returning petrol stations back to developable land. Just a thought as I sit on the bog at Knutsford services after watching a charging point drama.
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 You have to note that fewer public EV chargers are needed vs gas or hydrogen pumps since anyone with a house will charge at home.
@@nan68 how can you charge from home when you are travelling from London to Newcastle or Bristol to Penzance, what about the millions of city dwellers who live in flats or shared accommodation? The industry, governments, openly admit a need for a huge uplift in charging points to the order of millions…. So not sure how any denial is possible or justified?
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 Well you obviously will use a public charger on a road trip or if you're unable to charge at home. We'll obviously need more chargers than exist today. Nobody is saying otherwise. But you still don't need as many chargers as gas pumps because there's millions who are able and are incentivized to charge at home. Like, it's simple math. Fewer people needing to use public infrastructure (despite still needing to use it occasionally when road tripping or whatever) means you need fewer access points to that public infrastructure. I used to drive a gas car and I stopped to get gas 2 times a week every week. I've been on an EV for 2 years now and I've used public chargers maybe 4 times.
4:10 Hydrogen ? There is a lot of investment : - pyrolisies of natural gas to produce hydrogen CH4 + warm -> C + 2H2 - combustion engine for airplane - fuelcells for airplane - experiments with materials that combine hydrogen in some structure and then iit si possible to get this hydrogen back in car itself - use of hydrogen in steel production - hard work from years to make fusion reactor real -> because to make hydrogen real we need plenty of energy
There is also mineable hydrogen as the earth produces it naturally, or you only need to split water in their base elements lets say sea water as the salt can be used as it is already.
If Hydrogen does end up fuelling plant, shipping, and especially HGVs on a large scale, there should be no reason to discount a hydrogen passenger car. It’s possible to drive more than 1000 miles in a day on business, and unless BEVs can charge reliably at 500kW+, and a nationwide network of chargers on a scale to rival fuel pumps can pump that out reliably too, they’re completely redundant to a quite large cohort of motorists, whereas hydrogen “fits the life we already have. The reason it’s the car of the future is because it’s just like the car of today”.
Has everyone see the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder. Gets about 50 miles from a 1ft canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge. They have a video on RUclips.
@@owldrinkmore Most now recognize that Hydrogen is the future, it would have been the past except it has been suppressed for over 100 years by Rockefeller and big oil. Go Hydrogen!
the fossil fuel industry is pushing Hydrogen as they see it as a way of saving their industry and infrastructure. After all 95% of hydrogen today is manufactured by coal or natural gas reforming and could potentially utilise gas infrastructure to store and distribute hydrogen lessening stranded assets costs. What better way to keep consumers hooked on filling up weekly at fuel stations etc?
Some fundamental errors here. Most abundant element: Yes, but it's also highly reactive, so it's only abundant when it's in molecules with other elements. That creates the first problem, making green hydrogen requires green electricity Inherent rightness: How is it better to use electricity to make hydrogen, then have to compress that hydrogen and transport it to a fuelling station where it's stored, then when it's moved to a vehicle you have to manage the temperature very carefully, and then you use a relatively complex system to turn that hydrogen back into electricity to power a motor. This process is fundamentally inefficient, so the running costs for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be 5x to 6x more than a battery EV and that's without considering the added cost/complexity of the supply chain. Batteries are big and heavy: actually the laptop and mobile phone didn't do that much to develop battery technology especially not for large capacity batteries required for cars or home storage. However, the current battery EVs are driving massive development in battery technology which will likely see a significant reduction in weight while increasing capacity. Hydrogen for airplanes, shipping: kind of, yes, but that's also part of the inherent challenge of hydrogen. There are lots of applications that hydrogen can address and must address before we even consider cars, etc. Start here www.liebreich.com/the-clean-hydrogen-ladder-now-updated-to-v4-1/ and by the time we've done all the 'unavoidable' hydrogen uses, and created enough green electricity to deliver those, then in reality it won't make sense to build out another 3x-4x green electricity generation for H2FC cars vs battery EVs H2FC are like a swiss watch: well yes, they are in terms of being complex and very sensitive to dirt and dust, but there's no elegance in a very complicated solution vs a much simpler battery EV Natural Hydrogen: this didn't get mentioned, but it's the only way H2FC cars make sense, even then transporting hydrogen is difficult, and it's more likely natural H2 will fuel the 'unavoidable' uses than cars....
We can just build coal power plants to make hydrogen, we have the tech to efficiently burn coal with out pumping out pollutants. C02 is the gas of life too.
Hydrogen is never going to work for airplanes. Even using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier would just be insanely dangerous, not only if the aircraft were to crash and the ammonia tank were to rupture, but also during refueling and transport operations.
I can only speak for the Netherlands, but the same anti hydrogen discussion is here, in what i believe is fed by tesla share holders, followers, oil industry input, etc…. But if we think a little different…We in the Netherlands have a lot op solar panels on houses etc.. so much electricity is made on sunny days, that the price is negative very often.. electricity on such a scale van not be stored in batteries…. In my calculations 100% electricity to nothing = nothing… 100% electricity converted to lets say 40% = still 40% buffered…. Same with wind energy… why shut down windmills when there is too much electricity production against demand? Just convert it so it can be used (later) Really i do not understand why some don’t want that..
I think this 100 % belife in BEV and total repulsion of hydrogen is some kind of mental programming. So many people parrot same thesis of hydrogen drawbacks its like 2010 when EVs just came to markets
Yes, I see a German company HPS, (Home Power Solutions) now shows people how to use their excess solar to power an electrolysis apparatus that produces hydrogen which is then stored in tanks filled with Magnesium. The gas later to be released to power a fuel cell to power the house. The tanks are cheap as they don't need to be compression tanks and magnesium powder is very inexpensive. Also, the Chinese are now powering a bicycle with solid hydrogen, have you seen their video? Storing solar to solid hydrogen may be the future.
Yes, hydrogen can have a role as a long term energy storage medium, alongside other technologies. That's a recognised use case. And that's the point, hydrogen has clear uses cases where it's the best solution currently, and also clear use cases where it's not viable. Big oil is one if the biggest advocates of hydrogen because they know that green hydrogen won't scale and grey will be required for the long term - it's a very obvious path to extending the life of oil.
The problem with this idea is that it is far cheaper and simpler and more efficient to store that excess electricity in batteries or pumped hydro etc than all the losses, difficulties and expense involved in converting it to hydrogen and then back to electricity in the car.
Ive followed this chap for a few years and he has a point. The more transfers in energy you do, the less you retain. I still think that we can figure out how to make it less poluting then oil. Its facinating to me that we are talking about getting energy out of 2 of the three first elements to exist. Helium isnt sustainable on planet so thats why thats out.
Consumers are smarter than that. We learned from printer ink not to get locked into a limited source consumable. It could be the best car ever but it still uses some type of fuel you can't make and are at the mercy of the supplier as to future cost. Electricity is used for everything, we already have the infrastructure to make and transport it, it's made in great quantity, and consumers can even make their own in many ways. BEV is the no brainer choice. Batteries or what ever rechargeable storage device is used in cars will continue to get better and cheaper there is nothing that can "catch up" to that.
@@frankcoffey charging stations, needs to be charged are they? From solar field, windmill park via the grid to that charging station… Grids are not suffiecient / up to date if everything is electric… that is wishful thinking + you need to rob the earth from all kind of resources which gives big environmental issues… never heard of the “dark side of our electric future”? Chili? Bolivia? That you need 2.2 million litres of water for only 1 ton of lithium? That is only 83 tesla’s…… Electric batteries are environmental disaster. Hydrogen isn’t…. But keep believing… your (grand) children will regret it..
I'm not sure electricity is the answer to the specific problem you're suggesting, as the cheapest way for a private company is still a coal power station (being a coal boiler attached to a steam turbine, companies are reasoning it's more cost effective to replace the coal boiler as necessary, hence all the creep in fossil fuel power stations in so many places). And as the UK has recently shown, starting up lithium battery factories isn't easy.
The problem isn't how to make hydrogen combustion engines but how to produce hydrogen on its own. It's still very inefficient and costly using regular known methods.
I (as a 30 year old) will be on my deathbed before hydrogen is feasible for passenger car propulsion. Hydrogen will find its way into heavy industry, fertiliser manufacturing and long distance hauling first. That's a 30 year proposition. And then we might have enough renewable energy to not think about the conversion losses vs batteries and be able to have the amount of hydrogen necessary to replace oil consumption of 100 million barrels a day
If we carry on using oil at the rate we are now in 30 years time the world will be screwed so we've got to change to alternative methods of propulsion and ditch the oil, hydrogen will certainly play a part in that somewhere. Just because the tech isn't there now doesn't mean it wont be. I'm 43 and grew up into my teens without the internet or mobile phones, when I was a kid no-one could even imagine something like the internet, most people didn't even have a desktop PC. The speed at which tech has improved is astonishing and I'm certain the tech in 30 years time will be unimaginable compared to now so I'd think there's a very good chance for hydrogen and other sources to be used for cars within 30 years if not a hell of a lot less. When I was a kid we couldn't have imagined how efficient internal combustion was going to be by now so I think in another 30 years we'll be so far on from where we are now in terms of how we propel our vehicles that we'll look back and be amazed how we had doubts now. Given where we are today with A.I starting to get good I'd be very surprised if within 30 years we didn't have widespread use of fully automatic driverless cars as well. I also have a theory that when internal combustion is mostly gone and the world is a lot quieter with electric vehicles going everywhere that the sound of internal combustion will become annoying to most, maybe not my kids but their kids certainly. When the cities and towns are virtually smog free and you can walk down the road without breathing in fumes, when people have had that and are used to it I doubt they would welcome internal combustion at all other than as a novelty.
@@monkeyhands5053 not saying hydrogen won't be part of the global climate solution, it will just be prioritised for harder to abate sectors. Transportation and storage will still always be an issue - a full tank of hydrogen will leak and be empty within 12 days (see BMWs concepts) for example
@@monkeyhands5053 How do you propose that they won't given that hydrogen can pass through metal? This isn't just an engineering challenge like reducing the size and increasing the power of computers, it's actually physically impossible with existing materials. Also hydrogen cars aren't exactly new, they've been around as long as electric but unlike electric have seen no real improvement. You're talking about improvements you assume will happen in the next 30 years when none at all have happened in the last 15 years.
@@alexfrye6 If I knew how to resolve it I wouldn't be answering comments on RUclips, I've just got a confidence that technology will develop, especially with A.I and new things that we can't even think of yet will come along, as you said it's physically impossible with existing materials but new materials come along all the time and I think there will be greater concentration on hydrogen storage, up until recently hydrogen has had a limited usage really i.e space, some industry etc but if it's usage is widened to the masses the tech will come along as well. I'm not saying there aren't problems with hydrogen, there are at the moment but as far as I know, its the only stuff that is totally renewable, doesn't harm the environment at all and can be made anywhere in the world and that means it's very high up on the list of stuff to be used for mass transport/energy supply. You can literally use electricity from solar/wind/tidal etc to make the stuff, it gets used in cars etc and turned into water then we can use more solar/wind/tidal electricity to make it again, forever and ever. That means its gonna be high up on the list of fuels that gets used eventually, we will exhaust almost everything else.
An intelligent conversation. Transportation is around 15% of the issue the remaining is Manufacturing, Food preparation and power generation. The analysis with the position 1899 to 1900 is interesting and valid. The early electric and steam vehicle particularly the steam coal fired Warship and Liner led the way. Then the Royal Navy introduced the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were a group of five super-dreadnoughts built for the Royal Navy during the 1910s which used oil. Given every country wanted oil fired super-dreadnoughts the inevitable power struggle followed driving the need for petroleum. It was Winston Churchill who negotiated the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909, now called BP. Subsequently, their was WW1 which inevitably drove petroleum technology etc, to be followed by WW2 which was a war for resources principally oil. Again seriously driving petroleum and synthetic fuel technology for high octane fuels for aircraft, armoured divisions and warships. Also let’s not forget civil transport used ammonia has a fuel during WW2, so the technology is known. So the possibility that Hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and synthetic fuels will address 80% of the Carbon problem is quite viable. Consequently the other 20% would be inevitably absorbed by that technology has electric and steam vehicles were in the 1900’s. Though given there are around 40 years of reserves the analysis that it is today’s and future babies who will only benefit from that type of Hydrogen economy is sensible.
Right now, the fundamental problem with Hydrogen, and therefore HFCEVa, is that all hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels. When oil and gas are depleted in less than 60 years time, so will be hydrogen. The answer of course is renewable energy powered water electrolysis to produce hydrogen, with oxygen as a byproduct. But as of this moment in time , it ain't happening.
@@grahamcook9289 That's been debunked Grahm, Hydrogen does not explode like in the movies, it burns, like a welders torch and SOLID HYDROGEN stored in tanks of magnesium doesn't do either? LOL You wk for big Oil?
@@grahamcook9289 It's all fakery created by Rockefeller's Big Oil monopoly back in 1937 to stifle the up and coming popularity of using Hydrogen to power cars. Even back then there were many promoting hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, but the Zeppelin Fake-out stifled it. Clearly, you are a BOT working for big oil. You guys are so easy to spot! LOL
Evs are great for inner city driving if there small and compact but for long distance and large towing vehicles and semi-trucks HYDROGEN FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY is the future we need to talk to our representatives to invest more into HYDROGEN. Also, wind and solar power are not efficient enough. We need to invest in nuclear power plants for the future and get rid of coal, oil, and gas power plants eventually. Nuclear power plants are the most efficient and very safe technology now. We use them to power on aircraft carriers and submarines. we need to invest in technology that provides the power we need so we can get rid of fossil fuels dependence.
You could say the same about the EV charging network it didn't exist ten years ago. Why are we continuing to invest in a technology that is not good and will not work for everyone in the future, there are very few resources of lithium and china owns them all
I believe hydrogen cells are used in indoors forklifts. The problem is that platinum is the material used for the semy porous membrane that is in the heart of fuel cells. I hope they do manage to fix that!
2:11 There is solution to easy store Hydrogen in a car - Methanol . Electrical efficiency: 35 - 50% Operating temperature: depending on membrane 70 - 90°C (LT-PEM) or 160 - 200 °C (HT-PEM) Reaction: CH3OH + H2O -> 3 H2 + CO2 (Reformer) 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (Fuel cell) Examples : Gumpert Nathalie Methanol has a high proportion of chemically bonded hydrogen and is characterized by its high energy density. To put this into perspective: 10 liters of methanol contain approximately 1 kilogram of hydrogen. Refuelling car with hydrogen on station has issues similar to natural gas - it take longer then refuelling with gasoline or lpg. Gas like hydrogen takes a lot of space. 3:07 Ship might use hydrogen or be supplied by either nuclear reactor for big transocean trip from China to Europe . For short trip like ferry batteries are good enough even now.
@@simhz2221 why destroy the environment when we have superior technology that doesn't require any damage to the environment and does not require our 100% dependency on china ?
Now I see why Captain Slow was so critical of EVs and battery charging. He's taking dirty money from the Petroleum industry. You would think that after the tens of millions he made from AmazonTV , he could afford to be more honest. Yes let's not spend 20 minutes charging a battery, lets handle liquid nitrogen at high pressure twice a week.
@@ytuuuidvb6181 First EV fueled with a sodium-ion battery was introduced in China in January, The Volkswagen-backed Yiwei E10X. BYD started to build the first large scale sodium-ion battery plant in Xuzhou in November last year.
The problem isn't decarbonizing transportation...that's illogical and a huge mistake. ICE engines are a miracle and a wonder to behold. The problem is the dependency on corporate energy interests and national military industrial complexes. These powers produce much wealth for themselves and nothing but grief for everyone else. Look at the American Military, for example. For the past century it has badly managed America's energy policy. It's alliance to the Ford Motor Company, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and many others has led Americans and many others to be proudly obsessed with the worst industrial garbage. The Model-A, the deuce and a half, the Sherman, the Tomcat, the Mustang, the Osprey, any given battleship or aircraft carrier...they, and many others, represent the worst engineering feats in human history. Never has the human race been more in love with crap. All at the behest of powerful interests who never serve or even drive themselves. Remember Robert Moses? He never drove a day in his life! Some rich servant carted his butt everywhere. The ICE allows us to go far, to accomplish much...much more than we could achieve without it. Any man, rich or poor, cannot claim to live without it. But only a few make all the money from the sale of fuel, whatever it is, and the vehicles themselves, which are really just throw away items. What is needed is a revolutionary way to use the ICE so that its usage is intelligent, prudent and serves the marketplace. An absolutely free market where we're not paying for corporate interests and military idiots to screw up our economy. The ICE isn't going anywhere. It isn't obsolete. It's the present and the future. I think it's obvious what we really need to get rid of.
@@owldrinkmore No, it’s correct. Here’s this from the IEA who work with governments so they should know what they’re talking about: ‘However, hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels can play an important role in sectors where emissions are hard to abate and other mitigation measures may not be available or would be difficult to implement, namely heavy industry, long-distance transport, shipping and aviation’
@@owldrinkmore The batteries needed for commercial flights are so heavy that it makes them unviable. Not to mention the fact that going electric is already decimating the earth by exacerbating mining and destroying even more habitat. And then how sustainable is it? The Japanese are still focusing on hydrogen and China has high speed trains running on hydrogen. It’s also a better solution for motoring
@@owldrinkmore I’ll throw the EV argument back at you: the reason why most EVs are still expensive is due to economies of scale. They same is true for hydrogen cells. You know this. If we had hydrogen then there would be no need for new charging infrastructure. Refuelling would not be an issue either. In short, there would be zero inconvenience. As for EVs one of the many challenges is recharging. People in flats cannot recharge their car in the underground car parks and it’s too expensive to charge in the street. Also, due to fire risk in the US you cannot have as many EVs as can fit in a subterranean car park. The fire departments have made this illegal. So, it’s clear not everyone is going to be able to have an EV. That was never the plan.
@@owldrinkmore And government policy has nothing to do with any of this expansion and promotion, right? An LP car is way down on storage space due to the tank in the boot, rendering it practically unusable and it has lower performance. As for hydrogen filling stations, the infrastructure is already there across the world, you simply convert the petrol stations, something that can’t be done for EVs that require much more area, and that’s just for those that will have an electric car because not everyone will be able to run one. There is also the issue of once we’ve depleted lithium and other rare materials for the huge uptick in battery manufacturing then we’ll be back to square one, when we’ll also still be trying to figure out how to successfully recycle the batteries. Hardly saving the planet, is it? EVs will be a short term solution and as we’ve seen such technology is of no use to aviation or heavy industry. I wish they were the solution but we’re hurtling down a blind alley as there are just too many drawbacks. EVs have almost become a religion, and like most religions they’re built on wishful thinking
@@owldrinkmore Where have hydrogen stations been located? In petrol stations. And how many people can refuel during a day? The same number as pass through any petrol station. Hydrogen was not DOA, it was pushed aside by government diktat, and we shall see how long the EV trend lasts. The projections on mineral resources required are not great. They have only just been introduced into the market and already the EV market has tanked because people don’t want them. They take too long to charge and are showing signs being unstable, not to mention the acute loss of battery performance within just a few years of use. Many people cannot have them due to the fact they live in apartments. We will also need to double the electricity output and the national grid is already overloaded and there is no plan to supply twice the demand, so we’re sailing blind here. Then a growing number of insurance companies no longer want to insure EVs due to the risk of fire from accidents and fuel cell runaway. Second hand car dealers do not want them either for the same reason. Mechanics don’t even want to work on them due to volatile fires they can produce and have to allow for extra space in their workshops should such a fire take place. An EV fire, as I am sure you are aware of, cannot be extinguished easily, if at all, and can even reignite hours later. And then we cannot ignore the fact that the smallest prang can be fatal for a car battery and such internal damage, which cannot be diagnosed effectively, can lead to an incendiary at any moment. I have a friend whose house burnt down from their car parked in the garage at night. These are just some of the issues you seem to gloss over. We’ll see how things turn out, but for EVs that have had so much legislation thrown behind them the panorama is not looking good. And it’s not me saying that it’s the marketplace and the people that work in the sector. I’m just repeating their misgivings as did James May who has owned both forms of vehicle.
I like James May but this is nonsense. The inherent inefficiency of the hydrogen cycle makes it impossible that it can ever compete with batteries for personal transportation.
Plus hydrogen currently is derived from fossil fuels which is polluting and with a finite life of approximately 60 years. Even hydrogen obtained from water via electrolysis powered by renewable energy, involves a massive energy loss. It makes much more sense to just put the renewable generated electricity via the grid direct into a BEV.
@@arpinchock we do need green hydrogen, and lots of it, for use in the fertiliser, steel and concrete industries but it’ll never compete with batteries for personal transport nor heat pumps for domestic heating.
I find it truly remarkable that I see a video one week where I leave feeling James May is a true wizard at explaining in a very balanced way the pros and cons of EV, fast forward a week and the most ridiculous gibberish. As @oakfieldfarm say we need loads of hydrogen for all sorts of things but cars makes no sense whatsoever
Hydrogen for cars is idiotic, why do you think those stations are not working because hydrogen destroys them, my friend worked for a company that repaired those stations they could not keep up and the owners could not afford the constant repairs. Hydrogen requires 16X the diesel trucks to transport the equivalent volume of energy that a diesel tanker can. >95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from natural gas and the transformation is dirtier than burning it Hydrogen only makes sense when you use it at the manufacturing source preferably by splitting water (almost never happens) with renewables Hydrogen cost >$180 per tank full compared to
Why would you require the 16x trucks to transport the hydrogen to where it is required? If you create the hydrogen at the fuel station where it will be dispensed using some of this abundant cheap clean electricity we keep hearing about then there is no road transport for delivery involved.
While I agree with your comment that electricity is currently not cheap nor abundant, the future vision we are being sold at present relies on it becoming so.
@@RodgerRamjet-s8g The same reason that companies don't refine gasoline at the filling station, Economics of scale. Processing requires and Electolizer, compression pumps, large electrical source of clean energy, storage tanks, purifier, and safety measures. All of the above is possible is you are a fertilizer manufacturer or a steel mill with room to isolate and install but for a refueling station on the corner good luck with the permitting
We need cheap, green hydrogen. If we ever get that, we should start by using it for our ammonia production. If there is any left over, then we can look at shipping, long-distance trucks, airplanes. Small cars? Maybe. But I really don't think so. It takes a lot of energy to create 1 kWh in the car, and hydrogen is tricky to store and transport. Ammonia would perhaps be better, but it is so poisonous.
The only way green hydrogen is cheap is when solar and wind create more electricity than the current demand. As someone with solar panels I have that situation most sunny days but I also added storage so I charge the batteries with the excess and sell back to the grid during peak times. The ROI on battery storage is excellent and getting better every year. So no cheap electricity for green hydrogen from me.
@@jjamespacbell There is a German company HPS, (Home Power Solutions) that shows people how to use their excess solar to power an electrolysis apparatus that produces hydrogen which is then stored in tanks filled with Magnesium. The gas later to be released to power a fuel cell to power the house. The tanks are cheap as they don't need to be compression tanks and magnesium powder is very inexpensive. Also, the Chinese are now powering a bicycle with solid hydrogen, have you seen their video? Storing solar to solid hydrogen may be the future.
@@owldrinkmore I really don't know where you got those numbers: Atomic weight of Oxygen is 16, H=1 therefore 18kg of water will contain 2kg of Hydrogen. Therefore 20 kg of water contain 2,22 kg of hydrogen. Stupid economics at best is mining tenth of tons of earth (with devastating environmental impact) and a lot of energy for heavy machinery to get 1 kilo of lithium. And spare me with battery recycling. We know how good we are recycling things. Look at the PET bottles islands in the oceans and plastic containing fish.
Battery EV's being forced on every one won't work regardless, not everyone has a driveway to charge at home. Hydrogen is the 1 to 1 replacement for ICE when it comes to how you refuel cars.
You don't need a driveway to charge at home. Right to charge laws are all that's needed, making sure anyone can have chargers installed wherever they need to park.
They should've taken the same LNG infrastructure and with it improving liquid gas and hydrogen driven cars in safety and reliability. I bet creating hydrogen can be cleaner and practical than those damn batteries for conversion to electric drive.
Correction: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, oxygen is the most abundant element in Earth (mostly locked up in silica crystals (rocks))
Wonder if these guys understand that the fuel cell in a Mirai costs six figures US. Ironically, they are repeating the argument against adoption of gas cars, but inserting BEVs. Hydrogen cars require the same size fuel infrastructure that gas cars do, only, additionally to being flammable, it's explosive. BEVs don't require nearly as much infrastructure.
Theres an essential nonsense to hydrogen cars and its compounded when people mutter about ammonia fuel. To get that ammonia we electrolyse hydrogen in the presence of nitrogen. Where did that hydrogen come from? We electroysed water to release it. Riiiiight. Two energy intensive processes to create a way of transferring energy to the point of use. Two processes that bring about practical problems with storage (embrittlement of steels and close tolerances to avoid leaks, then a corrosive liquid instead, so special steels and seal materials). If only there was a way of moving that energy with minimal losses instead.... 🙄 H2 has important and practical uses, but powering cars isn't one of them.
No matter how you look at it, absolutely everything associated with hydrogen is expensive, the cars, the refueling infrastructure, the production of the fuel, etc., and that expense will always stand in the way of its adoption. E-fuels, on the other hand, can be used in inexpensive vehicles, the refueling infrastructure is already in place and is relatively inexpensive, and billions of vehicles that can make use of the fuels already exist, so there's no need to replace absolutely every vehicle in existence with something new, which just drastically reduces the expense of decarbonizing our transportation systems. IMO, all of this is basically like the VHS, DVD, Blu-ray progression of technology, the industry is just trying to find something new to make the old technologies obsolete, that way everyone is forced to buy all new stuff. The problem here, though, is that DVD is significantly better than VHS and Blu-ray is significantly better than DVD, but HFCVs are not significantly better than ICE vehicles, so there's just no real reason for people to make the change.
Though most e fuels (which are carbon neutral) require inputs in the form of carbon from the atmosphere, which is very expensive, or carbon neutral hydrogen (ie: via electrolysis or SMR with carbon storage) for production. It would be hard to achieve cost carbon neutral e fuels without first achieving low cost hydrogen. Of course the cost of modifying the vehicles for efuels will be lower, though the existing fleets of trucks and ships and planes only have a finite life and will need replacing at some point.
@@emailofjamesw The carbon doesn't need to come from the atmosphere, it can be collected from industrial processes which emit carbon (steel production, for example), transported in a storage medium, then processed into fuel at another site. Seawater is also another possible source of carbon for e-fuels. As I understand it, there's no need to first produce hydrogen when using certain production methods (the US Navy seems to have this part figured out). Aircraft have lifespans which are quite long, and they're very expensive vehicles to replace, so it's likely that e-fuels will be the best possible solution for the decarbonization of aviation, at the very least. Nuclear energy is key for the success of e-fuels, as waste energy from nuclear reactors can be used to supplement the energy required for the production of e-fuels.
@@v4skunk739 Hydrogen fuel cells don't last, though, and the cars are insanely expensive for what you end up getting. Just look at the horsepower ratings for HFCVs vs BEVs.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Wrong. Companies are working on the technology. An American company a couple of years ago made a huge breakthrough on fuel cell material science. A million mile fuel cell.
It will be easier to use the hydrogen in conjunction with current fuels. You can put 5 percent into natural gas with out changing anything....ect. which uses existing infrastructure....
China’s largest battery manufacturer has stated the plan on dropping battery prices by 50% by year’s end. That lops 2000 to 5000 of your favorite currency off most cars bringing them ever closer to price parity. Anyone who can charge at home would be stupid buying an ICE car unless they travel 400 miles /600 km every day… (and maybe even then…) For the rest we need reliable charging infrastructure to become dead easy and cheap!
The production storage and transport of hydrogen make it a complete non-starter. The volume needed for storage is vast. The storage containers will need to be able to withstand huge pressures. The processes that extract hydrogen use more energy than the hydrogen will give in powering a car.
The processes that are required to build a battery = child labour, fleets of heavy plant, ground water contamination, deforestation, shipping to processing facilities, shipping processed materials to component manufacturers, shipping of components to assembly manufacturing, shipping of batteries to car manufacturers. At the end of batteries short existence it gets piled up waiting for someone to figure out what to do with the growing pile. Yes Hydrogen requires significant investment in terms of storage and delivery, but Sweden has demonstrated green hydrogen is indeed possible. A few giga production sites linked to dedicated wind, solar and eventually nuclear energy could produce green hydrogen for the domestic market at a non fluctuating price. The principal issue is so many corporations get a bit of the EV pie it’s just too tempting to profit from an obviously flawed model. Commodity brokers, mining companies, manufacturers spend and have spent millions on EV propaganda, why?
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 agree with most of that. EVs are a huge con trick. The EV bubble will burst within 5 to 10 years. The infrastructure for using fossil fuels is already in place. The main hurdle with fossil fuels is, can we develop the technology to overcome the pollution that comes from burning them.
The vision of the future currently appears to be abundant clean green electricity for all of our power requirements. If this power is not cheap and abundant then it is a pretty bleak boring future.
That's not a point. That's just ideological bias. The truth is the battery EV is not green. Never was, and won't be for at least 20 more years. Meanwhile, I've been driving a hydrogen car running on 100% green hydrogen for 3 years. The technology works now, and is an upgrade over gasoline, not a limited substitute. I routinely drive 400 miles on 5.5 kg of hydrogen. Equivalent to 5.5 gallons of gasoline. I've driven it through blizzards and heat waves. The car always gets about 60mpge. Meanwhile, Battery cars lose 50% of their range if you move 20C above or below room temperature and take hours to charge. The battery car's safety is also suspect. The battery electric car is just hype. Hydrogen semis on the road will show you the future.
@@Chasval hydrogen-powered cars are not an upgrade on anything. The packaging of the vehicle for passengers and luggage is woeful. A small percentage of hydrogen is from "green" sources and even when it is it's still a grotesque waste of energy to the point it's energy vandalism. The parts for a hydrogen fuel cell aren't made from hemp and unicorn hair so are hardly "green" themselves. Our BEV takes a while to charge on our home charger but we don't care because we are asleep. On a longer trip when we use public DC chargers it takes about 30 minutes but we don't care because we have something to eat and drink. We charge when stopped rather than stop to charge. Electricity is everywhere. Hydrogen production and distribution are not. The only people loving the idea are the big fossil fuel companies because it delays the required transition away from their products and if we did move to hydrogen (we won't) it would protect their business model.
Now there is AI, AI will find incredible technologies in every field, including miraculous battery tech that takes 5 minutes to fill up, can go 1000 km and weigh 100 kg. Possibly even mini nuclear..... you buy the car and never fill up for 20 years, then throw away the car and the nuclear battery is recycled to another battery.
Your car will still be running like clockwork 100 years after you die... and you will be able to read in your coffin, using the green glow from your eyeballs! 🥴 😜
Hydrogen powered vehicles make sense in hybrid applications, where the fuel cell or engine acts as a generator. Big and regular commercial vehicles can definitely benefit from this, but honestly, you can also do this with LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and NG (natural gas).
The world needs to get off fossil fuels or in less than 100 years we are likely to see mass migration from uninhabitable parts of the globe. There is more than enough renewable energy to meet all our needs, but greed tries to ignore this.
I think hydrogen has a place for heavy transport applications, but probably not for cars. EVs arent great right now, but give it a decade or so and I reckon we'll have better batteries that are lighter, go further and charge faster, as well as better charging infrastructure. That HAS to happen, because most cars will be sold in nations much larger than the UK, where customers demand that sort of range equivalent to ICE.
Firstly, I like any technology that derives its energy for 'free' from the Solar Panels on my Roof. (At least occasionally ... !) Batteries do that 'easily', whereas Hydrogen will always really REALLY struggle to do that. (Funnily enough, Hydrogen is largely preferred as a future fuel by those who then expect us to pay them for it ...) And if you want to continue driving Petrol & Diesels, you will go to 'Heritage' Racing Circuits to do so, - just like the people who like to drive the previous generations of superceded technologies currently go to 'Heritage' Railway lines to Drive Steam Locomotives, or to Paddocks to ride Horses.
The problem with hydrogen is ... the cost of the hydrogen per mile .. . an inherent problem coz even the cheapest method ... steam reforming nat gas ... will be much more expensive than running your EV on electricity from nat gas. This is inherent. This differential won't go away.
The other big issue is the electrodes for fuel cells. There are only two materials that can currently be used - graphite and platinum. Graphite is very brittle, and thus prone to breaking. This would make the electrodes cheap, but unreliable. That only (realistically) leaves platinum - unfortunately, there isn't enough platinum on the planet to replace every automotive internal combustion engine with a fuel cell. And as you correctly pointed out, you have to manufacture hydrogen gas via steam reforming, and that means CO2 emissions. I will concede, however, that consolidating the emissions at a bunch of static petrochemical plants as opposed to millions of moving vehicles does make managing those emissions easier, and it would improve air quality in residential areas. But that point is moot until the electrode question is answered.
BEVs have one problem: batteries Hydrogen cars have at least eight main problems: Hydrogen generation Compression Safe storage Safe transport Safe distribution Vehicle safety Weight and size of tanks Cost of gold and platinum Is far more likely we’ll develop better batteries before we can adequately solve hydrogens issues.
I completely disagree with James about hydrogen vs. batteries on airlines. Batteries are going to get lighter and more energy dense before Hydrogen stops being hard to store and explosive.
I've always fully believed that Hydrogen is the future for transport of any type as far as long distance goes. Like truly I nearly pee'd the first time I saw a Nexo, well that hasn't happened has it......... We're so far behind where we need to be I often despair that our species will survive. For pity's sake people are still arguing about carbon goals and fracking as though these issues are debatable, meanwhile recycling plants are shutting down and waste is still going into landfills..... I've gotten to the point where I don't care if someone calls me a far left liberal greeny cause really....... what else should we all be. It really would be great to see any Petrochemical Company gear up & devote themselves to getting into solutions and the future, not just rebranding themselves as environmentally friendly and conscious while doing absolutely nothing. Imagine what could be accomplished if just one of those corporations really wanted to change things, the amount of money available for research alone would surge the process ahead in ways we can only hope for. That would be a flow on effect to all levels of energy, manufacturing and transportation that right now we're only dreaming of. Hey picture if we could actually use waste to make power or anything else humans need, how clean would the planet be 😳🧐🤦 It's just not rocket science, it simply isn't.......yes Elon I may be talking directly to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hydrogen is good because it is used for other stuff... natural gas is a great energy storage mechanism for electricity today because it is used widely elsewhere, so in supply crises (which we design the cost of the whole electricity system around avoiding) you can stop doing chemical processes and divert all the natural gas for energy production. Because we have way to much natural gas compared to electricity generation demand, It allows for (almost) infinite supply at infinite cost, so the supply demand economics works and the economy functions. You can't do this with batteries, and cant exactly do it with other energy storage mediums like compressed air, this is a strength of hydrogen (among many drawbacks) which could make it better then batteries for the long long run of clean(er) energy production and storage.
Hydrogen is very difficult to handle (compress it, cool it), most hydrogen is just a glorified fossile fuel (shades of hydrogen) and it's expensive to produce. And then it is used to store electric energy to drive the EVs instead of keeping industries going that we all depend on? It was a nice experiment and it will have it's use for sure - but not for moving (lots of) humans around the planet.
Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from one small canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge, they have a video on RUclips.
Here we go... Producing H2 is really inefficient. In fact, even the best fuel cells will only ever be able to store about half the energy produced. Also, yes EVs are heavy but they have regen breaking. Meaning your weight actually helps you when you're going down hill or slowing down using regen. Of course battery technology will improve. This guy is absolutely clueless when it comes so the advances in battery tech, the inefficiencies of hydrogen production and the benefits of EV charging. Most people who buy an EV love being able to charge them at home.
Toyota have 40yrs on hydrogen development its not the underdog. Fuel volume , tank lifespan , Cryogenic danger , it leaks easily and ignites easily that's just not going to change throwing money at it.
You can bet Toyota knows about solid hydrogen as a safe and inexpensive fuel. Solid Hydrogen stored in tanks filled with magnesium powder get 3-4 times the storage capacity as gas, no special equipment required, even end users could make and store their own at home using electrolysis. Makes you wonder why they don't use it. Conspiracy with Big Oil?
It doesn't matter how much investment you make in hydrogen technology, to quote a famous Scottish space traveller 'ya canny break the laws of physics'. Making the stuff and compressing it is just a waste of energy. To have regenerative braking to help a vehicles efficiency you need batteries, and not small ones that don't have the capacity to properly absorb the braking energy. Big batteries are required, and thus you automatically find yourself with a BEV.
Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from one small canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge, they have a video on RUclips.
@@Brad_Fallon I'm aware that Palladium is a fantastic hydrogen 'sponge' and has been considered for storage in the past but of course it's prohibitively expensive. I haven't seen the Magnesium storage system, though I guess it's holding hydrogen atoms in a similar way. I'll take a look, cheers
@@leegoodman297 Yes, you're right, Palladium is very expensive but it is mostly used more as a coating on the electrode during the electrolysis process rather than as a storage medium for hydrogen gas. Magnesium is being used and discussed often in the scientific community because of it's easy availability and low price. Also, it is a very lightweight metal so many are saying it is ideal for use in flying craft. Additionally, I've read many discussions about exotic combinations of metals to maximize hydrogen penetration with the molecular lattice for use where weight is not so much a factor like in shipping. Solid hydrogen for all power needs is the future and one wonders why no one used it before? Fuel Cells have been around since the 60's and none of this is a secret in any University or Corporate science labs? Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? It's powered by hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from a single small canister and only takes 10 seconds to recharge! They have a video on RUclips.
No, that's where the biggest problems are. Hydrogen doesn't last in tanks, so you need constant access to a fuel station. With battery electric vehicles you can simply charge using your own solar, wind or even a backup generator if need be... or in most cases - from the grid.
People only care about vehicle weight when EV’s nobody was having a conversation about weight of the ever increasingly large western automobile until EVS.
A heavier car is more dangerous for pedestrians and other cars. Also handles worse and kills tires faster. This is precisely why EVs notoriously destroy their tires much quicker. That’s why people have noticed the weight of EVs. There are real world consequences to it. An Accord weights 3100lbs. A much smaller Model 3 weighs 4060. Almost 1000lbs heavier.
I have written a song just now, which I hope you enjoy. EVVVVVV IS GREAT Why use the most abundant resource in the UNI VER SE Coz EV is greatttttttt EV is great EV is the best Doesn’t matter what you say Doesn’t Matter where the energy comes from Doest matter how long they last Doesn’t matter how far they drive Doesn’t matter they are pilling up at dumps EV is Great EV is the Best Crying children digging in holes Congo rivers filled with gold People farming acid lands Congo rivers don’t pay my bills Coz EV is great It really is the best Doesn’t matter what you say More Power stations to fuel my way Can’t calculate the power ne way Cant comprehend another way How many millions of charging stations are on the way? Cant understand why you cant see Bank Holidays will be great ne way BBQs on the beach No Charging rage at the welcome host EV is great EV is the best Doesn’t matter what you say The na sayers Cant extinguish the fire It burns so bright burning lithium is sooooo bright takes four engines to dampen this fight EV is great EV is the best Doesn’t matter what you say No more jungles anymore Cobalt Lithium Rare earth metals Exploitation is not ok EV is great EV is the best Why cant everyone seeeeeeeeeeee Thank you good nigh!!
I know it's a sort of confirmation bias for me, but I'm glad to be hearing someone I like and respect express a ton of the same thoughts I've had about Hydrogen and Batteries. I still think Hydrogen is the way forward, but without a doubt we need to start producing more Green Hydrogen, and more fueling stations.
Yes, it is confirmation bias. Hydrogen simply doesn't work as alternative, it might have worked if we didn't had BEV's now and crap ton of new battery technologies with no limit in sight.
Actually using simplistic electrolysis (a Hoffman Apparatus) you can make 1kg for about 50Kwh. I kg will get you about a hundred + miles in an electric car. 50 kwh cost different prices depending on where you live. Venezuela it's .03 per Kwh, Libya .04 per Kwh, Paraguay .05, Mexico .11, United States .16 to .21. You do the math.
Infrastructure. Hydrogen would be incredible costly Battery tech will evolve. Cost will go down, as well as charge times go down. I would say that Li batteries are a bridge to a better technology
Energy efficiencies, benefits and applications that all-battery BEV tech vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV tech offers are less than the two combined in a plug-in hybrid drivetrain. PHEV+H (combustible hydrogen) tech is NOT an interim solution. PHEV+H (fuel cell) likewise offers more benefits that are utterly neglected in this interview. Let's say there are a baker's dozen important benefits EVs offer. From emergency backup household power supply to rooftop solar and neighborhood mini-grids, to equitable distribution of resources (battery, hydrogen and photovoltiac solar arrays) to serve the most households, the EV tech that offers by far the most benefits is plug-in hybrid PHEV+H tech, including the #1 most important benefit of offering most economic incentives to drive our fucking cars less overall and drive them less like fucking idiots. Lastly, Plug-in Hybrid PHEV tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight truck fleets and trans-oceanic shipping vessels. I refuse to explain this FACT in simple detail. Let's say it has something to do with sensible more than equitable distribution of resources.
People buy SUV for who knows what reasons, crossover looks to be good middle ground between smaller sized car from length and width sides for city driving, while being more comfortable due to increased height. That would not change independent of fuel type. So no idea what you tried to say here. Hydrogen being less efficient than BEV's will not change independent cars format.
@@Zripas SUVs are very overpriced, cost more insurance and taxes and they need a lohoot of fuel. They are very much on the bottom of the list when it comes to money and fuel efficiency. They even take up more space than a normal car! Still those are the most bought vehicles on the planet. Which clearly proves, that noone gives a shit about efficiency. Whoever argues that a certain kind of car will never make it, because of its lack of efficieny, must live in a dream world, far from the actual reality that is going on right now for everyone to see.
@@wurstbrot1772 But that's that thing, people buy SUV's due to them wanting bigger car, they would buy one which is more economical if there was one offered, with hydrogen cars, its just by default extra expenses for every single type of car straight away, this gets even worse if you decide to buy bigger car, not even talking about hydrogen combustion engines, as those are non starter straight away. If you have line of SUV's, people will look into fuel consumption if they will need to decide which one to pick. Basically, size of car has nothing to do with type of fuel it uses. If someone needs/wants bigger car, they will buy it, fuel economy will only be chosen from the cars which match buyers cars size criteria, not the other way around.
Synthetic Fuel is the only logical way forward, BEV requires GARGANTUAN amounts of raw materials to bring the charging infrastructure anywhere close to par with ICE, where-as we already have liquid fuel distribution logistics already for decades and decades.
Hydrogen doesn't scale well because it requires lots of infrastructure - only one the infrastructure is in place can it scale easily. Hydrogen can make sense in sites without electricity, but I think that's a small market. Also, H2 fuel cells don't work in dirty environments, so JCB is doing hydrogen ICE - I suspect they're trying to leverage their massive investment in ICE, but I also think they're going down a dead end
@@parsot the infrastructure is being built across the U.K. now and indeed Europe. JCB is not alone, all major construction and agricultural equipment manufacturers are looking at hydrogen ammonia ICE solutions it’s the most practical for the sector, which Mercedes, Daimler Truck division has echoed along with Cummins.
@@amraceway the engines work fine and the approach isn’t new ammonia was used successfully for civilian transportation in the war, has petrol was rationed. The infrastructure is being installed now, mainly to replace natural gas at this stage.
@@parsotThis is repeated all the time but the original idea behind the Hydrogen economy was the localized (or not) conversion of almost anything to Hydrogen gas. For example natural gas can be locally converted.
It takes a lot of electricity to make hydrogen from water. This is put in a very high pressure tank, only to be turned back into electricity. This makes no sense. Just buy a battery driven car.
Not really. Using simplistic electrolysis (a Hoffman Apparatus) you can make 1kg for about 50Kwh. I kg will get you about a hundred + miles in an electric car. 50 KWh cost different prices depending on where you live. Venezuela it's .03 per KWh, Libya .04, Paraguay .05, Mexico .11, United States .16 to .21. You do the math. Also, storing hydrogen into tanks filled with magnesium is safe, easy and does not require compression tanks. It's known as Solid Hydrogen.
Ev's are not the answer, the future will be hydrogen starting with heavy trucks and busses and then transitioning to cars, hydrogen can be easily made in multiple ways and with technology advancing in twenty years time hydrogen will be as common as petrol
You couldn’t be more wrong. Batteries will always beat hydrogen for cost and efficiency due to the inevitable losses inherent in converting electricity to hydrogen and then hydrogen back to electricity again. It’s a no-win situation.
Musk laughed at Toyota's work on hydrogen and now toyota is laughing at him with their hybrids. I trust Toyota to develop the future of transportation and I think they will have the last laugh at the clown we know as Musk.
I think both electric and hydrogen are not the future of vehicles unless with government mandates.
I’m happy in my Corolla hybrid now but I’ll be delighted if I can get a hydrogen version. I wouldn’t touch a Tesla with a ten foot barge pole.
Musk is a self serving weirdo. I'd put my faith in Toyota 1 million times more than I'd put my faith in Tesla.
Toyota is plain wrong about hydrogen. Laws of physics are there and Toyota will not bypass them.
Hydrogen is an energy vector, like electricity, and not a primary energy source. The issue is, it's a very inefficient energy vector.
Toyota did not did anything usable with hydrogen so Elon still laughs and as time goes by, he will still be laughing at that.
Toyota's first ever hybrid was technically the S800 gasturbine. They were miles ahead of everyone else.
What happened?
Miles ahead in a technology that just about everyone else has already rejected (for good reason).
Primarily as they already mastered hybrids.... Just swap the ice engine out, beef up the battery and engine and add in the fuel cell....
If Toyota thinks hydrogen is the future then they better build filling stations themselves and prove it...
They can. Japanese thinking is:lithium is in short supply and Japan doubt have any mines =risk for them. Japan is surrounded by water and can buid wind turbines + nuclear power stations. Japan is different and thats good
@@ironman8257There is 230 billion tonnes of lithium in the ocean. I don't think Japan has any uranium mines either but uranium can also be extracted from sea water, which I think the Japanese actually pioneered.
@@zapfanzapfan Never knew about that, thank you. Than it must be more reasons why Japan pursue Hydrogen
Toyota want you to think Hydrogen is the future. The truth is, Toyota are so far behind on BEV, they are playing catch-up. They did two things. Put out the message they have developed solid state batteries, which in the future will blow away the existing BEV tech. And secondly, try to make it known Hydrogen is still a thing. As a consequence, customers are delaying their buying decisions.
Japan found out the hard way that a preemptive strike to secure a supply line abroad is not a wise strategy... As they Imperial Japs tried and found the US choked everything dry. @@ironman8257
I thought this was going to be a video where James May spoke about hydrogen cars, but instead what I got was "James May being interrupted by another man, who prattles pointlessly while demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding about how hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells work".
Almost three minutes of this video are of the interviewer wittering, including a stretch more than one minute long from 3:11 to 4:24 where he talks nonstop without actually making a point or asking a question. James' point on BEVs in your other video were brilliantly measured and I was really looking forward to hearing more from him. Rubbish interviewer.
I totally agree with you... he also dragged out some of the old misinformation myths and sprinkled them into his monologue. I got the feeling that James May chose to gradually change direction in what he was saying, rather than enter into conflict with the interviewer.
Exactly. Another High School dropout that doesn't understand the subject he interviewing about.
In Norway there is only one -1- hydrogen station now for private cars. Shell dropped everyone in the US. Shell will now change their petrol stations to EV hubs.
And at their peak there were what, four? And one of them caught fire.
It's just pointless inefficiency, expense, and danger. It's far more dangerous than gas or EV.
If they used solid hydrogen people could refill their car from hydrogen they produce at home. Electrolysis is not that complicated. Probably Big Oil would not allow it?
@@Brad_Fallon For the love of God, please tell me this is sarcasm.
@@Doc92IDH The vile foul filth of iNiqqer Love has brought you to this place of desolation. Then what was the benefits of iNiqqer Love?
Great concept but last time I checked = the nearest hydrogen station to Leicester is Doncaster
This is the second clip from this interview I've watched and I'm beginning to wonder about Jame's grasp of reality. At 0:44 he says he's aware of the inefficiencies of hydrogen but still thinks it's a good choice to fuel transport. Yes there's MAYBE and argument for shipping, but that is as far as it goes.
The other guy talking 3:40 clearly has nothing more than a GCSE level understanding of the properties of hydrogen. If you're going to get yourself recorded talking authoritatively on a subject, do a bit of research beforehand.
He seemed to like the idea from an engineering point of view which I guess makes sense, there's a hell of a lot going on to make it work and a hell of a lot that could go wrong with it. Instead of simply, you know, charging a battery.
I disagree that there is ‘an inherent rightness to hydrogen’. Hydrogen may be abundant, but it’s spoken for. Oxygen already called dibs on it and won’t give it up without a fight. This means the whole system efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell is poor. The energy needed to extract hydrogen is better off being put straight into a battery. Batteries, though resource intensive, will get cleaner too as more are recycled. They are also needed to help buffer the varying supply from renewables. The base demand will go up, true. But we’ll likely meet this with nuclear power, most likely much smaller and more modular reactors than we’ve seen before. Whichever way you look at it, BEV has already won the argument for private cars. Trucks, ships and planes are a different story.
Leave it to the king colonializers to tell us about their 'rightness' to earthly materials. LMAO
@@lwwells What? Are you only saying that because they're white?
@@phillycheesetake Well, the majority of Brits are white. But if you want to bring race into it, that's on you.
@@lwwells Then what did you mean by "king colonializers"?
@@phillycheesetake what do you know about monarchy and colonialism? What do you know about Great Britain?
There's LITERALLY only one thing in which hydrogen cars are better than pure EVs and that is speed of refueling/re-charging.
But then again they are still slower than regular gas cars in that and charging times for fast chargers for EVs continue to go down. Adding the fact that hydrogen refilling infrastructure also is much more expensive, it is a flimsy argument for hydrogen in cars
Speaking purely from a uk perspective regarding the infrastructure perspective. The uk will require tens of millions of charging points if not more assuming the vast majority of the driving population adopt EVs. That requires a significant infrastructure investment both in terms of cost and space. Petrol (gas) stations are compact and probably do not have the square meters needed to accommodate significant charging, services stations (the big gas stations on highways) will require charging points in every single parking bay, the same with shopping centre car parks etc…. This requires significant infrastructure investment, probably improved power network. That doesn’t tackle the problem of where the power is coming from to power these impending millions of EVs. One could say, from a practical perspective and considering the re fuelling time for hydrogen and existing petrol station infrastructure I.e. the physical set up (yes hydrogen tanks will need to be installed) is a slightly more efficient solution. Considering the huge remediation costs and carbon footprint of returning petrol stations back to developable land. Just a thought as I sit on the bog at Knutsford services after watching a charging point drama.
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 You have to note that fewer public EV chargers are needed vs gas or hydrogen pumps since anyone with a house will charge at home.
@@nan68 how can you charge from home when you are travelling from London to Newcastle or Bristol to Penzance, what about the millions of city dwellers who live in flats or shared accommodation? The industry, governments, openly admit a need for a huge uplift in charging points to the order of millions…. So not sure how any denial is possible or justified?
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 Well you obviously will use a public charger on a road trip or if you're unable to charge at home. We'll obviously need more chargers than exist today. Nobody is saying otherwise. But you still don't need as many chargers as gas pumps because there's millions who are able and are incentivized to charge at home. Like, it's simple math. Fewer people needing to use public infrastructure (despite still needing to use it occasionally when road tripping or whatever) means you need fewer access points to that public infrastructure. I used to drive a gas car and I stopped to get gas 2 times a week every week. I've been on an EV for 2 years now and I've used public chargers maybe 4 times.
4:10 Hydrogen ?
There is a lot of investment :
- pyrolisies of natural gas to produce hydrogen CH4 + warm -> C + 2H2
- combustion engine for airplane
- fuelcells for airplane
- experiments with materials that combine hydrogen in some structure and then iit si possible to get this hydrogen back in car itself
- use of hydrogen in steel production
- hard work from years to make fusion reactor real -> because to make hydrogen real we need plenty of energy
There is also mineable hydrogen as the earth produces it naturally, or you only need to split water in their base elements lets say sea water as the salt can be used as it is already.
If Hydrogen does end up fuelling plant, shipping, and especially HGVs on a large scale, there should be no reason to discount a hydrogen passenger car. It’s possible to drive more than 1000 miles in a day on business, and unless BEVs can charge reliably at 500kW+, and a nationwide network of chargers on a scale to rival fuel pumps can pump that out reliably too, they’re completely redundant to a quite large cohort of motorists, whereas hydrogen “fits the life we already have. The reason it’s the car of the future is because it’s just like the car of today”.
Has everyone see the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder. Gets about 50 miles from a 1ft canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge. They have a video on RUclips.
@@owldrinkmore Most now recognize that Hydrogen is the future, it would have been the past except it has been suppressed for over 100 years by Rockefeller and big oil. Go Hydrogen!
the fossil fuel industry is pushing Hydrogen as they see it as a way of saving their industry and infrastructure. After all 95% of hydrogen today is manufactured by coal or natural gas reforming and could potentially utilise gas infrastructure to store and distribute hydrogen lessening stranded assets costs.
What better way to keep consumers hooked on filling up weekly at fuel stations etc?
@@andrewfranklin7087 You are an AI Bot, no one believes anything you publish....
Some fundamental errors here.
Most abundant element: Yes, but it's also highly reactive, so it's only abundant when it's in molecules with other elements. That creates the first problem, making green hydrogen requires green electricity
Inherent rightness: How is it better to use electricity to make hydrogen, then have to compress that hydrogen and transport it to a fuelling station where it's stored, then when it's moved to a vehicle you have to manage the temperature very carefully, and then you use a relatively complex system to turn that hydrogen back into electricity to power a motor. This process is fundamentally inefficient, so the running costs for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be 5x to 6x more than a battery EV and that's without considering the added cost/complexity of the supply chain.
Batteries are big and heavy: actually the laptop and mobile phone didn't do that much to develop battery technology especially not for large capacity batteries required for cars or home storage. However, the current battery EVs are driving massive development in battery technology which will likely see a significant reduction in weight while increasing capacity.
Hydrogen for airplanes, shipping: kind of, yes, but that's also part of the inherent challenge of hydrogen. There are lots of applications that hydrogen can address and must address before we even consider cars, etc. Start here www.liebreich.com/the-clean-hydrogen-ladder-now-updated-to-v4-1/ and by the time we've done all the 'unavoidable' hydrogen uses, and created enough green electricity to deliver those, then in reality it won't make sense to build out another 3x-4x green electricity generation for H2FC cars vs battery EVs
H2FC are like a swiss watch: well yes, they are in terms of being complex and very sensitive to dirt and dust, but there's no elegance in a very complicated solution vs a much simpler battery EV
Natural Hydrogen: this didn't get mentioned, but it's the only way H2FC cars make sense, even then transporting hydrogen is difficult, and it's more likely natural H2 will fuel the 'unavoidable' uses than cars....
We can just build coal power plants to make hydrogen, we have the tech to efficiently burn coal with out pumping out pollutants.
C02 is the gas of life too.
Hydrogen is never going to work for airplanes. Even using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier would just be insanely dangerous, not only if the aircraft were to crash and the ammonia tank were to rupture, but also during refueling and transport operations.
@@v4skunk739 CO2 is a gas of life but there is a limit which we are exceeding.
@@v4skunk739 no we don't have that tech, and increasingly it looks like that tech will never be viable.
@@amraceway Cope. Go look up the minimum level of C02 needed for plants to actually not die. You are brainwashed by propaganda.
Hilarious...$36 per kg with 5kg getting you 500km with 136kW of power while $5 worth of electricity gets you 400km in a Tesla with 239kW😅😂🤣
I can only speak for the Netherlands, but the same anti hydrogen discussion is here, in what i believe is fed by tesla share holders, followers, oil industry input, etc…. But if we think a little different…We in the Netherlands have a lot op solar panels on houses etc.. so much electricity is made on sunny days, that the price is negative very often.. electricity on such a scale van not be stored in batteries…. In my calculations 100% electricity to nothing = nothing… 100% electricity converted to lets say 40% = still 40% buffered…. Same with wind energy… why shut down windmills when there is too much electricity production against demand? Just convert it so it can be used (later) Really i do not understand why some don’t want that..
I think this 100 % belife in BEV and total repulsion of hydrogen is some kind of mental programming. So many people parrot same thesis of hydrogen drawbacks its like 2010 when EVs just came to markets
Yes, I see a German company HPS, (Home Power Solutions) now shows people how to use their excess solar to power an electrolysis apparatus that produces hydrogen which is then stored in tanks filled with Magnesium. The gas later to be released to power a fuel cell to power the house. The tanks are cheap as they don't need to be compression tanks and magnesium powder is very inexpensive.
Also, the Chinese are now powering a bicycle with solid hydrogen, have you seen their video? Storing solar to solid hydrogen may be the future.
Not the oil industry they make hydrogen.
Yes, hydrogen can have a role as a long term energy storage medium, alongside other technologies. That's a recognised use case. And that's the point, hydrogen has clear uses cases where it's the best solution currently, and also clear use cases where it's not viable.
Big oil is one if the biggest advocates of hydrogen because they know that green hydrogen won't scale and grey will be required for the long term - it's a very obvious path to extending the life of oil.
The problem with this idea is that it is far cheaper and simpler and more efficient to store that excess electricity in batteries or pumped hydro etc than all the losses, difficulties and expense involved in converting it to hydrogen and then back to electricity in the car.
Ive followed this chap for a few years and he has a point. The more transfers in energy you do, the less you retain. I still think that we can figure out how to make it less poluting then oil. Its facinating to me that we are talking about getting energy out of 2 of the three first elements to exist. Helium isnt sustainable on planet so thats why thats out.
Consumers are smarter than that. We learned from printer ink not to get locked into a limited source consumable. It could be the best car ever but it still uses some type of fuel you can't make and are at the mercy of the supplier as to future cost. Electricity is used for everything, we already have the infrastructure to make and transport it, it's made in great quantity, and consumers can even make their own in many ways. BEV is the no brainer choice. Batteries or what ever rechargeable storage device is used in cars will continue to get better and cheaper there is nothing that can "catch up" to that.
The electrical infrastructure even in most western country’s is NOT up to the job, you suggest.. i doubt it is in the UK Tbh..
@@Rider-EuropeanMotorcycles It doesn’t have to be, charging stations can have storage where needed and double as emergency power.
@@frankcoffey charging stations, needs to be charged are they? From solar field, windmill park via the grid to that charging station…
Grids are not suffiecient / up to date if everything is electric… that is wishful thinking + you need to rob the earth from all kind of resources which gives big environmental issues… never heard of the “dark side of our electric future”? Chili? Bolivia? That you need 2.2 million litres of water for only 1 ton of lithium? That is only 83 tesla’s…… Electric batteries are environmental disaster. Hydrogen isn’t…. But keep believing… your (grand) children will regret it..
I'm not sure electricity is the answer to the specific problem you're suggesting, as the cheapest way for a private company is still a coal power station (being a coal boiler attached to a steam turbine, companies are reasoning it's more cost effective to replace the coal boiler as necessary, hence all the creep in fossil fuel power stations in so many places). And as the UK has recently shown, starting up lithium battery factories isn't easy.
@@grievuspwn4g3 Coal is expensive and transporting it is even more expensive. It has to come by rail so you can’t just find another supplier.
And there lies the challenge, make it work cheaply on a small scale.
The problem isn't how to make hydrogen combustion engines but how to produce hydrogen on its own. It's still very inefficient and costly using regular known methods.
Red hydrogen?
Wow. Two guys that have no understanding of the fundamentals.
C02 is the gas of life.
I (as a 30 year old) will be on my deathbed before hydrogen is feasible for passenger car propulsion. Hydrogen will find its way into heavy industry, fertiliser manufacturing and long distance hauling first. That's a 30 year proposition. And then we might have enough renewable energy to not think about the conversion losses vs batteries and be able to have the amount of hydrogen necessary to replace oil consumption of 100 million barrels a day
If we carry on using oil at the rate we are now in 30 years time the world will be screwed so we've got to change to alternative methods of propulsion and ditch the oil, hydrogen will certainly play a part in that somewhere. Just because the tech isn't there now doesn't mean it wont be. I'm 43 and grew up into my teens without the internet or mobile phones, when I was a kid no-one could even imagine something like the internet, most people didn't even have a desktop PC. The speed at which tech has improved is astonishing and I'm certain the tech in 30 years time will be unimaginable compared to now so I'd think there's a very good chance for hydrogen and other sources to be used for cars within 30 years if not a hell of a lot less. When I was a kid we couldn't have imagined how efficient internal combustion was going to be by now so I think in another 30 years we'll be so far on from where we are now in terms of how we propel our vehicles that we'll look back and be amazed how we had doubts now. Given where we are today with A.I starting to get good I'd be very surprised if within 30 years we didn't have widespread use of fully automatic driverless cars as well. I also have a theory that when internal combustion is mostly gone and the world is a lot quieter with electric vehicles going everywhere that the sound of internal combustion will become annoying to most, maybe not my kids but their kids certainly. When the cities and towns are virtually smog free and you can walk down the road without breathing in fumes, when people have had that and are used to it I doubt they would welcome internal combustion at all other than as a novelty.
@@monkeyhands5053 not saying hydrogen won't be part of the global climate solution, it will just be prioritised for harder to abate sectors. Transportation and storage will still always be an issue - a full tank of hydrogen will leak and be empty within 12 days (see BMWs concepts) for example
@@stephensmith2027 They leak at the moment, they won't forever.
@@monkeyhands5053 How do you propose that they won't given that hydrogen can pass through metal? This isn't just an engineering challenge like reducing the size and increasing the power of computers, it's actually physically impossible with existing materials. Also hydrogen cars aren't exactly new, they've been around as long as electric but unlike electric have seen no real improvement. You're talking about improvements you assume will happen in the next 30 years when none at all have happened in the last 15 years.
@@alexfrye6 If I knew how to resolve it I wouldn't be answering comments on RUclips, I've just got a confidence that technology will develop, especially with A.I and new things that we can't even think of yet will come along, as you said it's physically impossible with existing materials but new materials come along all the time and I think there will be greater concentration on hydrogen storage, up until recently hydrogen has had a limited usage really i.e space, some industry etc but if it's usage is widened to the masses the tech will come along as well. I'm not saying there aren't problems with hydrogen, there are at the moment but as far as I know, its the only stuff that is totally renewable, doesn't harm the environment at all and can be made anywhere in the world and that means it's very high up on the list of stuff to be used for mass transport/energy supply. You can literally use electricity from solar/wind/tidal etc to make the stuff, it gets used in cars etc and turned into water then we can use more solar/wind/tidal electricity to make it again, forever and ever. That means its gonna be high up on the list of fuels that gets used eventually, we will exhaust almost everything else.
An intelligent conversation. Transportation is around 15% of the issue the remaining is Manufacturing, Food preparation and power generation. The analysis with the position 1899 to 1900 is interesting and valid. The early electric and steam vehicle particularly the steam coal fired Warship and Liner led the way. Then the Royal Navy introduced the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were a group of five super-dreadnoughts built for the Royal Navy during the 1910s which used oil. Given every country wanted oil fired super-dreadnoughts the inevitable power struggle followed driving the need for petroleum. It was Winston Churchill who negotiated the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909, now called BP. Subsequently, their was WW1 which inevitably drove petroleum technology etc, to be followed by WW2 which was a war for resources principally oil. Again seriously driving petroleum and synthetic fuel technology for high octane fuels for aircraft, armoured divisions and warships. Also let’s not forget civil transport used ammonia has a fuel during WW2, so the technology is known. So the possibility that Hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and synthetic fuels will address 80% of the Carbon problem is quite viable. Consequently the other 20% would be inevitably absorbed by that technology has electric and steam vehicles were in the 1900’s. Though given there are around 40 years of reserves the analysis that it is today’s and future babies who will only benefit from that type of Hydrogen economy is sensible.
Right now, the fundamental problem with Hydrogen, and therefore HFCEVa, is that all hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels. When oil and gas are depleted in less than 60 years time, so will be hydrogen. The answer of course is renewable energy powered water electrolysis to produce hydrogen, with oxygen as a byproduct. But as of this moment in time , it ain't happening.
Hydrogen is cheap and easy to make at home. Big Oil is done! Think HYDROGEN!
@@Brad_Fallon Your neighbours are thinking very big bang, like Graf Zeppelin or R109 airship big bang.
@@grahamcook9289 That's been debunked Grahm, Hydrogen does not explode like in the movies, it burns, like a welders torch and SOLID HYDROGEN stored in tanks of magnesium doesn't do either? LOL You wk for big Oil?
@@Brad_Fallon Exactly the Graf Zip and R109 burnt, they really burnt man. Have you not seen the footage?
@@grahamcook9289 It's all fakery created by Rockefeller's Big Oil monopoly back in 1937 to stifle the up and coming popularity of using Hydrogen to power cars. Even back then there were many promoting hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, but the Zeppelin Fake-out stifled it.
Clearly, you are a BOT working for big oil. You guys are so easy to spot! LOL
H is most common in the universe, not the world. It's always bound on Earth & expensive to to split off h20. Learn some science....
Evs are great for inner city driving if there small and compact but for long distance and large towing vehicles and semi-trucks HYDROGEN FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY is the future we need to talk to our representatives to invest more into HYDROGEN. Also, wind and solar power are not efficient enough. We need to invest in nuclear power plants for the future and get rid of coal, oil, and gas power plants eventually. Nuclear power plants are the most efficient and very safe technology now. We use them to power on aircraft carriers and submarines. we need to invest in technology that provides the power we need so we can get rid of fossil fuels dependence.
Horse & buggys are cool
The odds of plentiful hydrogen filling stations in the UK are zero.
You say this but wait until Toyota start rolling out all their filling stations! They're just so confident you see, it'll happen any moment now! 😂
You could say the same about the EV charging network it didn't exist ten years ago. Why are we continuing to invest in a technology that is not good and will not work for everyone in the future, there are very few resources of lithium and china owns them all
@@shugthehornyhaggis lithium is plentiful. One of the largest sources is in Western Australia at the Greenbushes mine. They supply to Tesla.
BP is currently building their first hydrogen refinery in Western Australia, with plans to open filling stations.
I wouldn't have thought you would find anyone to take on your wager, even at those odds!
I believe hydrogen cells are used in indoors forklifts. The problem is that platinum is the material used for the semy porous membrane that is in the heart of fuel cells. I hope they do manage to fix that!
2:11 There is solution to easy store Hydrogen in a car - Methanol .
Electrical efficiency: 35 - 50%
Operating temperature: depending on membrane 70 - 90°C (LT-PEM) or 160 - 200 °C (HT-PEM)
Reaction: CH3OH + H2O -> 3 H2 + CO2 (Reformer) 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (Fuel cell)
Examples : Gumpert Nathalie
Methanol has a high proportion of chemically bonded hydrogen and is characterized by its high energy density. To put this into perspective: 10 liters of methanol contain approximately 1 kilogram of hydrogen.
Refuelling car with hydrogen on station has issues similar to natural gas - it take longer then refuelling with gasoline or lpg.
Gas like hydrogen takes a lot of space.
3:07 Ship might use hydrogen or be supplied by either nuclear reactor for big transocean trip from China to Europe . For short trip like ferry batteries are good enough even now.
How do you combine methanol with water ?
Classic "don't know enough to know they don't know enough" chat
Hydrogen fuel cells are cool technology but require expensive metals like platinum. Hydrogen storage is terrible.
AND the air must be super clean. Hydrogen fuel cell cars have lots of filters that need replacing…
Ev battery's are cool tech they require mining the sea floor for lithium
@@shugthehornyhaggisOn which planet because on Earth most of it comes from Australia...?
@@shugthehornyhaggisNot true besides new batteries using sodium are being developed and tested. EV with more sustainable batteries are the future.
@@simhz2221 why destroy the environment when we have superior technology that doesn't require any damage to the environment and does not require our 100% dependency on china ?
Now I see why Captain Slow was so critical of EVs and battery charging. He's taking dirty money from the Petroleum industry.
You would think that after the tens of millions he made from AmazonTV , he could afford to be more honest.
Yes let's not spend 20 minutes charging a battery, lets handle liquid nitrogen at high pressure twice a week.
you heard it here . He is saying how great a Toyota and well made it is not the carwow sales German crap yall by that breaks
Anyone ever see a lithium strip mine?
Go look it up.
Ever seen the Canadian Tar sands?
@@stix2youten more years ?
Hydrogen is cheap and easy to make at home. Big Oil is done! Think HYDROGEN!
@@owldrinkmore Your a BOT for Big Oil, and now everyone knows. Thank you for letting everyone see this. LOL
@@ytuuuidvb6181 First EV fueled with a sodium-ion battery was introduced in China in January,
The Volkswagen-backed Yiwei E10X.
BYD started to build the first large scale sodium-ion battery plant in Xuzhou in November last year.
I'll just say two things. platinum and efficiency. This closes the issue.
The problem isn't decarbonizing transportation...that's illogical and a huge mistake. ICE engines are a miracle and a wonder to behold. The problem is the dependency on corporate energy interests and national military industrial complexes. These powers produce much wealth for themselves and nothing but grief for everyone else. Look at the American Military, for example. For the past century it has badly managed America's energy policy. It's alliance to the Ford Motor Company, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and many others has led Americans and many others to be proudly obsessed with the worst industrial garbage. The Model-A, the deuce and a half, the Sherman, the Tomcat, the Mustang, the Osprey, any given battleship or aircraft carrier...they, and many others, represent the worst engineering feats in human history. Never has the human race been more in love with crap. All at the behest of powerful interests who never serve or even drive themselves. Remember Robert Moses? He never drove a day in his life! Some rich servant carted his butt everywhere. The ICE allows us to go far, to accomplish much...much more than we could achieve without it. Any man, rich or poor, cannot claim to live without it. But only a few make all the money from the sale of fuel, whatever it is, and the vehicles themselves, which are really just throw away items. What is needed is a revolutionary way to use the ICE so that its usage is intelligent, prudent and serves the marketplace. An absolutely free market where we're not paying for corporate interests and military idiots to screw up our economy. The ICE isn't going anywhere. It isn't obsolete. It's the present and the future. I think it's obvious what we really need to get rid of.
The airline thing just blew my mind cuz it's so simple but yes we can't the giant batteries in Planes so means I have to run on hydrogen someday
Hydrogen can also be used for aviation and heavy industry. Neither can function off electricity.
@@owldrinkmore No, it’s correct. Here’s this from the IEA who work with governments so they should know what they’re talking about: ‘However, hydrogen and hydrogen-based fuels can play an important role in sectors where emissions are hard to abate and other mitigation measures may not be available or would be difficult to implement, namely heavy industry, long-distance transport, shipping and aviation’
@@owldrinkmore The batteries needed for commercial flights are so heavy that it makes them unviable. Not to mention the fact that going electric is already decimating the earth by exacerbating mining and destroying even more habitat. And then how sustainable is it? The Japanese are still focusing on hydrogen and China has high speed trains running on hydrogen. It’s also a better solution for motoring
@@owldrinkmore I’ll throw the EV argument back at you: the reason why most EVs are still expensive is due to economies of scale. They same is true for hydrogen cells. You know this. If we had hydrogen then there would be no need for new charging infrastructure. Refuelling would not be an issue either. In short, there would be zero inconvenience. As for EVs one of the many challenges is recharging. People in flats cannot recharge their car in the underground car parks and it’s too expensive to charge in the street. Also, due to fire risk in the US you cannot have as many EVs as can fit in a subterranean car park. The fire departments have made this illegal. So, it’s clear not everyone is going to be able to have an EV. That was never the plan.
@@owldrinkmore And government policy has nothing to do with any of this expansion and promotion, right? An LP car is way down on storage space due to the tank in the boot, rendering it practically unusable and it has lower performance. As for hydrogen filling stations, the infrastructure is already there across the world, you simply convert the petrol stations, something that can’t be done for EVs that require much more area, and that’s just for those that will have an electric car because not everyone will be able to run one. There is also the issue of once we’ve depleted lithium and other rare materials for the huge uptick in battery manufacturing then we’ll be back to square one, when we’ll also still be trying to figure out how to successfully recycle the batteries. Hardly saving the planet, is it? EVs will be a short term solution and as we’ve seen such technology is of no use to aviation or heavy industry. I wish they were the solution but we’re hurtling down a blind alley as there are just too many drawbacks. EVs have almost become a religion, and like most religions they’re built on wishful thinking
@@owldrinkmore Where have hydrogen stations been located? In petrol stations. And how many people can refuel during a day? The same number as pass through any petrol station. Hydrogen was not DOA, it was pushed aside by government diktat, and we shall see how long the EV trend lasts. The projections on mineral resources required are not great. They have only just been introduced into the market and already the EV market has tanked because people don’t want them. They take too long to charge and are showing signs being unstable, not to mention the acute loss of battery performance within just a few years of use. Many people cannot have them due to the fact they live in apartments. We will also need to double the electricity output and the national grid is already overloaded and there is no plan to supply twice the demand, so we’re sailing blind here. Then a growing number of insurance companies no longer want to insure EVs due to the risk of fire from accidents and fuel cell runaway. Second hand car dealers do not want them either for the same reason. Mechanics don’t even want to work on them due to volatile fires they can produce and have to allow for extra space in their workshops should such a fire take place. An EV fire, as I am sure you are aware of, cannot be extinguished easily, if at all, and can even reignite hours later. And then we cannot ignore the fact that the smallest prang can be fatal for a car battery and such internal damage, which cannot be diagnosed effectively, can lead to an incendiary at any moment. I have a friend whose house burnt down from their car parked in the garage at night. These are just some of the issues you seem to gloss over. We’ll see how things turn out, but for EVs that have had so much legislation thrown behind them the panorama is not looking good. And it’s not me saying that it’s the marketplace and the people that work in the sector. I’m just repeating their misgivings as did James May who has owned both forms of vehicle.
I like James May but this is nonsense. The inherent inefficiency of the hydrogen cycle makes it impossible that it can ever compete with batteries for personal transportation.
Plus hydrogen currently is derived from fossil fuels which is polluting and with a finite life of approximately 60 years. Even hydrogen obtained from water via electrolysis powered by renewable energy, involves a massive energy loss. It makes much more sense to just put the renewable generated electricity via the grid direct into a BEV.
Yep. We need real , clean green hydrogen but it has to replace black, blue grey hydrogen and for the love of all that’s holy NOT for heating …
@@arpinchock we do need green hydrogen, and lots of it, for use in the fertiliser, steel and concrete industries but it’ll never compete with batteries for personal transport nor heat pumps for domestic heating.
I find it truly remarkable that I see a video one week where I leave feeling James May is a true wizard at explaining in a very balanced way the pros and cons of EV, fast forward a week and the most ridiculous gibberish. As @oakfieldfarm say we need loads of hydrogen for all sorts of things but cars makes no sense whatsoever
He thinks he's practical but actually he's "useless", those are the words from Clarkson
Hydrogen for cars is idiotic, why do you think those stations are not working because hydrogen destroys them, my friend worked for a company that repaired those stations they could not keep up and the owners could not afford the constant repairs.
Hydrogen requires 16X the diesel trucks to transport the equivalent volume of energy that a diesel tanker can.
>95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from natural gas and the transformation is dirtier than burning it
Hydrogen only makes sense when you use it at the manufacturing source preferably by splitting water (almost never happens) with renewables
Hydrogen cost >$180 per tank full compared to
Why would you require the 16x trucks to transport the hydrogen to where it is required? If you create the hydrogen at the fuel station where it will be dispensed using some of this abundant cheap clean electricity we keep hearing about then there is no road transport for delivery involved.
@@RodgerRamjet-s8g The point is that it isn't created at the fuel station because electricity is not cheap or abundant
While I agree with your comment that electricity is currently not cheap nor abundant, the future vision we are being sold at present relies on it becoming so.
@@RodgerRamjet-s8g Which vision? You've got to be more specific otherwise no one will know what you mean
@@RodgerRamjet-s8g The same reason that companies don't refine gasoline at the filling station, Economics of scale.
Processing requires and Electolizer, compression pumps, large electrical source of clean energy, storage tanks, purifier, and safety measures.
All of the above is possible is you are a fertilizer manufacturer or a steel mill with room to isolate and install but for a refueling station on the corner good luck with the permitting
We need cheap, green hydrogen.
If we ever get that, we should start by using it for our ammonia production.
If there is any left over, then we can look at shipping, long-distance trucks, airplanes.
Small cars? Maybe. But I really don't think so. It takes a lot of energy to create 1 kWh in the car, and hydrogen is tricky to store and transport.
Ammonia would perhaps be better, but it is so poisonous.
The only way green hydrogen is cheap is when solar and wind create more electricity than the current demand. As someone with solar panels I have that situation most sunny days but I also added storage so I charge the batteries with the excess and sell back to the grid during peak times. The ROI on battery storage is excellent and getting better every year. So no cheap electricity for green hydrogen from me.
@@jjamespacbell There is a German company HPS, (Home Power Solutions) that shows people how to use their excess solar to power an electrolysis apparatus that produces hydrogen which is then stored in tanks filled with Magnesium. The gas later to be released to power a fuel cell to power the house. The tanks are cheap as they don't need to be compression tanks and magnesium powder is very inexpensive.
Also, the Chinese are now powering a bicycle with solid hydrogen, have you seen their video? Storing solar to solid hydrogen may be the future.
@@owldrinkmore
I really don't know where you got those numbers: Atomic weight of Oxygen is 16, H=1 therefore 18kg of water will contain 2kg of Hydrogen. Therefore 20 kg of water contain 2,22 kg of hydrogen. Stupid economics at best is mining tenth of tons of earth (with devastating environmental impact) and a lot of energy for heavy machinery to get 1 kilo of lithium. And spare me with battery recycling. We know how good we are recycling things. Look at the PET bottles islands in the oceans and plastic containing fish.
He is wrong. Please see physics!
...and chemistry.
@@kalebdaark100 Yes although Physics does include chemistry!
@@rossadamdixon Indeed, although I'm sure there are a few chemists might have a thing or two to say about it. 😆
@@rossadamdixononly if you're a physicist.
The great thing about physics is it doesn't give a fuck if you study it or understand it.
Battery EV's being forced on every one won't work regardless, not everyone has a driveway to charge at home. Hydrogen is the 1 to 1 replacement for ICE when it comes to how you refuel cars.
You don't need a driveway to charge at home. Right to charge laws are all that's needed, making sure anyone can have chargers installed wherever they need to park.
They should've taken the same LNG infrastructure and with it improving liquid gas and hydrogen driven cars in safety and reliability. I bet creating hydrogen can be cleaner and practical than those damn batteries for conversion to electric drive.
Correction: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, oxygen is the most abundant element in Earth (mostly locked up in silica crystals (rocks))
Wonder if these guys understand that the fuel cell in a Mirai costs six figures US. Ironically, they are repeating the argument against adoption of gas cars, but inserting BEVs. Hydrogen cars require the same size fuel infrastructure that gas cars do, only, additionally to being flammable, it's explosive. BEVs don't require nearly as much infrastructure.
Theres an essential nonsense to hydrogen cars and its compounded when people mutter about ammonia fuel. To get that ammonia we electrolyse hydrogen in the presence of nitrogen.
Where did that hydrogen come from?
We electroysed water to release it.
Riiiiight. Two energy intensive processes to create a way of transferring energy to the point of use.
Two processes that bring about practical problems with storage (embrittlement of steels and close tolerances to avoid leaks, then a corrosive liquid instead, so special steels and seal materials).
If only there was a way of moving that energy with minimal losses instead.... 🙄
H2 has important and practical uses, but powering cars isn't one of them.
Fantastic comment, thanks! 👍
Hydrogen is cheap and easy to make at home. Big Oil is done! HYDROGEN!
@@Brad_Fallon 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
i think the fuel cell has a future not necessarily pure hydrogen? could be hydrogen carriers such as methanol, ammonia and methane...
Pure Hydrogen is cheap and easy to make at home. Big Oil is done! Think HYDROGEN!
@@Brad_Falloneasy? Wtf?
No matter how you look at it, absolutely everything associated with hydrogen is expensive, the cars, the refueling infrastructure, the production of the fuel, etc., and that expense will always stand in the way of its adoption. E-fuels, on the other hand, can be used in inexpensive vehicles, the refueling infrastructure is already in place and is relatively inexpensive, and billions of vehicles that can make use of the fuels already exist, so there's no need to replace absolutely every vehicle in existence with something new, which just drastically reduces the expense of decarbonizing our transportation systems.
IMO, all of this is basically like the VHS, DVD, Blu-ray progression of technology, the industry is just trying to find something new to make the old technologies obsolete, that way everyone is forced to buy all new stuff. The problem here, though, is that DVD is significantly better than VHS and Blu-ray is significantly better than DVD, but HFCVs are not significantly better than ICE vehicles, so there's just no real reason for people to make the change.
Though most e fuels (which are carbon neutral) require inputs in the form of carbon from the atmosphere, which is very expensive, or carbon neutral hydrogen (ie: via electrolysis or SMR with carbon storage) for production. It would be hard to achieve cost carbon neutral e fuels without first achieving low cost hydrogen.
Of course the cost of modifying the vehicles for efuels will be lower, though the existing fleets of trucks and ships and planes only have a finite life and will need replacing at some point.
@@emailofjamesw The carbon doesn't need to come from the atmosphere, it can be collected from industrial processes which emit carbon (steel production, for example), transported in a storage medium, then processed into fuel at another site. Seawater is also another possible source of carbon for e-fuels.
As I understand it, there's no need to first produce hydrogen when using certain production methods (the US Navy seems to have this part figured out).
Aircraft have lifespans which are quite long, and they're very expensive vehicles to replace, so it's likely that e-fuels will be the best possible solution for the decarbonization of aviation, at the very least.
Nuclear energy is key for the success of e-fuels, as waste energy from nuclear reactors can be used to supplement the energy required for the production of e-fuels.
Hydrogen fuel cells and combustion engines are still cheaper than making huge expensive battery packs that only last 6-7 years.
@@v4skunk739 Hydrogen fuel cells don't last, though, and the cars are insanely expensive for what you end up getting. Just look at the horsepower ratings for HFCVs vs BEVs.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Wrong. Companies are working on the technology. An American company a couple of years ago made a huge breakthrough on fuel cell material science. A million mile fuel cell.
Don’t show this to KiwiEv, he’d well and truly have an aneurysm.
It will be easier to use the hydrogen in conjunction with current fuels. You can put 5 percent into natural gas with out changing anything....ect. which uses existing infrastructure....
China’s largest battery manufacturer has stated the plan on dropping battery prices by 50% by year’s end. That lops 2000 to 5000 of your favorite currency off most cars bringing them ever closer to price parity.
Anyone who can charge at home would be stupid buying an ICE car unless they travel 400 miles /600 km every day… (and maybe even then…)
For the rest we need reliable charging infrastructure to become dead easy and cheap!
The Mirai is a great vehicle.
The production storage and transport of hydrogen make it a complete non-starter.
The volume needed for storage is vast. The storage containers will need to be able to withstand huge pressures.
The processes that extract hydrogen use more energy than the hydrogen will give in powering a car.
The processes that are required to build a battery = child labour, fleets of heavy plant, ground water contamination, deforestation, shipping to processing facilities, shipping processed materials to component manufacturers, shipping of components to assembly manufacturing, shipping of batteries to car manufacturers. At the end of batteries short existence it gets piled up waiting for someone to figure out what to do with the growing pile.
Yes Hydrogen requires significant investment in terms of storage and delivery, but Sweden has demonstrated green hydrogen is indeed possible. A few giga production sites linked to dedicated wind, solar and eventually nuclear energy could produce green hydrogen for the domestic market at a non fluctuating price. The principal issue is so many corporations get a bit of the EV pie it’s just too tempting to profit from an obviously flawed model. Commodity brokers, mining companies, manufacturers spend and have spent millions on EV propaganda, why?
@@mountbattenstgeorge6008 agree with most of that. EVs are a huge con trick. The EV bubble will burst within 5 to 10 years.
The infrastructure for using fossil fuels is already in place. The main hurdle with fossil fuels is, can we develop the technology to overcome the pollution that comes from burning them.
The vision of the future currently appears to be abundant clean green electricity for all of our power requirements. If this power is not cheap and abundant then it is a pretty bleak boring future.
Hydrogen cars don't have a future. End. Of. Debate.
That's not a point. That's just ideological bias. The truth is the battery EV is not green. Never was, and won't be for at least 20 more years. Meanwhile, I've been driving a hydrogen car running on 100% green hydrogen for 3 years. The technology works now, and is an upgrade over gasoline, not a limited substitute. I routinely drive 400 miles on 5.5 kg of hydrogen. Equivalent to 5.5 gallons of gasoline. I've driven it through blizzards and heat waves. The car always gets about 60mpge. Meanwhile, Battery cars lose 50% of their range if you move 20C above or below room temperature and take hours to charge. The battery car's safety is also suspect. The battery electric car is just hype. Hydrogen semis on the road will show you the future.
@@Chasval hydrogen-powered cars are not an upgrade on anything. The packaging of the vehicle for passengers and luggage is woeful. A small percentage of hydrogen is from "green" sources and even when it is it's still a grotesque waste of energy to the point it's energy vandalism.
The parts for a hydrogen fuel cell aren't made from hemp and unicorn hair so are hardly "green" themselves.
Our BEV takes a while to charge on our home charger but we don't care because we are asleep. On a longer trip when we use public DC chargers it takes about 30 minutes but we don't care because we have something to eat and drink. We charge when stopped rather than stop to charge.
Electricity is everywhere. Hydrogen production and distribution are not. The only people loving the idea are the big fossil fuel companies because it delays the required transition away from their products and if we did move to hydrogen (we won't) it would protect their business model.
If there a nich it's in the heavy machinery like ships, trucks, train. No use for cars economically or scientifically.
Now there is AI, AI will find incredible technologies in every field, including miraculous battery tech that takes 5 minutes to fill up, can go 1000 km and weigh 100 kg. Possibly even mini nuclear..... you buy the car and never fill up for 20 years, then throw away the car and the nuclear battery is recycled to another battery.
Your car will still be running like clockwork 100 years after you die... and you will be able to read in your coffin, using the green glow from your eyeballs! 🥴 😜
@@PiefacePete46 kkkkkkk
Hydrogen powered vehicles make sense in hybrid applications, where the fuel cell or engine acts as a generator. Big and regular commercial vehicles can definitely benefit from this, but honestly, you can also do this with LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and NG (natural gas).
The world needs to get off fossil fuels or in less than 100 years we are likely to see mass migration from uninhabitable parts of the globe. There is more than enough renewable energy to meet all our needs, but greed tries to ignore this.
EV technology is not there and the high cost of ownership with lack of infrastructure is putting customers off.
I think hydrogen has a place for heavy transport applications, but probably not for cars. EVs arent great right now, but give it a decade or so and I reckon we'll have better batteries that are lighter, go further and charge faster, as well as better charging infrastructure. That HAS to happen, because most cars will be sold in nations much larger than the UK, where customers demand that sort of range equivalent to ICE.
Hydrogen costs too much. Ships will continue to use oil for the foreseeable future.
Firstly, I like any technology that derives its energy for 'free' from the Solar Panels on my Roof. (At least occasionally ... !)
Batteries do that 'easily', whereas Hydrogen will always really REALLY struggle to do that.
(Funnily enough, Hydrogen is largely preferred as a future fuel by those who then expect us to pay them for it ...)
And if you want to continue driving Petrol & Diesels, you will go to 'Heritage' Racing Circuits to do so, - just like the people who like to drive the previous generations of superceded technologies currently go to 'Heritage' Railway lines to Drive Steam Locomotives, or to Paddocks to ride Horses.
Something being "fascinating", and, "if only", don't drive reality.
The problem with hydrogen is ... the cost of the hydrogen per mile .. . an inherent problem coz even the cheapest method ... steam reforming nat gas ... will be much more expensive than running your EV on electricity from nat gas. This is inherent. This differential won't go away.
The other big issue is the electrodes for fuel cells.
There are only two materials that can currently be used - graphite and platinum.
Graphite is very brittle, and thus prone to breaking. This would make the electrodes cheap, but unreliable.
That only (realistically) leaves platinum - unfortunately, there isn't enough platinum on the planet to replace every automotive internal combustion engine with a fuel cell.
And as you correctly pointed out, you have to manufacture hydrogen gas via steam reforming, and that means CO2 emissions.
I will concede, however, that consolidating the emissions at a bunch of static petrochemical plants as opposed to millions of moving vehicles does make managing those emissions easier, and it would improve air quality in residential areas.
But that point is moot until the electrode question is answered.
I would love a hydrogen powered car.
BEVs have one problem: batteries
Hydrogen cars have at least eight main problems:
Hydrogen generation
Compression
Safe storage
Safe transport
Safe distribution
Vehicle safety
Weight and size of tanks
Cost of gold and platinum
Is far more likely we’ll develop better batteries before we can adequately solve hydrogens issues.
I completely disagree with James about hydrogen vs. batteries on airlines. Batteries are going to get lighter and more energy dense before Hydrogen stops being hard to store and explosive.
I've always fully believed that Hydrogen is the future for transport of any type as far as long distance goes. Like truly I nearly pee'd the first time I saw a Nexo, well that hasn't happened has it......... We're so far behind where we need to be I often despair that our species will survive. For pity's sake people are still arguing about carbon goals and fracking as though these issues are debatable, meanwhile recycling plants are shutting down and waste is still going into landfills..... I've gotten to the point where I don't care if someone calls me a far left liberal greeny cause really....... what else should we all be. It really would be great to see any Petrochemical Company gear up & devote themselves to getting into solutions and the future, not just rebranding themselves as environmentally friendly and conscious while doing absolutely nothing. Imagine what could be accomplished if just one of those corporations really wanted to change things, the amount of money available for research alone would surge the process ahead in ways we can only hope for.
That would be a flow on effect to all levels of energy, manufacturing and transportation that right now we're only dreaming of.
Hey picture if we could actually use waste to make power or anything else humans need, how clean would the planet be 😳🧐🤦 It's just not rocket science, it simply isn't.......yes Elon I may be talking directly to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese are now powering a bicycle with solid hydrogen, have you seen their video? Storing solar to solid hydrogen may be the future.
hydrogen is good because it is used for other stuff... natural gas is a great energy storage mechanism for electricity today because it is used widely elsewhere, so in supply crises (which we design the cost of the whole electricity system around avoiding) you can stop doing chemical processes and divert all the natural gas for energy production. Because we have way to much natural gas compared to electricity generation demand, It allows for (almost) infinite supply at infinite cost, so the supply demand economics works and the economy functions. You can't do this with batteries, and cant exactly do it with other energy storage mediums like compressed air, this is a strength of hydrogen (among many drawbacks) which could make it better then batteries for the long long run of clean(er) energy production and storage.
Hydrogen is very difficult to handle (compress it, cool it), most hydrogen is just a glorified fossile fuel (shades of hydrogen) and it's expensive to produce. And then it is used to store electric energy to drive the EVs instead of keeping industries going that we all depend on? It was a nice experiment and it will have it's use for sure - but not for moving (lots of) humans around the planet.
Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from one small canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge, they have a video on RUclips.
Alt fuel like audi is developing
Here we go... Producing H2 is really inefficient. In fact, even the best fuel cells will only ever be able to store about half the energy produced.
Also, yes EVs are heavy but they have regen breaking. Meaning your weight actually helps you when you're going down hill or slowing down using regen.
Of course battery technology will improve. This guy is absolutely clueless when it comes so the advances in battery tech, the inefficiencies of hydrogen production and the benefits of EV charging. Most people who buy an EV love being able to charge them at home.
Toyota have 40yrs on hydrogen development its not the underdog. Fuel volume , tank lifespan , Cryogenic danger , it leaks easily and ignites easily that's just not going to change throwing money at it.
Yup. Crazy how everyone sees to know this apart from these guys in the video.
You can bet Toyota knows about solid hydrogen as a safe and inexpensive fuel. Solid Hydrogen stored in tanks filled with magnesium powder get 3-4 times the storage capacity as gas, no special equipment required, even end users could make and store their own at home using electrolysis. Makes you wonder why they don't use it. Conspiracy with Big Oil?
Yes. They have a future in scrap yards. Maybe poor James wants to join them?
Electric and petrol/ diesel cars are more efficient
He has become a green climate change activist, Jeremy will disagree
It doesn't matter how much investment you make in hydrogen technology, to quote a famous Scottish space traveller 'ya canny break the laws of physics'. Making the stuff and compressing it is just a waste of energy. To have regenerative braking to help a vehicles efficiency you need batteries, and not small ones that don't have the capacity to properly absorb the braking energy. Big batteries are required, and thus you automatically find yourself with a BEV.
Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? Uses hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from one small canister! Takes 10 seconds to recharge, they have a video on RUclips.
@@Brad_Fallon I'm aware that Palladium is a fantastic hydrogen 'sponge' and has been considered for storage in the past but of course it's prohibitively expensive. I haven't seen the Magnesium storage system, though I guess it's holding hydrogen atoms in a similar way. I'll take a look, cheers
@@leegoodman297 Yes, you're right, Palladium is very expensive but it is mostly used more as a coating on the electrode during the electrolysis process rather than as a storage medium for hydrogen gas. Magnesium is being used and discussed often in the scientific community because of it's easy availability and low price. Also, it is a very lightweight metal so many are saying it is ideal for use in flying craft.
Additionally, I've read many discussions about exotic combinations of metals to maximize hydrogen penetration with the molecular lattice for use where weight is not so much a factor like in shipping. Solid hydrogen for all power needs is the future and one wonders why no one used it before? Fuel Cells have been around since the 60's and none of this is a secret in any University or Corporate science labs?
Have you seen the new Hydrogen Bike from China? It's powered by hydrogen stored in a canister of magnesium powder and gets about 50 miles from a single small canister and only takes 10 seconds to recharge! They have a video on RUclips.
I suspect the enthuseasum for hydrogen cars will wane somewhat after a few explode and take out a whole city block each time.
Oh dear James May, you've really lost the plot here.
Smarter than your dumbass
Hydrogen has its place in remote areas of the world.
No, that's where the biggest problems are. Hydrogen doesn't last in tanks, so you need constant access to a fuel station. With battery electric vehicles you can simply charge using your own solar, wind or even a backup generator if need be... or in most cases - from the grid.
Ouch…
Yep and betamax is the way forwards for video.
So much nonsense. I just don't know where to start.
Has James seen JCB and their Hydrogen ICE? Insane things.
I think petrol engines ate the solution 😂
People only care about vehicle weight when EV’s nobody was having a conversation about weight of the ever increasingly large western automobile until EVS.
Well considering a Model 3 weighs as much as F150 it's more about vehicle density than weight itself maybe
They were, in my world anyhow.
@@pjbth Only the heaviest M3 and F150 overlap. F150 can weigh 1700lbs more.
ICE vehicle weight has long been a point of discussion.
An example would be the downsizing of American cars in the 1970s, to make them more efficient.
A heavier car is more dangerous for pedestrians and other cars. Also handles worse and kills tires faster. This is precisely why EVs notoriously destroy their tires much quicker.
That’s why people have noticed the weight of EVs. There are real world consequences to it.
An Accord weights 3100lbs. A much smaller Model 3 weighs 4060. Almost 1000lbs heavier.
I have written a song just now, which I hope you enjoy.
EVVVVVV IS GREAT
Why use the most abundant resource in the UNI VER SE
Coz EV is greatttttttt
EV is great
EV is the best
Doesn’t matter what you say
Doesn’t Matter where the energy comes from
Doest matter how long they last
Doesn’t matter how far they drive
Doesn’t matter they are pilling up at dumps
EV is Great
EV is the Best
Crying children digging in holes
Congo rivers filled with gold
People farming acid lands
Congo rivers don’t pay my bills
Coz EV is great
It really is the best
Doesn’t matter what you say
More Power stations to fuel my way
Can’t calculate the power ne way
Cant comprehend another way
How many millions of charging stations are on the way?
Cant understand why you cant see
Bank Holidays will be great ne way
BBQs on the beach
No Charging rage at the welcome host
EV is great
EV is the best
Doesn’t matter what you say
The na sayers Cant extinguish the fire
It burns so bright
burning lithium is sooooo bright
takes four engines to dampen this fight
EV is great
EV is the best
Doesn’t matter what you say
No more jungles anymore
Cobalt
Lithium
Rare earth metals
Exploitation is not ok
EV is great
EV is the best
Why cant everyone seeeeeeeeeeee
Thank you good nigh!!
A tiny irrelevant future at best.
Most of the negative comments here are AI Bots, just FYI to all....
I know it's a sort of confirmation bias for me, but I'm glad to be hearing someone I like and respect express a ton of the same thoughts I've had about Hydrogen and Batteries. I still think Hydrogen is the way forward, but without a doubt we need to start producing more Green Hydrogen, and more fueling stations.
Yes, it is confirmation bias. Hydrogen simply doesn't work as alternative, it might have worked if we didn't had BEV's now and crap ton of new battery technologies with no limit in sight.
Hydrogen cost 36$/Kg😂😂😂
Actually using simplistic electrolysis (a Hoffman Apparatus) you can make 1kg for about 50Kwh. I kg will get you about a hundred + miles in an electric car. 50 kwh cost different prices depending on where you live. Venezuela it's .03 per Kwh, Libya .04 per Kwh, Paraguay .05, Mexico .11, United States .16 to .21. You do the math.
Natural (White) hydrogen will be a game changer. Just drill a hole and let the hydrogen flow
Infrastructure. Hydrogen would be incredible costly
Battery tech will evolve. Cost will go down, as well as charge times go down.
I would say that Li batteries are a bridge to a better technology
Energy efficiencies, benefits and applications that all-battery BEV tech vs hydrogen fuel cell HFCEV tech offers are less than the two combined in a plug-in hybrid drivetrain. PHEV+H (combustible hydrogen) tech is NOT an interim solution. PHEV+H (fuel cell) likewise offers more benefits that are utterly neglected in this interview.
Let's say there are a baker's dozen important benefits EVs offer. From emergency backup household power supply to rooftop solar and neighborhood mini-grids, to equitable distribution of resources (battery, hydrogen and photovoltiac solar arrays) to serve the most households, the EV tech that offers by far the most benefits is plug-in hybrid PHEV+H tech, including the #1 most important benefit of offering most economic incentives to drive our fucking cars less overall and drive them less like fucking idiots.
Lastly, Plug-in Hybrid PHEV tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight truck fleets and trans-oceanic shipping vessels. I refuse to explain this FACT in simple detail. Let's say it has something to do with sensible more than equitable distribution of resources.
Today, most cars sold are SUVs. And still people argue about how hydrogen cars are "inefficient". Mind boggling.
People buy SUV for who knows what reasons, crossover looks to be good middle ground between smaller sized car from length and width sides for city driving, while being more comfortable due to increased height. That would not change independent of fuel type. So no idea what you tried to say here.
Hydrogen being less efficient than BEV's will not change independent cars format.
@@Zripas SUVs are very overpriced, cost more insurance and taxes and they need a lohoot of fuel. They are very much on the bottom of the list when it comes to money and fuel efficiency. They even take up more space than a normal car!
Still those are the most bought vehicles on the planet. Which clearly proves, that noone gives a shit about efficiency. Whoever argues that a certain kind of car will never make it, because of its lack of efficieny, must live in a dream world, far from the actual reality that is going on right now for everyone to see.
@@wurstbrot1772
But that's that thing, people buy SUV's due to them wanting bigger car, they would buy one which is more economical if there was one offered, with hydrogen cars, its just by default extra expenses for every single type of car straight away, this gets even worse if you decide to buy bigger car, not even talking about hydrogen combustion engines, as those are non starter straight away.
If you have line of SUV's, people will look into fuel consumption if they will need to decide which one to pick.
Basically, size of car has nothing to do with type of fuel it uses. If someone needs/wants bigger car, they will buy it, fuel economy will only be chosen from the cars which match buyers cars size criteria, not the other way around.
Have James May contact me on our hydrogen solution.
Synthetic Fuel is the only logical way forward, BEV requires GARGANTUAN amounts of raw materials to bring the charging infrastructure anywhere close to par with ICE, where-as we already have liquid fuel distribution logistics already for decades and decades.
Costs too much to manufacture. And no, it won't get cheap enough.
I stop this nonsense channel to bring any video proposal.
JCB are doing it as it scales better than battery storage
Hydrogen doesn't scale well because it requires lots of infrastructure - only one the infrastructure is in place can it scale easily. Hydrogen can make sense in sites without electricity, but I think that's a small market. Also, H2 fuel cells don't work in dirty environments, so JCB is doing hydrogen ICE - I suspect they're trying to leverage their massive investment in ICE, but I also think they're going down a dead end
@@parsot the infrastructure is being built across the U.K. now and indeed Europe. JCB is not alone, all major construction and agricultural equipment manufacturers are looking at hydrogen ammonia ICE solutions it’s the most practical for the sector, which Mercedes, Daimler Truck division has echoed along with Cummins.
@@DC.409 Only with massive subsidies. Hydrogen is a shockingly poor fuel.
@@amraceway the engines work fine and the approach isn’t new ammonia was used successfully for civilian transportation in the war, has petrol was rationed. The infrastructure is being installed now, mainly to replace natural gas at this stage.
@@parsotThis is repeated all the time but the original idea behind the Hydrogen economy was the localized (or not) conversion of almost anything to Hydrogen gas. For example natural gas can be locally converted.
It takes a lot of electricity to make hydrogen from water. This is put in a very high pressure tank, only to be turned back into electricity. This makes no sense. Just buy a battery driven car.
Not really. Using simplistic electrolysis (a Hoffman Apparatus) you can make 1kg for about 50Kwh. I kg will get you about a hundred + miles in an electric car. 50 KWh cost different prices depending on where you live. Venezuela it's .03 per KWh, Libya .04, Paraguay .05, Mexico .11, United States .16 to .21. You do the math. Also, storing hydrogen into tanks filled with magnesium is safe, easy and does not require compression tanks. It's known as Solid Hydrogen.
@@owldrinkmore That's just nonsense 9626, who do you work for, Big Oil, protector of the narrative? You types are easy to spot.
Ev's are not the answer, the future will be hydrogen starting with heavy trucks and busses and then transitioning to cars, hydrogen can be easily made in multiple ways and with technology advancing in twenty years time hydrogen will be as common as petrol
In which way has hydrogen technology advanced over the last 20 years?
You clearly know nothing about the properties of hydrogen.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Batteries will always beat hydrogen for cost and efficiency due to the inevitable losses inherent in converting electricity to hydrogen and then hydrogen back to electricity again. It’s a no-win situation.