We've already had a clean, faster and electric form of transportation than can haul 100 times the tonnage of what a truck can do for over a century. They are called trains. The easiest way to cut down truck emissions is to invest in more freight rail infrastructure to get more trucks off the road.
@@sanitygone-l9y Are you envisioning an extremely dense network? Would be nice, but also has its problems like cutting up landscapes and neighborhoods. Or do you mean replacing existing roads by train tracks?
and trains don't require nearly as much land + bridges, highways, roads, parking lots, and tons of other infrastructure needed to support car & truck ownership. we have to stop paving over nature and bring back the train.
For heavy loads on middle and distances we already have trains. The rail infrastructure here in Germany is far behind the Netherlands or Switzerland but I think it's still the best option to invest in it if we wanna meet our climate goals. For the remaining trips and to reach places without rail connections, Electric trucks are the most efficient option so far.
Being from the Netherlands our train network is full and is not growing with the speed of our economy... We have a fairly decent rail network, but we have one of the highest population densitys for a "full size" country... There is not enough space left for our passanger trains needed to be able to sit when travelling longer distances. In theory our passenger trains have priority over the cargo trains... But passenger train priority makes a rail network inefficient, if you have no passenger train priority you get an American style rail network... It will be the most efficient in the world, like the US has now, but it would take forever to travel by passenger train... You could turn it around, have the most efficient passenger train network and not do cargo... Its probably a lot cheaper to let trucks use the road and put passengers in trains then let people drive and transport goods by rail... So i think electric trucks (or battery or h2) could have a future far more important then the future for electric cars, also the youht does not care about driving (world wide, in general)...
The main problem with electric vehicles is the West ability to source the materials needed to build tons of those batteries. Many of the required materials are mined in some countries with unstable political landscape. It could easily get shut down in a single night.
@@nntflow7058The reason for that is western countries don't want to deal with the huge pollution from these mines. Lithium mines are way more pollluting than iron mines, plenty of attempts have been made to open some in America, Australia and Canada and nearly all of them were stopped by environmental red tape.
@@noseboop4354 Currently, only US have significant amount of lithium that are easily accessible, Australia got decent amount of them but Canada's geographical feature made it more expensive and difficult to mined them. EU basically got almost none. Cobalt is even worse. Half of them are located in Congo. And only Australia got 20% of them. Which is not enough to satisfy Australia/New Zealand, EU, US/Canada and East Asia. The rest are miniscule. We cannot just talk about Production, we need to talk about Reserve instead. Because even though australia got decent amount of minerals in their territory, they are gonna starting to run out of it soon if they keep increasing the production. The don't have the largest reserve of lithium.
Best Option is to get as much Cargo on the rails as possible.(Like it used to be) Then use electric for the last few miles. Hydrogen is too expensive and valuable to waste it that inefficiently. It takes a ton of energy to compress and cool hydrogen.
Yes! Under-subscribed comment 👆🏼 Steel-on-steel will always be more efficient than rubber on tar. And the limited degrees of freedom on rail potentiates efficiencies up and down the chain. Also good to ask where the hydrogen is coming from and what the net energy/environment calculus actually looks like. We know carbon credits are a scam because of b.s. calculations, so be wary of silver bullets and techno-utopian and pro-capitalist/growth perspectives in general.
electric is also on its way out, without even beginning.. look at what Ford are doing, they say due to cost and customer demand, but it's not just that. They are halting all their EVs and cutting back on battery plant that was being made. Rail should be used for freight i agree
@@multitablez7825 What are you talking about? Global EV sales are approaching 20% of global new auto sales this year continuing the rapid growth of years past. Ford's EVs are both worse and more expensive than Tesla--it's a product problem, not a demand or other problem. Tesla's global days of inventory at the end of Q3 was 16--half that of any other large automaker, 1/4 that of a "normal market" of 60 days supply. Legacy autos want to keep milking ICE profits till we all die in societal collapse to climate change. Tesla and Chinese automakers will put most of legacy autos out of business over the coming decade with EVs that are good, profitable, and much cheaper than ICE vehicles as costs continue to decline. Legacies have been trying to prevent EVs for decades and will go extinct just like the dinosaurs they insist on burning.
ok, but Tesla is one company. Ford is also 1 company of many who are going to cut back on EVs... not saying EVs are going away, i am saying that gas is here to stay. Esp for freight, i can't see EV trucks lasting. Poor range, fire hazards, and nothing beats power of a diesel or gas powered truck, going up hills, pulling torque etc. When electric will use heaps of battery to do the same. Our power grids couldn't handle all the charging. @@tHebUm18
In India, government working on hydrogen, hybrid and bio diesel technology. while currently they made a whole electric freight rail networks system called Dedicated Front Corrider, which connects all major cities, industrial areas and only freight rails can run on this tracks. And these tracks are now open by current government. Which are cheap mode of transport and eco friendly.
If you implement Hydrogen factories into your electricity grid you can use them to stabilize it. In the European Market you can get paid as a negative consumer, means you turn off your factory during peak. And you can increase consumption when energy is cheap. In Germany already now, price for electricity goes below zero at least two times per week.
Once again, trains solve all our problems and small electric trucks could drive small distance from train station to final destination, but people don't want trains. They would rather build train infrastructure above highways, than to use already superior trains...
Public transit will not get you where you want or when you want....plus it's nice just to sit in your car or on your motorcycle to watch the sun set for example
it's not that people don't want something - people don't care about anything. It's the fossil lobby who is massively pushing for hydrogen - because it will take decades before hydrogen is even remotely commercially viable, but once there is demand for it, it can be manufactured from natural gas comparatively cheaply...
There is huge investment in trains going on in Europe including the massive tunnel TELT Lyon Turin and investments in railways going to India and the Middle East recently announced besides the already good rail infrastructure in Europe connecting even China. But trucks have its reason to be. We can not just cut metropolis with railways and bring then to every medium city. Therefore we need more efficient trucks too.
Best way is to invest in freight rail so that each city/town is already reachable through that and complement that with electric trucks which has operation range of less than 300 km.
Yep, a perfect combination. Trains with EV trucks (hyrdogen or battery) will be most efficient solution for that. Even more so if the trains are electric as well.
@@kornkernel2232electric this electric that. If there is no proper Renewable source of energy then you are still burning coal. Its like dieting. Oh I'll just eat half a pint of ice cream every 2 days to lose weight instead of minimizing it more or forgoing it entirely
As an engineer knowledgeable of what is being developed, I can honestly state, it’s not battery driven electric power trains. All engineering development that I am aware of falls into two categories 1- Producing more HP/liter, allowing for smaller/lighter IC engines ( current goal is to achieve 200hp/liter @ 70mpg 2- Develop Hydrogen to eventually replace gasoline/diesel For IC engines. …. I expect us to wind up with 4 technologies, in the future… 1- Micro Inner city, BEV, with limited range (
The biggest problem with charging from the grid is the fact your relying on instant supply of power. You turn on a light bulb and a power station has to instantly produce additional power to handle that. Fine for a light bulb but scaled to a +350kwh charger for a truck and then multiply it to multiple trucking companies and thats a hell of a lot of power. You imagine the infrastructure you'd need to scale up and down to handle the load changes. Hydrogens biggest benerfit is it can be produced when the powers available and stored. Such that you can rely on solar and wind which supplies predictable but intermittent power to produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen then can be converted at will back into power to run the truck ect. The efficiency loss through conversion is worth it when you consider the hydrogen is energy storage. Hydrogen has the place for heavy duty and long range applications. Though BEV has the best case for light vehicle, commute applications. Something that doesnt need to be fast charged to give you a reasonable charge time.
Public transportation especially trains are the best for commute. Trains are also the best for freight hauling. As for the last mile freight delivery I would prefer hydrogen semis over battery electric. In places like California they are over producing electricity in noon times. And the best thing about hydrogen is you can produce it onsite with an electrolyzer.
Mining trucks are still debating battery vs hydrogen fuel cell with Caterpillar taking an early lead with a bet in battery, but the unique conditions of mines - extremely heavy loads and relatively short distances - changes the decision-making process. The cost of hydrogen will be a big factor for the mining industry here as well.
@@gobimurugesan2411 At the US oil consumption rate, oil will get so scarce that it's ll be 20€ a liter by 2050, and I take you don't believe in ice melt and wildfires and heatwaves from climatechange ?
@@bar8665Japan is also not a superpower. Trains are not enough. Japan is a tiny group of Islands. The US is a large mass of land. Train routes can't cover every nook and cranny of the land. That's why trucks exist
@PermanentHigh Japan is 93.57% the size of California... If their country was bigger, they wouldn't say, "Oh, well forget what works awesome and expanding on that".
@@bar8665 That's not how shit works. What works for a small geographical area is generally not gonna work for a far larger area simply by "expanding what works"
I always thought that the trouble with electric trucks was that the batteries are heavy so they eat into the weight that the truck is permitted to carry on the roads.
Yes, but not as much as had been feared, US adds 2,000 lb to the 80,000 lb limit for low emission vehicles, and it looks like that's enough. The volume (space) taken up by long range hydrogen tanks is the flip side of the same coin.
The weight is a factor but charging time hasn't changed and each truck needs a Megawatt charger for about 8 hrs to go 500miles /800km. Where as diesel has 1000miles/1600km with a 5 minute fuel stop (truck stop pump move fuel much faster than passenger pumps) Then ask yourself how are the roads being funded when EVs weigh more put are not paying fuel taxes.
You're math skills are a bit off I think. A truck uses 1,1 kW per km. So to drive 800 km you need 880kWh. A megawatt charger charges 1000kW. So to fill up a 880kWH battery it needs to run 880/1000 of an hour. That is 53 minutes, not 8 hours.
@@bartvandenpoel8568 efficiency rules all. Can't charge at max power or battery will explode and more systems are used than just the motors during driving plus elevation changes and are your numbers at max load?
@@bartvandenpoel8568Of course you are perfectly right, but as you can see with the following comment, being right on basic maths does nothing if one has already decided that EVs are bad. Haters gonna hate.
As a Commercial OTR Truck Driver for 25 years in the USA, I see the competition and we need cooperation for all clean energy Truck systems. Overhead electric lines could provide electricity to electric truck pantographs.
from 7:46，it is a typical scenario in China that some cities are using EV trucks. These trucks are modified from traditional truck and they use some space between head and compartment. They can be deployed in short range haul missions and easy to replace battery.
Competition is a great motivator, and I think companies should focus on developing both. In the end, you have redundancy so we won't repeat a reliance on a single source as we have been with oil.
@@CMeosuarra I wouldn't bet money on hydrogen. Hydrogen has many many limitations that make it unlikely to match BEVs for cost and efficiency. There is a great deal of material out there which gives you the reasons behind the limitations of both BEVs and hydrogen trucks. Hydrogen even in the best case, has far more limitations and will be more expensive due to the differences in theoretical efficiency. As an aside, do you know why hydrogen was even considered as an option? Because it sounds good and will fool the stupid. Take hydrogen, burn it, it mixes with oxygen and water comes out the rear. That's the seller. What is the reason behind it? Just like a murder, follow the money and motive. It is because 94% of the worlds hydrogen is produced via the gas reforming process. In other words the fossil fuel industry wants to keep extracting and selling gas.
Well done for producing a balanced and factual comparison, that's a rare thing for this topic! Hydrogen has so many disadvantages and so few advantages that its application will be niche at best - and, realistically, will struggle to compete against the flood of second hand diesel trucks on the market when so many routes will be served by battery-electric due to the low running costs. Battery supply is a major bottleneck (e.g. it delayed the Tesla Semi launch for years) but hopefully that will get solved soon.
Hydrogen still has some key advantages, and it is another sustainable technological pathway with plenty of opportunity for improvement. Overall efficiency will probably get within one-half of BEVs by 2030, and the infrastructure should be able to expand considerably faster than building out all the new transmission/distribution required. Yes, more generation will be needed, but this is probably much less of a problem as we move to advanced nuclear for its scalability and low environmental footprint. In the meantime, the energy flow of fossils can be used to quickly achieve an economy of scale. There is also the possibility of using pyrolysis with natural gas to avoid CO2 emissions, which could be cheaper and safer than sequestration. And then there are the other sectors of industry that will benefit from the wide availability of sustainable, low/zero-emission H2: ammonia production for fuel and fertilizer, aviation, rail, and maritime shipping.
@@cbarcushydrogen is by nature less efficient than electric. So any infrastructure that lacks for battery recharging production would be bad for hydrogen as well. And you get supplement that with stationary storage to reduce peak load which is what Tesla is doing with their mega charger installations.
@@cbarcus Yes I've heard that narrative many times before: "Let's pursue hydrogen because although it's horribly inefficient and largely pointless right now, in the future we'll have magical technologies that make all the troubles go away. And in the meantime, we can just keep using fossil fuels to make the hydrogen." Do you own oil company shares or do you just work for them?
@@robertide5182 We completely agree that H2 has an inherent disadvantage in efficiency, but that can be compensated for by its other advantages. The infrastructure requirements are not the same, and I am not sure why you would believe that to be the case. Not having to integrate with a power grid should allow a much higher growth in generation capacity, especially as advanced high temperature fission reactors come online. Fuel cell efficiency is expected to rise from about 50% today to perhaps 70% by 2030. Today, the packaging of H2 storage within vehicles is an incredible challenge, but there has been a breakthrough in solid state storage which could largely address this issue for even light duty vehicles. As an economy of scale is reached by the end of the decade, the production and distribution of H2 will greatly improve in efficiency, so much so that H2 stations may also serve as charging depots for BEVs. A new high-flow standard for H2 (H70HF) will enable an effective fill rate in excess of 10 MW, whereas the new mega charging standard will be around 1-3 MW. H2 delivery should easily end up being competitive with the current Supercharging rates of $0.25-0.50/kWh. Also, endurance racing will, in a few years, see a new class of H2 race cars; see Mission H24.
Weight is not just about just the payload but the whole vehicle. Think weight restriction on certain bridges or roads. There H2 has a huge adavantage but at the end of the day I think there's a place for both technologies
Why did they never mention the weight of the batteries? Because it would not fit their agenda? Batteries for a truck weigh around 8 tons while the max load is 40 tons. And the weight will always be there, no matter if the batteries are empty or full. So truck A can still move 40 tons of cargo, but truck B only 32 tons. This is not economical viable for a freight forwarder if he can move 20% less than the competition. I think it is an unbalanced, unneutral report that is more intended to convey an opinion than to inform people about all the pros and cons. Otherwise they would have shown the ONLY thing that matters: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen? In the end it's an industry and the one who does not save costs is out of business VERY quickly.
@@jules-u4pMost trucks don’t carry their maximum capacity. The trucks that some to my store are never being filled to max, those could easily be replaced with battery powered trucks. If combined with good rail transportation, most trucks could be replaced with battery powered ones as they shouldn’t need to drive all too far. Of course there are some long distance and heavy haul applications that will remain so personally, I’d say ICE trucks can be continued to be used in those niches until a solution is found
@@flemlion13 "Keep running things in order" is a good further point. Trucks for food or pharma do not only need to carry the weight, but the whole cargo has to be refrigerated the whole time, consuming a lot of energy. So the range of the Volvo FH Electric for example, which is stated 345 km on the Volvo homepage, is even less. Traffic jams will therefore also become much more expensive, they cut into your range and time loss much deeper. However, it still may be worth in some applications, I don't know, I don't have a truck each. But as said, therefore the makers of this clip should have researched the most important fact: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen?
@@flemlion13 How would the trailer "autonomously" create energy? By magic? It cooling unit is of course connected to the engine. "Consumption of a cooling unit is approx. 2.5 liters of diesel per hour" oh and this is news from 2020: "For the first time, a semi-trailer truck is supposed to supply itself with electrical energy and become independent of its diesel engine and its pollutants. The German medium-sized company Schmitz Cargobull invented the drive. Now the first test drive starts." So no, your statement is wrong, it's pretty much standard that the trailer is supplied with energy by the truck.
@@thereckon3592 No such thing in the minds of agenda pushers. Technical facts doesn't matter to them. Nobody cares about question of where are we gonna make the electricity to power all the vehicles also.
There will probably be an application for both. Even if the electric grid will be capable of supplying fast charging for trucks here in Europe in the future, there may be markets where hydrogen will be a more realistic option.
A really good point on where hydrogen will probably make a lot more sense is delivery to very remote locations. We forget oftentimes that all the advantages that electric has all assume an existing power grid, we forget that there are still large areas that aren't connected to the grid. This is obviously a niche application, but that niche is still going to represent a large market on a global scale.
@@smileyeagle1021this entire video is illogical. The cheapest way to obtain hydrogen is through fossil fuels. Even if there is a way to obtain it through a renewable means it will not make as much profit. Hydrogen is a horrible energy source and should not be used at any means. Full green energy and electric vehicles is the way and we just need to adapt. These companies that have refused to go green like shell and bp only refuse because it is not an exploitative resource.
@huanghermann5207 Hydrogen can be a succes when white hydrogen becomes a big thing. If it can be drilled just as easy as natural gas, it will probably cost just as much as natural gas.
I think anybody who talks about possible uses of green hydrogen should always mention that the first, most urgent need is for fertilizer production decarbonisation. For green hydrogen, we are not starting from zero, but from *minus* 70 million tons/year.
@@raptorthegamer5524 No, 70 million tons is current hydrogen used for fertilizer production. Albeit indirectly, we actually eat coal and methane, as precursors for the hydrogen inputs to the haber-bosch cycle.
We probably shouldn't overlook hydrogen just yet. It could still be one of the only feasible option in industries like airlines. Also just like batteries have evolved over the years, hydrogen too could get more efficient with rapid advancements in technology.
@@gcvrsa It is one of the fastest and safest modes of transport. I believe people need to think out of geographical boundaries and consider the entire planet.
Hydrogen will get more efficient; the only reason electric batteries are where they're at now is because of governments forcing people to switch to electric cars and pushing how great electric cars are when they are not really that great, imagen if they pushed hydrogen powered vehicles instead of electric vehicles to start with? hydrogen vehicles would be more favored than electric vehicles.
@@Will-ef2tw cargo trains are used today for long distances in Europe but truck are needed to connect the unload hubs to the redistribution centers but will take 16 hours from paris to Lisbon by truck and 30 hours by train .
Starting simple is a better idea. Both industries require a huge amount of investment, and its better to funnel all the investment into the project with better ROI. Electric short haul transport is a smaller step and is probably more impactful, so I'd argue it's better to fund that industry first.
That doesn't seem to be best ROI to me unless it only considers short term returns. I'd say that Trains are a better ROI over their lifespan compared to electric short haul transport. With the more significant criteria for this being: 1) Less resources necessary for increasing the speed of technological development and new materials because it's a very mature technology (still can be developed further, just maybe at less resource usage). 2) In the short term, it has a foreseeable longer life span with some of the most efficient results we know to be possible, just based on the technological principles alone.
If you add batteries to the locomotives, you can then place overhead wires along various locations of the freight rail network to top those batteries off as the train is moving.
These would only transport from certain points. and would still require trucks to deliver to the city and even to the last mile. Combination of both could be a solution
@@zerotwo_.002 installing catanery wires over the entire freight rail network could be very cost prohibitive. Some sidings are rarely used so the return on investment would not be worth it. Adding battery packs helps mitigate the costs by reducing how many wires need to be installed. Also the battery packs enable the train engines to use regen braking, making them more efficient.
The only answer is Hybrid models, with all the different technologies being tested, it is imperative that the truck can adapt quickly and conveniently.
I think it’s best to have options, this will bring competition between industries that will only further hasten development of the technologies, fossil fuel included, my only concern is they all decide to choose one to save money and make it inefficient
I have the pleasure of working for a company that moves and dig up dirt, at times across rather large distances. I personally hope that Hydrogen trucks are still getting developed, despite the headstart of electricity. Mainly because electricity will likely never be a viable solution on its own to the needs that our company faces. More areas of industry working to cheapen and expand the hydrogen market would only help others for whom electricity will not be able to help, at least in the short term (5-10 years). Hybrids would be a good choice, which is partly what we work with already, except it is currently fossile fuels, which we hope to avoid the moment it becomes economicly viable. Thank you for the video, and I hope to hear more in the future of where this and adjacent areas are headed.
Where straight electric isn’t feasible companies can use a diesel electric hybrid like what is Edison motors. Also quick swappable batteries like those from Janis electric are another possible solution
There's absolutely no mention of the pollution caused due to the production of batteries in these vehicles and how they'll be handled after their life. How is this report made without that taken into consideration?
@@DWPlanetA But I don't suppose you've taken the energy spent on production of the batteries into consideration for calculating the efficiency of the EVs. Whereas you did similar for the hydrogen vehicles.
@@thereckon3592These pepole make me sick. They only think in the smallest easiest way possible that gives them the answer that they want, with out talking if service life, fire hazzard, life span, initill co2 emissions and so on...
Europe doesn't want to share clean air, but they are worried about the earth warming. The future of batteries and hydrogen is not in the global calculations, they have said "it has a cost".
If we want to produce clean hydrogen, electrolysis is probably our best option. However, to produce 1 kg of hydrogen fuel via electrolysis, you'll need to use ~50-55 kWh. The specific energy of 1 kg of hydrogen fuel is only around 40 kWh. So you're spending 50 kWh to get something that'll only give you 40 kWh. 🤔 It makes more sense to me to just use the electricity to charge a battery.
@@AccidentalScience You read wrong. Google North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), and see the recent results from its independent Run on Less program which tested several electric trucks in real-world conditions and released the data in real time.
This video made it sound as if there are too many unknowns, and charging time is definitely not an unknown. Truck drivers have legally mandated breaks, where the driver must have a rest as long as the charging time is less than this break then there is absolutely no problem. With cars right now Citroën are releasing their Ë-C3 which has a recharge time of 26 minutes and Volkswagen have just started the producing the first few ID.7 which have a recharge time of 25 minutes, and in 2025 VW will be releasing the ID.2 which also has a recharge time of 25 minutes but it costs a lot less 25,000 Euros which is a fraction more than the Citroën. There are some cars already in production that can recharge in 18 minutes, but it's from somewhere in Asia. This year at the Goodwood festival there was a demonstration prototype of a car that can recharge in 6 minutes, but that would take a few years to come to market. So basically the technology for fast charging is already here, it just has to be scaled up. Truck drivers will have to stop for more than 25 minutes so they will definitely be OK with the recharge times. As for the cost of the batteries in the trucks, if Volkswagen can make the ID.2 for 25,000 Euros (in 2025) and Citroën can make it's Ë-C3 right now for less than the ID.2, then after scaling things up it's not a problem. Diesel costs multiple times more than the cost of the truck and electricity is massively cheaper than diesel. Also EV's need less maintenance than diesel vehicles, which is another cost saving.
when you switch to electric then you need to put over head wires so you don't need to carry your own power, use steel weals to reduce friction, then line them up one by one so only the first truck has to break most of the air and hope we can get there in the next 100 years
@@williammeek4078 why lug batteries around and wait for them to charge when you can have power directly over your head? and use less power because steel wheels on steel tracks have lower friction?
A lot of people are going to talk about trains in the comments, but they're already at the limit of what trucks provide that trains do not. If you want trains to reach the same productivity as trucks, it needs to be some sort of transport system that brings items from A-B on a comparable route to roads, and also directly from a storage site directly into the business. This is a necessary progress, if we want to reach our goals and slash emissions from multiple sides of the pie.
Germanyhas trains converted to r un on hydrogen. Japan has done the Hydrogen thing best. a new Nuclear power station using some of its zero C02 output to produce clean Hydrogen, and whats left over to supply Co2 free electricity to industry. And then in France a new Hydrogen SUV from NamX that uses swappable capsules of Hydrogen gas, 4 I believe; each providing 800k m of range.So range 4 x 800km, 3200km .Where I live, for smallish 8-16kgLPG barbecue requirements outside every hardware store. where's a storage of "Swap & go LPG cylinders. At last, someone has thought to use the same concept for Hydrogen
Could hydrogen not be generated overnight when we are asleep using cheap rate electricity? And this could surely be carried out in our current petrol stations / garages - i.e. locally generated hydrogen to cut out the delivery costs to points of sales?
Many in media focus only on green hydrogen, and ignore regenerative grid theory, which uses all of the wasted electricity streams. I am not quite sure why they remain so ill advised at this late stage. Convert wasted electricity to hydrogen to cash in for generations.
@Tron-Jockey catalysts are being developed with aims to increase the efficiency of hydrogen production by electrolysis. One thing is sure here, and that's that's there's so much development and research going on that what is true today will be advanced on tomorrow - so watch this space !!
Calling it team H2 and team Battery is similar to calling it team Wind and team Solar. They all complete each other. All necessary against fossil fiels.
I think the focous needs to be on releasing the patents. I think ICE trucks would benefit from this a lot, as would batteries, Hydrogen production and much much more. The best ideas are patented and shelved and I am not sure if there is something entirely different like anti gravity that could be employed and do away with our energy conundrums entirely
Overhead wires. This could work with, hybrids, fuel cells, and fully electric. This can reduce the need for batteries. The only drawback is a massive upfront cost of installation.
The CEO of Daimler Truck, gave an interview on the subject BEV vs. FCEV trucks that provides a very clear and precise picture of this dilemma, it is a well-considered perspective that many are looking for! this is what he said: “It is simply the mathematical phenomenon that the first battery electric truck is relatively easy to charge; a hundred trucks are difficult, a thousand very expensive. And for 15,000, it is almost impossible to provide the electric power along a route. In terms of scaling, the investment costs for electricity requirements are exponential. With fuel cells, on the other hand, it is the other way around. It is impossible to set up a hydrogen infrastructure for one vehicle. It is extremely expensive for a hundred vehicles, but okay for a thousand. It becomes really interesting for ten thousand or more. But since we have to convert hundreds of thousands of vehicles in terms of drive systems, we need both.”
Why didn't he mentioned that to build one hydrogen refueling station will cost around 1 million bucks, while on BEV recharging station will be around 50k. And there is no reason why electrical grid could not sustain BEV's, especially when you consider the FACT that producing hydrogen requires around 60% MORE electricity in comparison to BEV's to move same distance. Does he have stocks in hydrogen or something?
I just hope that with this green transition, governments are really taking into consideration the fact that material requirements to build these batteries are present mostly in countries where unfriendly governments are in charge…
With Pepsi already running 1000+ mile/day routes with loaded electric trucks, there doesn't seem much room in the market left for hydrogen powered trucks.
Hydrogen and Batteries both look great at a high level, but once you start digging into the details, the hydrogen solution fails. Most hydrogen’s is grey (made from natural gas) not green which produces CO2 emissions so it’s not much better than just burning diesel. You then have the environmental impact of releasing hydrogen into the atmosphere as well, which slows methane from breaking down in the atmosphere causing an increase in global warming. Batteries are truly the answer. The only question is can we ramp up production of batteries and chargers fast enough to prevent the climate catastrophe.
4:21 You can produce Green Hydrogen at the fueling station itself, no need to transport Hydrogen. You only need, Electricity, Water and an Electrolizer to produce Hydrogen. That can be don at fueling station itself.
That is simply brainless repetition of the lies told by Hydrogen investors. Hydrogen is the future of NOTHING inside our atmosphere. Using electrolysis to create hydrogen is ridiculously expensive, and storing hydrogen is extremely difficult, and dangerous, because it leaks out of every container, and the liquid boils off at an alarming rate. Hydrogen reacts with pretty much everything, and almost instantly, creating massive explosions. Petrol on the other hand is extremely stable, and VERY difficult to ignite. Check the facts!
The presenter said hydrogen is 40% effective and batteries are 80% effective. The researcher said you need 3x more energy with hydrogen, and this is correct, but how the presenter said it it would be 2x differnce. The error is in the presenters efficiency number, and hydrogen has a loss of 75% not 60% as she says.
Trains. Trains are the answer. They are literally the most efficient land based transport, many times more efficient than truck, and can carry many hundreds more tons.
8:32 A megawatt charger is just four 250 kW chargers and many Tesla sites have dozens of 250 kW chargers. So not a big deal at all. Not to mention many trucks are doing local routes and can be charged at "only" 250 kW while loading / unloading.
I think a megawatt spike being thrown into the grid is nontrivial deal. That's about 250 homes going from nothing to peak power. I see my power lines struggle when I turn on a vacuum
@@Chasval US home are at peak power at 4000 W ? Are you sure ? Furthermore a 250 kW charger does not take 250 kW during the whole charge, it will be the same for a megawatt charger. Not to mention charging sites have batteries. Anyway, many industries consume far more electricity, in the US as everywhere in the world. And finally, as for cars, many charges will be done at lower power when the semi is parked, and off peak charges will be privileged since it will cost far less.
@@Chasval I have a supercharger site 5 km away from my home, with at least 24 stalls capable of 250 kW DC charging, why would the impact on the grid be higher than a 6 stalls capable of 1 MW DC charging ? And I do not struggle at all with my electricity, in fact I did not have any power outrage for decades (not even a one second outrage). So maybe France has a far better grid that the US (or wherever you live) but at least it proves that it is doable.
@@HybridsixtynineExactly this is one of the enemies. First of all oil companies, no comment for them, second the car-truck industry, they will loose the service that makes tons of money, the parts industry that will loose money, the goverments that loose money from the taxes on fuel. They can not tax electricity, they don't know if that electricity goes to a house or in a truck battery, there are companies that have solars on the roof, that have wind turbines, they can't tax them!!!!
They're both clean energies, but let's not forget that building a ton of batteries is more inefficient than a hydrogen fuel cell with an hydrogen tank, and will leave more residues at the end of its life. The winner will be the cheapest. I think right now batteries are better because they're more developed, but I think hydrogen is the future. As soon as we find a more efficient and cheap way to get hydrogen, it'll have no competition. The problem is that it's a technology that is in its early stages of development.
The lithium-ion battery which is used in EVs is made from various rare earth minerals and a huge amount of energy is needed to extract that minerals out and refine them. This process emits a massive amount of carbon dioxide and also these minerals are very limited in quantity and one day these resources will also get exhausted but Hydrogen can still be easily produced. Fuel cells may not be so developed as EVs are today but we should also focus on them and eventually the price of Hydrogen will drop.
Hey there! Yes, there are many challenges with lithium-ion batteries. We looked at an alternative kind of battery in this video 👉ruclips.net/video/-vobMl5ldOs/видео.html and we tackle Lithium specifically here 👉ruclips.net/video/gAZV1Ut6DDs/видео.html Let us know what you think ✨
You're right that the current cost is too high. We made a video exploring alternatives for lithium-ion batteries you can check out here 👉 "How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" ruclips.net/video/-vobMl5ldOs/видео.html
I've suspected that hydrogen fuel is better for heavier freight. This is because the fuel can be more centralized and service transport vehicles more economically. My hypothesis is that fueling long routes and heavy freight like ships, trains, and cargo trucks (in that order) would be the first and most likely to benefit from a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
People talking about trains forget that things do not simply get shipped from A to B. Trains cannot be the solution as you still need to transport the same amount of cargo from the trainstation to the factory or whatever. This would mean even more trucks would be needed. Also, speaking for Germany, many if not most trucks traveling the autobahn in Germany are not even German, it's often a transit or international exchange which again isn't helped by Germany getting a better train system, if at all we'd need that Europe-wide, still at it's destination you again need trucks and the same amount as before to be in any ways as fast in delivery and do not forget that many trucks also don't simply go from A to B but they drive from A to G to B to C back to A. Trains cannot do this efficiently.
Extra parts? They dont require large lithium ion batteries(fuel cell electric vehicles are much better for europe's gdp since you dont have to import overpriced materials. It means that higher percentage of the vehicle's price is added to our gdp and less is going to indonesia) those are fuel cell electric. Hydrogen is currently expensive because of r&d costs and supply demand issues but all of them will be solved. Even mining machines and construction vehicles will be powered by hydrogen.
@@jaegar2004 hydrogen vehicles as well are only 40% efficient 💀 electric vehicles are 93% efficient. Hydrogen is dead before it even began, you’ll see.
Question, what is the safer of the two option presented in this video? We know batteries can be highly dangerous once they catch fire and the fire departments do not know if they are really out, so what is the risk with Hydrogen?
Hey Dennis! There are a lot of safety measures in place with hydrogen vehicles. The gas is highly flammable but the main safety measures is the thermal pressure relief device (TPRD) on the tank. This one would discharge if the vehicle was engulfed in a fire. There are a lot of safety sensors which would for example lead to an automatically programmed shut down in case of a leak or impact. Therefore, obviously there will always remain safety issues with every car but the hydrogen vehicles have a lot of measures in place and are further developed. If you are interested, you will find more info easily online.
I would say it like this, in my opinion - battery trucks for the city transportation and hydrogen and fossil trucks for long ranges (200+ miles per cargo)
Moving heavy batteries consumes more energy and is inefficient. Battery technology is still evolving. It's not practical unless it has much higher energy density, lightweight, preferably portable, and less deteriorating. Hydrogen energy density is also low. Thus, plug-in improved battery + hydrogen fuel cell or ICE for last miles and electric cargo train in the trunk lines is the best combination. Btw, not only automobiles but also the entire life cycle of any products should be as sustainable as possible. Shifting the pollution by greenhouse gas emissions to the environmental destruction and soil pollution by lithium and rare earth mining in certain areas is not necessarily justified.
I like electricity because electricity can’t be controlled by few greedy companies like oil companies , if we go hydrogen , what is happening to oil right now will happen to hydrogen too
@@chrishar110 Pretty good, but that would only be enough for a tiny part of the total hydrogen demand. Also: in the future we will have far fewer oil rigs in the world.
@@Simon-dm8zv I think that you misunderstood me. They are sure that they will loose money and they talk about hydrogen so they will delay the development of electric cars-truck.
@@joelsambrano6356 The metals needed to make a batery that lasts only 5-10 years make more CO2 from mining that the normal car makes in its entire lifespan, giving the fact that tons of electric cars were imported into europe on huge tankers with make more CO2
Sill amused that we’re still having this discussion. Green Hydrogen takes 3 times the amount of electricity to produce so it is a wasteful solutions. And as long as drivers aren’t to drive without rest the discussion about recharging are just nonsense… So batteries are the future solution and let’s leave hydrogen for the few use cases where there is no alternative, like steel production.
Both. Mining and heavy use will never be able to use batteries very well. Also the US and Australia transport cargo by truck much further than any other countries on Earth. The US should utilize cargo (freight) trains much more, but they do not. Australia does not have the tracks to move cargo by train across the country. Australia is better off using ships to go by sea, but this will only ever serve the majority of the population who live near oceans. The rest of the country will be left out. Not something that is feasible because it ignores the food growers across large expanses of the interior. These will always rely on trucks. Australia also relies on the truck train for long distance shipping. That is a number of trailers pulled by 1 tractor truck (semi in US parlance). This is just too much weight to be pulled by batteries. 3 markets perfectly suited to the strengths of hydrogen. You could develop hydrogen generation along the routes designated, at points which will allow refueling before they run out. Providing also a break for drivers.
For a small niche market, we might as well use diesel. A small amount of emission is fine. There are ways to absorb CO2. Planting trees for example. It is about the quantity.
You're right,the hydrogen game has just started and India will be the largest producer of clean hydrogen.Batteries still need some need materials as cobalt and lithium is hard to obtain from grounds and cause more pollution then coal.
As you pointed out, hydrogen costs 6 times the amount of energy for the same results. There is the safety concern. Hydrogen is more explosive than gasoline. I would not want to be involved in a hydrogen truck accident. While both gasoline and hydrogen accidents result in the burning of fuel, The hydrogen would be much quicker and more forceful. I hope that battery evolution will overcome the perception of the danger of battery fires.
I don't know how electric cars are super safe for environment. No one tells how batteries are produced and how much emission produced in manufacturing a battery pack how can we make it cost effective.
just build more trains. Trains can hold more cargo, they're super efficient, and they can be electrified without the use of batteries. Electrified rails can be powered by one big engine and still be better for the environment, plus they can easily be converted into clean energy in the future.
Yeah but just for local deliveries. You will still need trucks make deliveries from the train to a store or wherever. also we should build places that need these deliveries near the station so you could even reduce the number trucks needed.
Well, lorries are used in so many diverse ways, some move 10-30 tons over a distance of less than 50km ie in local distribution and they would run fine on battery meanwhile others move 60+ tons over a distance of over 800km and they would need h2 so companies need to focus on both technologies.
A fairly balanced presentation. But the more you think about it, the more obvious it becomes that BEV is the only viable/economical solution. Tesla already proving real-world day ranges over 1000 miles possible. Personally I think swappable batteries overcomes most of the concerns about BEV; smaller lighter battery on board, fast “refuel” time, access to slower cheaper electricity. The “spare” batteries even have a dual role in arbitrage (buying cheap, selling during peak period). So I’ll happily take a bet with anyone who thinks HFC will ever have any significance in heavy goods road transport.
Batteries are right now too heavy and unsuitable for heavy hauling. A full capacity truck will cut the range down by half. Plus the raw materials needed are a limited resource. Battery life is also a concern with degradation over time, they will need to be replaced at least one. H2 is the better bet long term and stable in terms of performance over it's lifetime.
Do you know that by law you have to replace hydrogen tanks every 2-3 years? You said batteries cut the range, why? You stop for a mandatory break, you can top up your battery. You can't drive for 15 hours without a break. Limited recourses, mmmm diesel is unlimited, right? Or do you think that hydrogen is free and you can collect it without cost? Battery degradation, first gen batteries are still in use after 10 years, and when they don't meet the criteria they use them at houses to get power from solars and to stabilise peaks of the grid. H2 is 2.5 times less efficient that battery-powered cars-trucks. It needs 30% more power to produce it, needs +20-25% power to compress it to 3000 bars and needs trucks to move it from where it is produced to H2 stations. And is has max 70% efficiency on fuel cells and 40% efficiency in ICEngines
@@chrishar110 your argument is based on outdated old tech. Plus you are comparing low Mileage consumer car to high mileage commercial semi trucks. Range and efficiency has been debunked from the US department of Energy report evaluating the full production life of batteries to recycling CO2 cost and h2 wins out in efficiency. This is why the IRA is spending 10 billion on h2 infrastructure and only 1.3 on grid power.
Intelligent battery swap management that ensures heavy long haul trucks gets the newest, high capacity batteries, and the older chemistry batteries with more cycles (less range) gets used for shorter trips or less heavy loads (Rockwool or crisps) the key is standardization across brands!
@@Simon-dm8zv no it is not. It is not as efficient as diesel or battery if ran through cell but it is easily transportable over large distances and thus doesn't need expensive grid projects behind it like megawat electric chargers mentioned in this video + it is directly combustible. Everyone is focusing on fuel cells but there are companies already making functional engine prototypes that combust hydrogen.
@@lamebubblesflysohighCombusting hydrogen is even more inefficient than using it in a fuel cell. Cost per mile will be outrageous, nobody is going to use it. Everybody is focussing on batteries which is what the vast majority of trucks will be using. Some corner cases might be relying on hydrogen fuel cells but that's it.
the internal combustion engine has been around for more than a hundred years, and they have had alot of time to improve upon the tech, but the reality is, the efficiency of ICE, is still pretty damn low, roughly low 30ish percent. Battery tech hasn't been really improved upon until last few years, and already its been proven that it can work, give it another decade or so, battery will over take ICE, and ICE will be a thing in the past
Both is good. Less emissions. It is up to the industry to decide which is more a better investment. As mentioned, it needs infrastructure available especially for hydrogen stations.
Why is no one talks about balancing the power production. If one can keep producing in the most cost-efficient way... without stopping and starting turbines. One would save so much on production loss. During low demand, bank the excess electricity in gigawatt stationary battery banks... and use it at peak demand. Key is in a well-balanced, consistent production and distribution. Why is no one talking about that?
Wdym? Everyone is talking about this. The issue is the cost of batteries and having to install synchronous condensers. Additionally, the areas where many turbines and solar panels go are not where the old power plants used to be. Meaning a huge other cost of building new transmission lines.
Trouble is, we need to have electricity available to millions of homes, business, industry, cars and all types of vehicles. The current infrastructure is not upto providing this. Certainly not in the UK. So we need to look into ways we can provide the mass needs of electricity without nuclear power stations and all the problems it entails. The mining of metals for batteries needs to be addressed. Yes we mine for metals for electronics, but the mass we need to do this to have every vehicle electric is extremely damaging to the environment. There is a wealth of things that are not being addressed in order to have electric vehicles.
The hydrogen industry needs to focus on plane jet engines and ships, those are the only vehicles that will benefit from hydrogen fuel cell. Everything else will be battery electric.
We've already had a clean, faster and electric form of transportation than can haul 100 times the tonnage of what a truck can do for over a century. They are called trains. The easiest way to cut down truck emissions is to invest in more freight rail infrastructure to get more trucks off the road.
True, but many European countries have great rail networks and still have insane numbers of trucks on the road.
@@Simon-dm8zv their freight rail infrastructure is far from perfect.
@@sanitygone-l9y Are you envisioning an extremely dense network? Would be nice, but also has its problems like cutting up landscapes and neighborhoods. Or do you mean replacing existing roads by train tracks?
and trains don't require nearly as much land + bridges, highways, roads, parking lots, and tons of other infrastructure needed to support car & truck ownership. we have to stop paving over nature and bring back the train.
@@Simon-dm8zv Where I live major lines need to be replaced in the next 30 years ago. There is a lot of room for improvement for existing lines.
For heavy loads on middle and distances we already have trains. The rail infrastructure here in Germany is far behind the Netherlands or Switzerland but I think it's still the best option to invest in it if we wanna meet our climate goals.
For the remaining trips and to reach places without rail connections, Electric trucks are the most efficient option so far.
Being from the Netherlands our train network is full and is not growing with the speed of our economy...
We have a fairly decent rail network, but we have one of the highest population densitys for a "full size" country...
There is not enough space left for our passanger trains needed to be able to sit when travelling longer distances.
In theory our passenger trains have priority over the cargo trains... But passenger train priority makes a rail network inefficient, if you have no passenger train priority you get an American style rail network... It will be the most efficient in the world, like the US has now, but it would take forever to travel by passenger train...
You could turn it around, have the most efficient passenger train network and not do cargo... Its probably a lot cheaper to let trucks use the road and put passengers in trains then let people drive and transport goods by rail... So i think electric trucks (or battery or h2) could have a future far more important then the future for electric cars, also the youht does not care about driving (world wide, in general)...
The main problem with electric vehicles is the West ability to source the materials needed to build tons of those batteries.
Many of the required materials are mined in some countries with unstable political landscape. It could easily get shut down in a single night.
@@nntflow7058The reason for that is western countries don't want to deal with the huge pollution from these mines. Lithium mines are way more pollluting than iron mines, plenty of attempts have been made to open some in America, Australia and Canada and nearly all of them were stopped by environmental red tape.
@@noseboop4354 Currently, only US have significant amount of lithium that are easily accessible, Australia got decent amount of them but Canada's geographical feature made it more expensive and difficult to mined them. EU basically got almost none.
Cobalt is even worse. Half of them are located in Congo. And only Australia got 20% of them. Which is not enough to satisfy Australia/New Zealand, EU, US/Canada and East Asia. The rest are miniscule.
We cannot just talk about Production, we need to talk about Reserve instead. Because even though australia got decent amount of minerals in their territory, they are gonna starting to run out of it soon if they keep increasing the production. The don't have the largest reserve of lithium.
Trains, ships, heavy farm and Ming equipment will need hydrogen.
Even for militaries, hydrogen will be a better option.
We need both.
Best Option is to get as much Cargo on the rails as possible.(Like it used to be)
Then use electric for the last few miles. Hydrogen is too expensive and valuable to waste it that inefficiently.
It takes a ton of energy to compress and cool hydrogen.
Yes! Under-subscribed comment 👆🏼
Steel-on-steel will always be more efficient than rubber on tar. And the limited degrees of freedom on rail potentiates efficiencies up and down the chain.
Also good to ask where the hydrogen is coming from and what the net energy/environment calculus actually looks like. We know carbon credits are a scam because of b.s. calculations, so be wary of silver bullets and techno-utopian and pro-capitalist/growth perspectives in general.
electric is also on its way out, without even beginning.. look at what Ford are doing, they say due to cost and customer demand, but it's not just that. They are halting all their EVs and cutting back on battery plant that was being made. Rail should be used for freight i agree
@@multitablez7825 What are you talking about? Global EV sales are approaching 20% of global new auto sales this year continuing the rapid growth of years past.
Ford's EVs are both worse and more expensive than Tesla--it's a product problem, not a demand or other problem. Tesla's global days of inventory at the end of Q3 was 16--half that of any other large automaker, 1/4 that of a "normal market" of 60 days supply. Legacy autos want to keep milking ICE profits till we all die in societal collapse to climate change. Tesla and Chinese automakers will put most of legacy autos out of business over the coming decade with EVs that are good, profitable, and much cheaper than ICE vehicles as costs continue to decline. Legacies have been trying to prevent EVs for decades and will go extinct just like the dinosaurs they insist on burning.
@@multitablez7825electric is not on its way out
ok, but Tesla is one company. Ford is also 1 company of many who are going to cut back on EVs... not saying EVs are going away, i am saying that gas is here to stay. Esp for freight, i can't see EV trucks lasting. Poor range, fire hazards, and nothing beats power of a diesel or gas powered truck, going up hills, pulling torque etc. When electric will use heaps of battery to do the same. Our power grids couldn't handle all the charging. @@tHebUm18
Hydrogen is the future - since the 1970ies...
Hydrogen is NOT the future.
Same as nuclear fusion
Same as realistic battery density.
@@dipladonic 1972 Munich Olympic Games saw the BMW 2002 electric which was able to cover marathon distance...
No chance for cars and trucks maybe ships n planes
In India, government working on hydrogen, hybrid and bio diesel technology.
while currently they made a whole electric freight rail networks system called Dedicated Front Corrider, which connects all major cities, industrial areas and only freight rails can run on this tracks. And these tracks are now open by current government. Which are cheap mode of transport and eco friendly.
Hydrogen is horrible. The only way we get hydrogen fuel is by creating carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is not a good fuel source.
Do you mean Freight corridor
@@ArghyaMalik-dd3fy yes
Indian rail infrastructure is awesome. India is developing rapidly.
And trains are the best way of freight transportation.
If you implement Hydrogen factories into your electricity grid you can use them to stabilize it. In the European Market you can get paid as a negative consumer, means you turn off your factory during peak. And you can increase consumption when energy is cheap. In Germany already now, price for electricity goes below zero at least two times per week.
Realistically, electric. If we get grid energy too cheap to meter, hydrogen all the way.
That will never happen, this was a slogan from the nuclear industry which was wrong.
@@matthiaskreidenweismaybe he was being sarcastic.
Once again, trains solve all our problems and small electric trucks could drive small distance from train station to final destination, but people don't want trains. They would rather build train infrastructure above highways, than to use already superior trains...
Public transit will not get you where you want or when you want....plus it's nice just to sit in your car or on your motorcycle to watch the sun set for example
it's not that people don't want something - people don't care about anything. It's the fossil lobby who is massively pushing for hydrogen - because it will take decades before hydrogen is even remotely commercially viable, but once there is demand for it, it can be manufactured from natural gas comparatively cheaply...
There is huge investment in trains going on in Europe including the massive tunnel TELT Lyon Turin and investments in railways going to India and the Middle East recently announced besides the already good rail infrastructure in Europe connecting even China. But trucks have its reason to be. We can not just cut metropolis with railways and bring then to every medium city. Therefore we need more efficient trucks too.
There is Shift2Rail initiative too
Come on, all you gotta do is wait for 15 minutes until the next train/bus arrive@@russ549
Best way is to invest in freight rail so that each city/town is already reachable through that and complement that with electric trucks which has operation range of less than 300 km.
Yep, a perfect combination. Trains with EV trucks (hyrdogen or battery) will be most efficient solution for that. Even more so if the trains are electric as well.
I think Tesla is proving you wrong
@@kornkernel2232electric this electric that. If there is no proper Renewable source of energy then you are still burning coal.
Its like dieting. Oh I'll just eat half a pint of ice cream every 2 days to lose weight instead of minimizing it more or forgoing it entirely
The best way to invest in freight is to invest in Hyliion and Karno
@@forte609 Fossil this Fossil that it's going to run out anyway the question is how many people die in between.
As an engineer knowledgeable of what is being developed, I can honestly state, it’s not battery driven electric power trains.
All engineering development that I am aware of falls into two categories
1- Producing more HP/liter, allowing for smaller/lighter IC engines ( current goal is to achieve 200hp/liter @ 70mpg
2- Develop Hydrogen to eventually replace gasoline/diesel For IC engines.
….
I expect us to wind up with 4 technologies, in the future…
1- Micro Inner city, BEV, with limited range (
The biggest problem with charging from the grid is the fact your relying on instant supply of power. You turn on a light bulb and a power station has to instantly produce additional power to handle that. Fine for a light bulb but scaled to a +350kwh charger for a truck and then multiply it to multiple trucking companies and thats a hell of a lot of power. You imagine the infrastructure you'd need to scale up and down to handle the load changes.
Hydrogens biggest benerfit is it can be produced when the powers available and stored. Such that you can rely on solar and wind which supplies predictable but intermittent power to produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen then can be converted at will back into power to run the truck ect.
The efficiency loss through conversion is worth it when you consider the hydrogen is energy storage.
Hydrogen has the place for heavy duty and long range applications. Though BEV has the best case for light vehicle, commute applications. Something that doesnt need to be fast charged to give you a reasonable charge time.
Public transportation especially trains are the best for commute.
Trains are also the best for freight hauling. As for the last mile freight delivery I would prefer hydrogen semis over battery electric. In places like California they are over producing electricity in noon times. And the best thing about hydrogen is you can produce it onsite with an electrolyzer.
Mining trucks are still debating battery vs hydrogen fuel cell with Caterpillar taking an early lead with a bet in battery, but the unique conditions of mines - extremely heavy loads and relatively short distances - changes the decision-making process. The cost of hydrogen will be a big factor for the mining industry here as well.
Can we get any articles on same
Diesel is good
@@gobimurugesan2411Oil has already peaked dude, and that's not even mentioned climate change look at the ice caps
@@sambones1092 Diesel less costs. U Europeans go electric. We will go electric in 2050.
@@gobimurugesan2411 At the US oil consumption rate, oil will get so scarce that it's ll be 20€ a liter by 2050, and I take you don't believe in ice melt and wildfires and heatwaves from climatechange ?
Trucks, are fine for small scale delivery and for remote areas. But everywhere else we should switch exclusively to TRAINS.
They do in Japan. Seen it first hand. Works way way better.
@@bar8665Japan is also not a superpower. Trains are not enough. Japan is a tiny group of Islands. The US is a large mass of land. Train routes can't cover every nook and cranny of the land. That's why trucks exist
@PermanentHigh Japan is 93.57% the size of California... If their country was bigger, they wouldn't say, "Oh, well forget what works awesome and expanding on that".
@@bar8665 That's not how shit works. What works for a small geographical area is generally not gonna work for a far larger area simply by "expanding what works"
That means you will have to cut down more land to build railroads increasing deforestation problems
I always thought that the trouble with electric trucks was that the batteries are heavy so they eat into the weight that the truck is permitted to carry on the roads.
Yes, but not as much as had been feared, US adds 2,000 lb to the 80,000 lb limit for low emission vehicles, and it looks like that's enough. The volume (space) taken up by long range hydrogen tanks is the flip side of the same coin.
The weight is a factor but charging time hasn't changed and each truck needs a Megawatt charger for about 8 hrs to go 500miles /800km. Where as diesel has 1000miles/1600km with a 5 minute fuel stop (truck stop pump move fuel much faster than passenger pumps)
Then ask yourself how are the roads being funded when EVs weigh more put are not paying fuel taxes.
You're math skills are a bit off I think. A truck uses 1,1 kW per km. So to drive 800 km you need 880kWh. A megawatt charger charges 1000kW. So to fill up a 880kWH battery it needs to run 880/1000 of an hour. That is 53 minutes, not 8 hours.
@@bartvandenpoel8568 efficiency rules all. Can't charge at max power or battery will explode and more systems are used than just the motors during driving plus elevation changes and are your numbers at max load?
@@bartvandenpoel8568Of course you are perfectly right, but as you can see with the following comment, being right on basic maths does nothing if one has already decided that EVs are bad. Haters gonna hate.
The USA was built on the railroad, theres no excuse that we can’t do that again.
Freight railroads in the USA could have been 100% electric decades ago.
Hydrogen fuel cell combined with electric motors are the future of Railroads.
As a Commercial OTR Truck Driver for 25 years in the USA, I see the competition and we need cooperation for all clean energy Truck systems.
Overhead electric lines could provide electricity to electric truck pantographs.
Sending the money to all other country’s
from 7:46，it is a typical scenario in China that some cities are using EV trucks. These trucks are modified from traditional truck and they use some space between head and compartment. They can be deployed in short range haul missions and easy to replace battery.
Competition is a great motivator, and I think companies should focus on developing both. In the end, you have redundancy so we won't repeat a reliance on a single source as we have been with oil.
Hydrogen already lost the competition. Some companies just can’t afford to admit that they bet wrong.
@@williammeek4078 and i say the hydrogen its the future , and many companies are already shifting to hydrogen .
@@CMeosuarra based on what? Real world data only from commercially available vehicles please.
Or you know invest in rails so long haul distances should be removed and trucks should be used on the shorter routes.
@@CMeosuarra I wouldn't bet money on hydrogen. Hydrogen has many many limitations that make it unlikely to match BEVs for cost and efficiency. There is a great deal of material out there which gives you the reasons behind the limitations of both BEVs and hydrogen trucks. Hydrogen even in the best case, has far more limitations and will be more expensive due to the differences in theoretical efficiency.
As an aside, do you know why hydrogen was even considered as an option? Because it sounds good and will fool the stupid. Take hydrogen, burn it, it mixes with oxygen and water comes out the rear. That's the seller. What is the reason behind it? Just like a murder, follow the money and motive. It is because 94% of the worlds hydrogen is produced via the gas reforming process. In other words the fossil fuel industry wants to keep extracting and selling gas.
Well done for producing a balanced and factual comparison, that's a rare thing for this topic! Hydrogen has so many disadvantages and so few advantages that its application will be niche at best - and, realistically, will struggle to compete against the flood of second hand diesel trucks on the market when so many routes will be served by battery-electric due to the low running costs. Battery supply is a major bottleneck (e.g. it delayed the Tesla Semi launch for years) but hopefully that will get solved soon.
Hydrogen still has some key advantages, and it is another sustainable technological pathway with plenty of opportunity for improvement. Overall efficiency will probably get within one-half of BEVs by 2030, and the infrastructure should be able to expand considerably faster than building out all the new transmission/distribution required. Yes, more generation will be needed, but this is probably much less of a problem as we move to advanced nuclear for its scalability and low environmental footprint. In the meantime, the energy flow of fossils can be used to quickly achieve an economy of scale. There is also the possibility of using pyrolysis with natural gas to avoid CO2 emissions, which could be cheaper and safer than sequestration.
And then there are the other sectors of industry that will benefit from the wide availability of sustainable, low/zero-emission H2: ammonia production for fuel and fertilizer, aviation, rail, and maritime shipping.
@@cbarcushydrogen is by nature less efficient than electric. So any infrastructure that lacks for battery recharging production would be bad for hydrogen as well. And you get supplement that with stationary storage to reduce peak load which is what Tesla is doing with their mega charger installations.
They could have brought out the Semi earlier but they obviously made more money selling 10-15 Model Ys instead of one Semi.
@@cbarcus Yes I've heard that narrative many times before: "Let's pursue hydrogen because although it's horribly inefficient and largely pointless right now, in the future we'll have magical technologies that make all the troubles go away. And in the meantime, we can just keep using fossil fuels to make the hydrogen." Do you own oil company shares or do you just work for them?
@@robertide5182
We completely agree that H2 has an inherent disadvantage in efficiency, but that can be compensated for by its other advantages. The infrastructure requirements are not the same, and I am not sure why you would believe that to be the case. Not having to integrate with a power grid should allow a much higher growth in generation capacity, especially as advanced high temperature fission reactors come online.
Fuel cell efficiency is expected to rise from about 50% today to perhaps 70% by 2030. Today, the packaging of H2 storage within vehicles is an incredible challenge, but there has been a breakthrough in solid state storage which could largely address this issue for even light duty vehicles. As an economy of scale is reached by the end of the decade, the production and distribution of H2 will greatly improve in efficiency, so much so that H2 stations may also serve as charging depots for BEVs. A new high-flow standard for H2 (H70HF) will enable an effective fill rate in excess of 10 MW, whereas the new mega charging standard will be around 1-3 MW. H2 delivery should easily end up being competitive with the current Supercharging rates of $0.25-0.50/kWh.
Also, endurance racing will, in a few years, see a new class of H2 race cars; see Mission H24.
Weight is not just about just the payload but the whole vehicle. Think weight restriction on certain bridges or roads. There H2 has a huge adavantage but at the end of the day I think there's a place for both technologies
Why did they never mention the weight of the batteries? Because it would not fit their agenda?
Batteries for a truck weigh around 8 tons while the max load is 40 tons.
And the weight will always be there, no matter if the batteries are empty or full.
So truck A can still move 40 tons of cargo, but truck B only 32 tons.
This is not economical viable for a freight forwarder if he can move 20% less than the competition.
I think it is an unbalanced, unneutral report that is more intended to convey an opinion than to inform people about all the pros and cons.
Otherwise they would have shown the ONLY thing that matters: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen? In the end it's an industry and the one who does not save costs is out of business VERY quickly.
@@jules-u4pMost trucks don’t carry their maximum capacity. The trucks that some to my store are never being filled to max, those could easily be replaced with battery powered trucks. If combined with good rail transportation, most trucks could be replaced with battery powered ones as they shouldn’t need to drive all too far.
Of course there are some long distance and heavy haul applications that will remain so personally, I’d say ICE trucks can be continued to be used in those niches until a solution is found
@@goldenalbatross9462Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.
@@flemlion13 "Keep running things in order" is a good further point. Trucks for food or pharma do not only need to carry the weight, but the whole cargo has to be refrigerated the whole time, consuming a lot of energy. So the range of the Volvo FH Electric for example, which is stated 345 km on the Volvo homepage, is even less.
Traffic jams will therefore also become much more expensive, they cut into your range and time loss much deeper.
However, it still may be worth in some applications, I don't know, I don't have a truck each. But as said, therefore the makers of this clip should have researched the most important fact: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen?
@@flemlion13 How would the trailer "autonomously" create energy? By magic?
It cooling unit is of course connected to the engine.
"Consumption of a cooling unit is approx. 2.5 liters of diesel per hour"
oh and this is news from 2020:
"For the first time, a semi-trailer truck is supposed to supply itself with electrical energy and become independent of its diesel engine and its pollutants. The German medium-sized company Schmitz Cargobull invented the drive. Now the first test drive starts."
So no, your statement is wrong, it's pretty much standard that the trailer is supplied with energy by the truck.
Congratulations. Very well made video. Mostly this comparison is not made in such a balanced and well informed way.
Is it though? Where's the mention about pollution caused by the mining for the battery? About the recycling process?
@@thereckon3592 No such thing in the minds of agenda pushers. Technical facts doesn't matter to them. Nobody cares about question of where are we gonna make the electricity to power all the vehicles also.
There will probably be an application for both. Even if the electric grid will be capable of supplying fast charging for trucks here in Europe in the future, there may be markets where hydrogen will be a more realistic option.
A really good point on where hydrogen will probably make a lot more sense is delivery to very remote locations. We forget oftentimes that all the advantages that electric has all assume an existing power grid, we forget that there are still large areas that aren't connected to the grid. This is obviously a niche application, but that niche is still going to represent a large market on a global scale.
@@smileyeagle1021this entire video is illogical. The cheapest way to obtain hydrogen is through fossil fuels. Even if there is a way to obtain it through a renewable means it will not make as much profit. Hydrogen is a horrible energy source and should not be used at any means. Full green energy and electric vehicles is the way and we just need to adapt. These companies that have refused to go green like shell and bp only refuse because it is not an exploitative resource.
@@AtarahMataTry adding Li-ion battery packs to aircraft or cargo ships.
The trend is favourable for the electric vehicles. It is a matter of mass scale.
@huanghermann5207 Hydrogen can be a succes when white hydrogen becomes a big thing. If it can be drilled just as easy as natural gas, it will probably cost just as much as natural gas.
The more solutions we have the better it will be. I support diversification over total electrification.
I think anybody who talks about possible uses of green hydrogen should always mention that the first, most urgent need is for fertilizer production decarbonisation. For green hydrogen, we are not starting from zero, but from *minus* 70 million tons/year.
you mean hydrogen production emits 70 million tons of co2 per year?
@@raptorthegamer5524 No, 70 million tons is current hydrogen used for fertilizer production. Albeit indirectly, we actually eat coal and methane, as precursors for the hydrogen inputs to the haber-bosch cycle.
@@markotrieste LOL almost all current hydrogen comes from fossil fuels 🤣
@@ultrastoat3298 Exactly what I am saying.
We probably shouldn't overlook hydrogen just yet. It could still be one of the only feasible option in industries like airlines. Also just like batteries have evolved over the years, hydrogen too could get more efficient with rapid advancements in technology.
If you like hydrogen, please also check out our video dedicated to it fully here 👉 ruclips.net/video/AGTjKJHu99c/видео.html.
What makes you think aviation is going to continue to exist?
@@gcvrsa It is one of the fastest and safest modes of transport. I believe people need to think out of geographical boundaries and consider the entire planet.
@@gcvrsa What makes you think it won't?
Hydrogen will get more efficient; the only reason electric batteries are where they're at now is because of governments forcing people to switch to electric cars and pushing how great electric cars are when they are not really that great, imagen if they pushed hydrogen powered vehicles instead of electric vehicles to start with? hydrogen vehicles would be more favored than electric vehicles.
When it comes to trucks, ... you Just can't beat a good Strong Diesel. It makes good economic sense !!
According to ‘cleanairpeople’ 😂
Problem is breathing noxious diesel fumes, thats why this is more than preference.
Seems like great progress? For long distances… trains still seem to be the best option tho!
Trains are a lot slower them trucks but they are part of the solution
@@Will-ef2tw cargo trains are used today for long distances in Europe but truck are needed to connect the unload hubs to the redistribution centers but will take 16 hours from paris to Lisbon by truck and 30 hours by train .
Starting simple is a better idea. Both industries require a huge amount of investment, and its better to funnel all the investment into the project with better ROI. Electric short haul transport is a smaller step and is probably more impactful, so I'd argue it's better to fund that industry first.
That doesn't seem to be best ROI to me unless it only considers short term returns.
I'd say that Trains are a better ROI over their lifespan compared to electric short haul transport.
With the more significant criteria for this being:
1) Less resources necessary for increasing the speed of technological development and new materials because it's a very mature technology (still can be developed further, just maybe at less resource usage).
2) In the short term, it has a foreseeable longer life span with some of the most efficient results we know to be possible, just based on the technological principles alone.
What about huge freight train networks?
Edited for clarification: I meant freight trains as part of a sustainable transport network.
If you add batteries to the locomotives, you can then place overhead wires along various locations of the freight rail network to top those batteries off as the train is moving.
@@legostud thats a terrible idea overhead cantelivers are far more reliable and dont require any rare earth material to function
These would only transport from certain points. and would still require trucks to deliver to the city and even to the last mile. Combination of both could be a solution
@@jamie3226Thank you😊
@@zerotwo_.002 installing catanery wires over the entire freight rail network could be very cost prohibitive. Some sidings are rarely used so the return on investment would not be worth it. Adding battery packs helps mitigate the costs by reducing how many wires need to be installed.
Also the battery packs enable the train engines to use regen braking, making them more efficient.
The only answer is Hybrid models, with all the different technologies being tested, it is imperative that the truck can adapt quickly and conveniently.
Worst of both worlds.
@@Simon-dm8zvhow so
We need both. Electric can be for short distances and Hydrogen for long haul freight.
@MichaelMengo Well, with battery swapping EV trucks can be used for long haul freight as well.
@@NederlandsTransatlanticus I agree since many do rest stops which would be ideal for a swap
I think it’s best to have options, this will bring competition between industries that will only further hasten development of the technologies, fossil fuel included, my only concern is they all decide to choose one to save money and make it inefficient
I have the pleasure of working for a company that moves and dig up dirt, at times across rather large distances. I personally hope that Hydrogen trucks are still getting developed, despite the headstart of electricity. Mainly because electricity will likely never be a viable solution on its own to the needs that our company faces. More areas of industry working to cheapen and expand the hydrogen market would only help others for whom electricity will not be able to help, at least in the short term (5-10 years).
Hybrids would be a good choice, which is partly what we work with already, except it is currently fossile fuels, which we hope to avoid the moment it becomes economicly viable.
Thank you for the video, and I hope to hear more in the future of where this and adjacent areas are headed.
Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.
@@stevenverrall4527 Too inefficient.
Hydrogen trucks will always be far more inefficient. The vast majority of trucks will be battery electric, also the ones hauling dirt.
Where straight electric isn’t feasible companies can use a diesel electric hybrid like what is Edison motors.
Also quick swappable batteries like those from Janis electric are another possible solution
JCB has done the same.
There's absolutely no mention of the pollution caused due to the production of batteries in these vehicles and how they'll be handled after their life. How is this report made without that taken into consideration?
Plenty of life cycle analysis reports available about this.
Hey! We tackle the afterlife of an EV battery in this video 👉 ruclips.net/video/PbOBmnZRpZ4/видео.html
@@DWPlanetA But I don't suppose you've taken the energy spent on production of the batteries into consideration for calculating the efficiency of the EVs. Whereas you did similar for the hydrogen vehicles.
@@thereckon3592These pepole make me sick. They only think in the smallest easiest way possible that gives them the answer that they want, with out talking if service life, fire hazzard, life span, initill co2 emissions and so on...
Europe doesn't want to share clean air, but they are worried about the earth warming. The future of batteries and hydrogen is not in the global calculations, they have said "it has a cost".
If we want to produce clean hydrogen, electrolysis is probably our best option. However, to produce 1 kg of hydrogen fuel via electrolysis, you'll need to use ~50-55 kWh. The specific energy of 1 kg of hydrogen fuel is only around 40 kWh. So you're spending 50 kWh to get something that'll only give you 40 kWh. 🤔
It makes more sense to me to just use the electricity to charge a battery.
Obviously battery operated vehicles should be preferred.
You should do a video on what Tesla and Pepsi are doing to develop electric trucks. The results are promising.
I've read they have a range of 160 miles.
@@AccidentalScience You read wrong. Google North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), and see the recent results from its independent Run on Less program which tested several electric trucks in real-world conditions and released the data in real time.
That’s wrong, Pepsi are easily getting 450/500 miles
@@AccidentalScience Lol, you have low media literacy then. Its so very very very easy to dunk what you just said with 2 minutes on google.
The results are more the promising. Its the nail in the coffin.
This video made it sound as if there are too many unknowns, and charging time is definitely not an unknown. Truck drivers have legally mandated breaks, where the driver must have a rest as long as the charging time is less than this break then there is absolutely no problem.
With cars right now Citroën are releasing their Ë-C3 which has a recharge time of 26 minutes and Volkswagen have just started the producing the first few ID.7 which have a recharge time of 25 minutes, and in 2025 VW will be releasing the ID.2 which also has a recharge time of 25 minutes but it costs a lot less 25,000 Euros which is a fraction more than the Citroën. There are some cars already in production that can recharge in 18 minutes, but it's from somewhere in Asia.
This year at the Goodwood festival there was a demonstration prototype of a car that can recharge in 6 minutes, but that would take a few years to come to market.
So basically the technology for fast charging is already here, it just has to be scaled up. Truck drivers will have to stop for more than 25 minutes so they will definitely be OK with the recharge times.
As for the cost of the batteries in the trucks, if Volkswagen can make the ID.2 for 25,000 Euros (in 2025) and Citroën can make it's Ë-C3 right now for less than the ID.2, then after scaling things up it's not a problem. Diesel costs multiple times more than the cost of the truck and electricity is massively cheaper than diesel.
Also EV's need less maintenance than diesel vehicles, which is another cost saving.
Well there's already a huge lack for truck parking.
How could you possibly integrate charging infrastructure then?
@@no-damn-alias build more infrastructure
@@matthewbaynham6286 well I can see how that has worked for truck parking already
when you switch to electric then you need to put over head wires so you don't need to carry your own power, use steel weals to reduce friction, then line them up one by one so only the first truck has to break most of the air and hope we can get there in the next 100 years
Why bother with all of that when we already have battery electric trucks that can take 54,000 lb 500 miles on a single charge?
@@williammeek4078 why lug batteries around and wait for them to charge when you can have power directly over your head? and use less power because steel wheels on steel tracks have lower friction?
@@fulconandroadcone9488 because it is cheaper
The most important "part" is open-mindedness and a willingness to experiment.
A lot of people are going to talk about trains in the comments, but they're already at the limit of what trucks provide that trains do not.
If you want trains to reach the same productivity as trucks, it needs to be some sort of transport system that brings items from A-B on a comparable route to roads, and also directly from a storage site directly into the business.
This is a necessary progress, if we want to reach our goals and slash emissions from multiple sides of the pie.
Germanyhas trains converted to r un on hydrogen. Japan has done the Hydrogen thing best. a new Nuclear power station using some of its zero C02 output to produce clean Hydrogen, and whats left over to supply Co2 free electricity to industry. And then in France a new Hydrogen SUV from NamX that uses swappable capsules of Hydrogen gas, 4 I believe; each providing 800k m of range.So range 4 x 800km, 3200km .Where I live, for smallish 8-16kgLPG barbecue requirements outside every hardware store. where's a storage of "Swap &
go LPG cylinders. At last, someone has thought to use the same concept for Hydrogen
Could hydrogen not be generated overnight when we are asleep using cheap rate electricity? And this could surely be carried out in our current petrol stations / garages - i.e. locally generated hydrogen to cut out the delivery costs to points of sales?
And in countries with excess solar or wind, produce when the electricity price goes negative
@@TarviVerroExcess solar and wind are almost daily occurrences. Also, Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.
Many in media focus only on green hydrogen, and ignore regenerative grid theory, which uses all of the wasted electricity streams.
I am not quite sure why they remain so ill advised at this late stage.
Convert wasted electricity to hydrogen to cash in for generations.
Free when renewables have to be turned off on windy and sunny days
@Tron-Jockey catalysts are being developed with aims to increase the efficiency of hydrogen production by electrolysis. One thing is sure here, and that's that's there's so much development and research going on that what is true today will be advanced on tomorrow - so watch this space !!
Calling it team H2 and team Battery is similar to calling it team Wind and team Solar. They all complete each other. All necessary against fossil fiels.
I think the focous needs to be on releasing the patents. I think ICE trucks would benefit from this a lot, as would batteries, Hydrogen production and much much more.
The best ideas are patented and shelved and I am not sure if there is something entirely different like anti gravity that could be employed and do away with our energy conundrums entirely
Yeah some good old conspiracy theories is something this comment section still needed..
Overhead wires. This could work with, hybrids, fuel cells, and fully electric. This can reduce the need for batteries. The only drawback is a massive upfront cost of installation.
The CEO of Daimler Truck, gave an interview on the subject BEV vs. FCEV trucks that provides a very clear and precise picture of this dilemma, it is a well-considered perspective that many are looking for!
this is what he said:
“It is simply the mathematical phenomenon that the first battery electric truck is relatively easy to charge; a hundred trucks are difficult, a thousand very expensive. And for 15,000, it is almost impossible to provide the electric power along a route. In terms of scaling, the investment costs for electricity requirements are exponential. With fuel cells, on the other hand, it is the other way around. It is impossible to set up a hydrogen infrastructure for one vehicle. It is extremely expensive for a hundred vehicles, but okay for a thousand. It becomes really interesting for ten thousand or more. But since we have to convert hundreds of thousands of vehicles in terms of drive systems, we need both.”
Why didn't he mentioned that to build one hydrogen refueling station will cost around 1 million bucks, while on BEV recharging station will be around 50k.
And there is no reason why electrical grid could not sustain BEV's, especially when you consider the FACT that producing hydrogen requires around 60% MORE electricity in comparison to BEV's to move same distance.
Does he have stocks in hydrogen or something?
I just hope that with this green transition, governments are really taking into consideration the fact that material requirements to build these batteries are present mostly in countries where unfriendly governments are in charge…
Hard to beat an efficient BEV, unless we have alternatives that match or exceed its efficiency.
Agree. BEV wins by the numbers but displacing our entrenched fossil fueled systems is the challenge.
You said assumptions about batteries is outdated!! STOP misleading!
With Pepsi already running 1000+ mile/day routes with loaded electric trucks, there doesn't seem much room in the market left for hydrogen powered trucks.
trucks exacerbate the century-old problem with electric vehicles: Batteries do not store electricity.
Hydrogen and Batteries both look great at a high level, but once you start digging into the details, the hydrogen solution fails. Most hydrogen’s is grey (made from natural gas) not green which produces CO2 emissions so it’s not much better than just burning diesel. You then have the environmental impact of releasing hydrogen into the atmosphere as well, which slows methane from breaking down in the atmosphere causing an increase in global warming. Batteries are truly the answer. The only question is can we ramp up production of batteries and chargers fast enough to prevent the climate catastrophe.
Neither will really replace diesel powered trucks...Simple energy physics involved... We need to shift as much transport as possible to rail.
Without long haul trucking to compete with rail would become very expensive for moving freight.
4:21
You can produce Green Hydrogen at the fueling station itself, no need to transport Hydrogen.
You only need, Electricity, Water and an Electrolizer to produce Hydrogen.
That can be don at fueling station itself.
That is simply brainless repetition of the lies told by Hydrogen investors.
Hydrogen is the future of NOTHING inside our atmosphere.
Using electrolysis to create hydrogen is ridiculously expensive, and storing hydrogen is extremely difficult, and dangerous, because it leaks out of every container, and the liquid boils off at an alarming rate. Hydrogen reacts with pretty much everything, and almost instantly, creating massive explosions. Petrol on the other hand is extremely stable, and VERY difficult to ignite. Check the facts!
The presenter said hydrogen is 40% effective and batteries are 80% effective. The researcher said you need 3x more energy with hydrogen, and this is correct, but how the presenter said it it would be 2x differnce. The error is in the presenters efficiency number, and hydrogen has a loss of 75% not 60% as she says.
Trains. Trains are the answer. They are literally the most efficient land based transport, many times more efficient than truck, and can carry many hundreds more tons.
8:32 A megawatt charger is just four 250 kW chargers and many Tesla sites have dozens of 250 kW chargers. So not a big deal at all. Not to mention many trucks are doing local routes and can be charged at "only" 250 kW while loading / unloading.
I think a megawatt spike being thrown into the grid is nontrivial deal. That's about 250 homes going from nothing to peak power. I see my power lines struggle when I turn on a vacuum
@@Chasval US home are at peak power at 4000 W ? Are you sure ? Furthermore a 250 kW charger does not take 250 kW during the whole charge, it will be the same for a megawatt charger. Not to mention charging sites have batteries. Anyway, many industries consume far more electricity, in the US as everywhere in the world. And finally, as for cars, many charges will be done at lower power when the semi is parked, and off peak charges will be privileged since it will cost far less.
@@Chasval I have a supercharger site 5 km away from my home, with at least 24 stalls capable of 250 kW DC charging, why would the impact on the grid be higher than a 6 stalls capable of 1 MW DC charging ? And I do not struggle at all with my electricity, in fact I did not have any power outrage for decades (not even a one second outrage). So maybe France has a far better grid that the US (or wherever you live) but at least it proves that it is doable.
Electric. It can be paired with solar and has fewer moving parts.
Replacement part industry be like: AH, HELL NAH!
@@HybridsixtynineExactly this is one of the enemies. First of all oil companies, no comment for them, second the car-truck industry, they will loose the service that makes tons of money, the parts industry that will loose money, the goverments that loose money from the taxes on fuel. They can not tax electricity, they don't know if that electricity goes to a house or in a truck battery, there are companies that have solars on the roof, that have wind turbines, they can't tax them!!!!
It's hydrogen. Clearly hydrogen
Very good enjoy the price of everything to go up .
They're both clean energies, but let's not forget that building a ton of batteries is more inefficient than a hydrogen fuel cell with an hydrogen tank, and will leave more residues at the end of its life.
The winner will be the cheapest.
I think right now batteries are better because they're more developed, but I think hydrogen is the future. As soon as we find a more efficient and cheap way to get hydrogen, it'll have no competition. The problem is that it's a technology that is in its early stages of development.
Hydrogen will never be cheaper because it will always remain inefficient due to physics.
@@Simon-dm8zv It only has to be cheap enough to compete against the other fuels, it does not need to be 100% efficient.
@@Albert24346 Well consumers and companies will always choose the cheapest option and then batteries will clearly win.
@@Simon-dm8zv thanks for telling us the future
The lithium-ion battery which is used in EVs is made from various rare earth minerals and a huge amount of energy is needed to extract that minerals out and refine them. This process emits a massive amount of carbon dioxide and also these minerals are very limited in quantity and one day these resources will also get exhausted but Hydrogen can still be easily produced. Fuel cells may not be so developed as EVs are today but we should also focus on them and eventually the price of Hydrogen will drop.
Hey there! Yes, there are many challenges with lithium-ion batteries. We looked at an alternative kind of battery in this video 👉ruclips.net/video/-vobMl5ldOs/видео.html and we tackle Lithium specifically here 👉ruclips.net/video/gAZV1Ut6DDs/видео.html Let us know what you think ✨
Hydrogen. Definitely.
No
@@kemster9495 It is the only engine thet isn't an environment killer.
No discussion of the environmental cost of making batteries, just that they are getting cheaper to make.
You're right that the current cost is too high. We made a video exploring alternatives for lithium-ion batteries you can check out here 👉 "How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries"
ruclips.net/video/-vobMl5ldOs/видео.html
Making batteries 🪫 is more pollution than combustion engines. What a shame of company’s of electric cars.
I've suspected that hydrogen fuel is better for heavier freight. This is because the fuel can be more centralized and service transport vehicles more economically. My hypothesis is that fueling long routes and heavy freight like ships, trains, and cargo trucks (in that order) would be the first and most likely to benefit from a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
what is more abundant, hydrogen filling centres or powerpoints? Then tell me which infrastructure is more likely.
People talking about trains forget that things do not simply get shipped from A to B. Trains cannot be the solution as you still need to transport the same amount of cargo from the trainstation to the factory or whatever. This would mean even more trucks would be needed. Also, speaking for Germany, many if not most trucks traveling the autobahn in Germany are not even German, it's often a transit or international exchange which again isn't helped by Germany getting a better train system, if at all we'd need that Europe-wide, still at it's destination you again need trucks and the same amount as before to be in any ways as fast in delivery and do not forget that many trucks also don't simply go from A to B but they drive from A to G to B to C back to A. Trains cannot do this efficiently.
Hydrogen Vehicles ARE battery electric vehicles... with extra parts... better to aim for full battery operated w/ Solar Charging
Extra parts? They dont require large lithium ion batteries(fuel cell electric vehicles are much better for europe's gdp since you dont have to import overpriced materials. It means that higher percentage of the vehicle's price is added to our gdp and less is going to indonesia) those are fuel cell electric. Hydrogen is currently expensive because of r&d costs and supply demand issues but all of them will be solved. Even mining machines and construction vehicles will be powered by hydrogen.
@@jaegar2004 hydrogen vehicles as well are only 40% efficient 💀 electric vehicles are 93% efficient. Hydrogen is dead before it even began, you’ll see.
Question, what is the safer of the two option presented in this video? We know batteries can be highly dangerous once they catch fire and the fire departments do not know if they are really out, so what is the risk with Hydrogen?
💥
If hydrogen truck catches fire and fire reaches the tank you don't need to call the firefighters. They will hear it most likely.
Watch a video of the Hindenburg to see the danger.
most people are so ignorant about hydrogen ffs it will not explode
Hey Dennis! There are a lot of safety measures in place with hydrogen vehicles. The gas is highly flammable but the main safety measures is the thermal pressure relief device (TPRD) on the tank. This one would discharge if the vehicle was engulfed in a fire. There are a lot of safety sensors which would for example lead to an automatically programmed shut down in case of a leak or impact. Therefore, obviously there will always remain safety issues with every car but the hydrogen vehicles have a lot of measures in place and are further developed. If you are interested, you will find more info easily online.
Electric trucks for big cities and urban areas due to less noise and diesel trucks for long hauls cross countries
Also make sure those diesel trucks at least use some biodiesel to reduce emissions.
Making a video about electric EVs and trucks and not mentioning Tesla once, kind of seems to negate your mission towards green future. Right?
I would say it like this, in my opinion - battery trucks for the city transportation and hydrogen and fossil trucks for long ranges (200+ miles per cargo)
Diesel fumes bad for breathing thats the point here.
Moving heavy batteries consumes more energy and is inefficient. Battery technology is still evolving. It's not practical unless it has much higher energy density, lightweight, preferably portable, and less deteriorating. Hydrogen energy density is also low. Thus, plug-in improved battery + hydrogen fuel cell or ICE for last miles and electric cargo train in the trunk lines is the best combination.
Btw, not only automobiles but also the entire life cycle of any products should be as sustainable as possible. Shifting the pollution by greenhouse gas emissions to the environmental destruction and soil pollution by lithium and rare earth mining in certain areas is not necessarily justified.
I like electricity because electricity can’t be controlled by few greedy companies like oil companies , if we go hydrogen , what is happening to oil right now will happen to hydrogen too
Correct. Among the biggest proponents of hydrogen are oil companies.
@@Simon-dm8zvThey want to use the methane from the oil rigs that escapes in the air to produce hydrogen.
@@chrishar110 Pretty good, but that would only be enough for a tiny part of the total hydrogen demand. Also: in the future we will have far fewer oil rigs in the world.
@@Simon-dm8zv I think that you misunderstood me. They are sure that they will loose money and they talk about hydrogen so they will delay the development of electric cars-truck.
@@chrishar110 I see, sorry. Yes, that sounds likely!
Electric cars arent the future
yes they are
I love how this argument is made with no concern for facts or evidence
@@joelsambrano6356
The metals needed to make a batery that lasts only 5-10 years make more CO2 from mining that the normal car makes in its entire lifespan, giving the fact that tons of electric cars were imported into europe on huge tankers with make more CO2
Happy?
Here are youre facts
@@SimonsAstronomy Lol there you go again, 0 facts.
Sill amused that we’re still having this discussion. Green Hydrogen takes 3 times the amount of electricity to produce so it is a wasteful solutions. And as long as drivers aren’t to drive without rest the discussion about recharging are just nonsense… So batteries are the future solution and let’s leave hydrogen for the few use cases where there is no alternative, like steel production.
Exactly.
Both. Mining and heavy use will never be able to use batteries very well. Also the US and Australia transport cargo by truck much further than any other countries on Earth.
The US should utilize cargo (freight) trains much more, but they do not. Australia does not have the tracks to move cargo by train across the country. Australia is better off using ships to go by sea, but this will only ever serve the majority of the population who live near oceans. The rest of the country will be left out. Not something that is feasible because it ignores the food growers across large expanses of the interior. These will always rely on trucks.
Australia also relies on the truck train for long distance shipping. That is a number of trailers pulled by 1 tractor truck (semi in US parlance). This is just too much weight to be pulled by batteries.
3 markets perfectly suited to the strengths of hydrogen. You could develop hydrogen generation along the routes designated, at points which will allow refueling before they run out. Providing also a break for drivers.
First stop the battery and battery swap large truck & semi fires. Janus Australia. Prototype and Cement Australia vehicles burnt & melted.
Without long haul trucking to compete with rail would become very expensive for moving freight.
The best alternative for this is sea weed biofuel which doesn't require any modifications in our current technology
For a small niche market, we might as well use diesel. A small amount of emission is fine. There are ways to absorb CO2. Planting trees for example. It is about the quantity.
Informative video as always
Thanks for watching! You can also subscribe to our channel so you won't be missing any of the coming videos. 🌸
You're right,the hydrogen game has just started and India will be the largest producer of clean hydrogen.Batteries still need some need materials as cobalt and lithium is hard to obtain from grounds and cause more pollution then coal.
They don’t pollute more at all. Not even close.
Sustainable change for our children
The solution is Solid State Battery, and it is coming within couple years.
As you pointed out, hydrogen costs 6 times the amount of energy for the same results. There is the safety concern. Hydrogen is more explosive than gasoline. I would not want to be involved in a hydrogen truck accident. While both gasoline and hydrogen accidents result in the burning of fuel, The hydrogen would be much quicker and more forceful. I hope that battery evolution will overcome the perception of the danger of battery fires.
I don't know how electric cars are super safe for environment. No one tells how batteries are produced and how much emission produced in manufacturing a battery pack how can we make it cost effective.
A lot less look it up!
just build more trains. Trains can hold more cargo, they're super efficient, and they can be electrified without the use of batteries. Electrified rails can be powered by one big engine and still be better for the environment, plus they can easily be converted into clean energy in the future.
Sure, but even then large numbers of electric trucks are required.
Yeah but just for local deliveries. You will still need trucks make deliveries from the train to a store or wherever. also we should build places that need these deliveries near the station so you could even reduce the number trucks needed.
Well, lorries are used in so many diverse ways, some move 10-30 tons over a distance of less than 50km ie in local distribution and they would run fine on battery meanwhile others move 60+ tons over a distance of over 800km and they would need h2 so companies need to focus on both technologies.
A fairly balanced presentation. But the more you think about it, the more obvious it becomes that BEV is the only viable/economical solution.
Tesla already proving real-world day ranges over 1000 miles possible. Personally I think swappable batteries overcomes most of the concerns about BEV; smaller lighter battery on board, fast “refuel” time, access to slower cheaper electricity. The “spare” batteries even have a dual role in arbitrage (buying cheap, selling during peak period). So I’ll happily take a bet with anyone who thinks HFC will ever have any significance in heavy goods road transport.
"Yes, Jonas, This is our first..." You guys rock! :D
Obviously focus on both.
It's like asking whether ICE manufacturers should focus on petrol or diesel engines.
Answer is diesel hybrid.
Combination of Diesel for short distance ,train and ship for long distance is the solution.
Emissions would still be too high. We need to stop with fossil fuels.
Batteries are right now too heavy and unsuitable for heavy hauling. A full capacity truck will cut the range down by half. Plus the raw materials needed are a limited resource. Battery life is also a concern with degradation over time, they will need to be replaced at least one. H2 is the better bet long term and stable in terms of performance over it's lifetime.
Hey there! We also did a full video on hydrogen. You can check it out here 👉 ruclips.net/video/AGTjKJHu99c/видео.html
Do you know that by law you have to replace hydrogen tanks every 2-3 years? You said batteries cut the range, why? You stop for a mandatory break, you can top up your battery. You can't drive for 15 hours without a break. Limited recourses, mmmm diesel is unlimited, right? Or do you think that hydrogen is free and you can collect it without cost? Battery degradation, first gen batteries are still in use after 10 years, and when they don't meet the criteria they use them at houses to get power from solars and to stabilise peaks of the grid. H2 is 2.5 times less efficient that battery-powered cars-trucks. It needs 30% more power to produce it, needs +20-25% power to compress it to 3000 bars and needs trucks to move it from where it is produced to H2 stations. And is has max 70% efficiency on fuel cells and 40% efficiency in ICEngines
@@chrishar110 your argument is based on outdated old tech. Plus you are comparing low Mileage consumer car to high mileage commercial semi trucks. Range and efficiency has been debunked from the US department of Energy report evaluating the full production life of batteries to recycling CO2 cost and h2 wins out in efficiency. This is why the IRA is spending 10 billion on h2 infrastructure and only 1.3 on grid power.
Intelligent battery swap management that ensures heavy long haul trucks gets the newest, high capacity batteries, and the older chemistry batteries with more cycles (less range) gets used for shorter trips or less heavy loads (Rockwool or crisps) the key is standardization across brands!
You can pump hydrogen like diesel = huge time savings compared to charging. Win.
But far more expensive ≠ win
@@Simon-dm8zv because there is no infrastructure yet... just like there wasnt any when charging was new and expensive
@@lamebubblesflysohigh Not really. It’s because hydrogen is inefficient.
@@Simon-dm8zv no it is not. It is not as efficient as diesel or battery if ran through cell but it is easily transportable over large distances and thus doesn't need expensive grid projects behind it like megawat electric chargers mentioned in this video + it is directly combustible. Everyone is focusing on fuel cells but there are companies already making functional engine prototypes that combust hydrogen.
@@lamebubblesflysohighCombusting hydrogen is even more inefficient than using it in a fuel cell. Cost per mile will be outrageous, nobody is going to use it. Everybody is focussing on batteries which is what the vast majority of trucks will be using. Some corner cases might be relying on hydrogen fuel cells but that's it.
why not just expand the rail network instead? Countries could make a separate network for cargo trains so that it wouldn't affect passenger trains.
the internal combustion engine has been around for more than a hundred years, and they have had alot of time to improve upon the tech, but the reality is, the efficiency of ICE, is still pretty damn low, roughly low 30ish percent. Battery tech hasn't been really improved upon until last few years, and already its been proven that it can work, give it another decade or so, battery will over take ICE, and ICE will be a thing in the past
Well said
Both is good. Less emissions. It is up to the industry to decide which is more a better investment. As mentioned, it needs infrastructure available especially for hydrogen stations.
Batteries for cars and bikes, hydrogen for trunks and all
Why is no one talks about balancing the power production. If one can keep producing in the most cost-efficient way... without stopping and starting turbines. One would save so much on production loss. During low demand, bank the excess electricity in gigawatt stationary battery banks... and use it at peak demand. Key is in a well-balanced, consistent production and distribution. Why is no one talking about that?
Wdym? Everyone is talking about this. The issue is the cost of batteries and having to install synchronous condensers. Additionally, the areas where many turbines and solar panels go are not where the old power plants used to be. Meaning a huge other cost of building new transmission lines.
I think the battle is finished. Batteries. Cheaper ,easier ,finish.
Trouble is, we need to have electricity available to millions of homes, business, industry, cars and all types of vehicles. The current infrastructure is not upto providing this. Certainly not in the UK. So we need to look into ways we can provide the mass needs of electricity without nuclear power stations and all the problems it entails. The mining of metals for batteries needs to be addressed. Yes we mine for metals for electronics, but the mass we need to do this to have every vehicle electric is extremely damaging to the environment. There is a wealth of things that are not being addressed in order to have electric vehicles.
The hydrogen industry needs to focus on plane jet engines and ships, those are the only vehicles that will benefit from hydrogen fuel cell. Everything else will be battery electric.
Both. Long distance will use hydrogen. Lighter is better, less stress on the system.