The Truth about Hydrogen

This episode of Real Engineering is brought
to you by Skillshare, home to over twenty thousand classes that could teach you a new
life skill. As the world grapples to eliminate fossil
fuels from our energy diet, electric cars have seen an incredible boom over the past
few years. Last year, over one million electric cars
were sold around the world. The number of Nissan Leafs, Teslas, and other
electric vehicles in circulation worldwide is now more than three million. And while there are many brands of electric
car to choose from, there are only two choices when it comes to powering electric vehicles:
fuel cells or batteries. Both produce electricity to drive electric
motors, eliminating the pollution and inefficiencies of the fossil fuel powered internal combustion
engine. Both hydrogen and electricity for batteries
can be produced from low­ or zero ­carbon sources, including renewable energy like solar
and wind, and therefore both are being pursued by car manufacturers and researchers as the
possible future of electric vehicles. However, a great debate is being waged by
supporters of each technology. Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology
“incredibly dumb,” claiming they’re more of a marketing ploy for automakers than
a long-term solution. In contrast, Japan has announced its intention
to become the world’s first hydrogen society, with the Japanese government and the auto
industry working together to introduce 160 hydrogen stations and 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles
by March 2021. So which is actually better? At first glance, hydrogen seems like an extremely
clever way to power a car. Compressed hydrogen has a specific energy
(aka energy per unit mass) of neary 40,000 watt hours per kilogram. Lithium ion batteries at best have a specific
energy of just 278 wh/kg, but most fall around 167 wh / kg. That’s 236 times as much energy per kg for
hydrogen. And because of its energy density and lightweight
nature, compressed hydrogen and fuel cells can power cars for extended ranges without
adding much weight, which as we saw in our last video is a gigantic road block for incorporating
the technology into the aviation industry. The designers of electric vehicles are caught
in a catch 22 with energy density and range. Each extra kilogram of battery weight to increase
range requires extra structural weight, heavier brakes, a higher torque motor, and in turn
more batteries to carry around this extra mass, This weight compounding limits how far
a battery powered vehicle can travel, until new technology can help reduce the weight
of the batteries. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, this weight
compounding is not an issue. Additionally, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle
can be refueled in under 5 minutes, where a battery powered electric vehicle, like the
Tesla model S, takes over 3 hours to fully recharge. When looking at the range and refuel times
hydrogen can offer, you can see why some car manufacturers are investing in this technology. On the face of it. Hydrogen is a clear winner, but it falls behind
when we start considering the end-to-end production process. While both batteries and hydrogen fuel cells
are both forms of electricity storage, the cost differ drastically. Fully charging a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kiloWatt
hour battery, costs between 10-12 dollars depending where you live. With a rated range of 500 kilometers, that’s
between 2 and 2.4 cent per kilometer. A great price. In a previous video, I visited a petrol station
that introduced a hydrogen pump, fed by its own on-site production facility. which used off-peak electricity to produce
hydrogen. The hydrogen from this station cost $85 dollars
to fill the 5 kg tank of the Toyota Mirais on site, which had a range of 480 kms. That’s 17.7 cent per kilometer, 8 times
the price. And here lies the problem, Hydrogen simply
requires more energy to produce. To understand the economic viability of hydrogen
let’s dig deeper into the production process. Before any hydrogen vehicle can hit the road,
you first need to produce the hydrogen, but hydrogen is not a readily available energy
source. Even though hydrogen is the most abundant
element in the universe, it is usually stored in water, hydrocarbons, such as methane, and
other organic matter. One of the challenges of using hydrogen as
an energy storage mechanism comes from being able to efficiently extract it from these
compounds. In the US, the majority of hydrogen is produced
through a process called steam reforming. Steam reforming is the process of combining
high-temperature steam with natural gas to extract hydrogen. While steam reforming is the most common method
of industrial hydrogen production, it requires a good deal of heat and is wildly inefficient. Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually
has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with. And while hydrogen fuel cells themselves don’t
produce pollution, this process does. So if we want to assume a future scenario
with as little carbon emission as possible, this method won’t cut it. Another method to produce hydrogen is electrolysis
– separating the hydrogen out of water using an electric current. While the electricity needed for this process
can be provided from renewable sources, it requires even more energy input than steam
reforming. You end up losing 30% of the energy from the
original energy put in from the renewables when you carry out electrolysis. So we are sitting at 70% energy efficiency
from hydrogen fuel cells if traditional electrolysis is used, before the car even starts its engine. A slightly more efficient method of producing
hydrogen is polymer exchange membrane electrolysis. Using this method, energy efficiencies can
reach up to 80%, with the added benefit of being produced on site, which we will get
to in a moment. But this is still a 20% loss of energy from
the original electricity from the renewables. Some experts say the efficiency of PEM electrolysis
is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, which is a great improvement, but still well short
of batteries charging efficiency at 99%. [1] A 19% difference in production costs doesn’t
explain the difference in costs yet, so where else are we losing energy. The next hurdle in getting hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles on the road is the transport and storage of the pure hydrogen. If we assume the hydrogen is produced on site,
like it was for this petrol station, then we eliminate one energy sink, but the cost
of storage is just as problematic. Hydrogen is extremely low density as a gas
and liquid, and so in order to achieve adequate energy density, we have to increase its actual
density. We can do this in two ways. We can compress the hydrogen to 790 times
atmospheric pressure, but that takes energy, about 13% of the total energy content of the
hydrogen itself. Alternatively we can turn hydrogen into liquid,
cryogenically. The advantage of hydrogen liquefaction is
that a cryogenic hydrogen tank is much lighter than a tank that can hold pressurized hydrogen. But again, hydrogen’s physical properties
means hydrogen is harder to liquefy than any other gas except helium. Hydrogen is liquified by reducing its temperature
to -253°C, with an efficiency loss of 40%, once you factor in the added weight of the
refrigerators and the refrigeration itself. So pressurisation is a better option at a
13% energy loss. Once the hydrogen is produced and compressed
to a liquid or gas, a viable hydrogen infrastructure requires that hydrogen be able to be delivered
from where it’s produced to the point of end-use, such as a vehicle refueling station. Where the hydrogen is produced can have a
big impact on the cost and best method of delivery. For example, a large, centrally located hydrogen
production facility can produce hydrogen at a lower cost because it is producing more,
but it costs more to deliver the hydrogen because the point of use is farther away. In comparison, distributed production facilities
produce hydrogen on site so delivery costs are relatively low, but the cost to produce
the hydrogen is likely to be higher because production volumes are less. While there are some small-scale, on-site
hydrogen production facilities being installed at refuelling pumps, such as the station mentioned
in the last hydrogen video. until this infrastructure is widespread, we
have to assume that the majority of hydrogen is being transported by truck or pipeline,
where we know that energy losses can range from 10% up to 40%. In comparison, assuming that the electricity
that we use for charging the batteries comes completely from renewable resources (like
solar or wind), we just have to consider the transmission losses in the grid. Using the United States grid as a reference
for typical grid losses, the average loss is only 5%. So in the best case scenario for hydrogen,
using the most efficient means of production and transport, we lose 20% of energy during
PEM electrolysis, and around 13% for compression and storage, amounting to a 33% loss. In other systems, this could be as much as
56%. For battery power, up to this point, we have
lost just 6% to the grid and recharging. Bringing our best case efficiency difference
to 27% and our worst case to 50%. The next stage of powering electric vehicles
is what is called the tank to wheel conversion efficiency. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, once the
hydrogen is in the tank, it must be re-converted into electric power. This is done via a fuel cell, which essentially
works like a PEM electrolyser, but in reverse. In a PEM fuel cell, hydrogen gas flows through
channels to the anode, where a catalyst causes the hydrogen molecules to separate into protons
and electrons. Once again the membrane only allows protons
to pass through it, while electrons flow through an external circuit to the cathode.This flow
of electrons is the electricity that is used to power the vehicles electric motors. If the fuel cell is powered with pure hydrogen,
it has the potential to be up to around 60% efficient, with most of the wasted energy
lost to heat. Like hydrogen fuel cells, batteries also come
with inefficiencies and energy losses. The grid provides AC current while the batteries
store the charge in DC. So to convert AC to DC, we need a charger. Using the Tesla Model S as an example, its
peak charger efficiency is around 92%. The Tesla model S runs on AC motors; therefore,
to convert the DC current supplied by the batteries into AC current, an inverter has
to be used with an efficiency of roughly 90%. Additionally, lithium ion batteries can lose
energy due to leakage. A good estimate for the charging efficiency
of a lithium ion battery is 90%. All of these factors combined lead to a total
efficiency of around 75%. However, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also
have some of these same inefficiencies. Any kind of electrolysis requires DC current,
and therefore, a rectifier will be required to convert the AC current from the grid to
DC. The conversion efficiency here is 92%. We also need to convert the DC current produced
by the fuel cell to AC to power the motor through an inverter with an efficiency of
90%. Finally, the efficiency of the motor must
be considered for both fuel cell and battery powered vehicles. Currently, this is around 90-95% for both
of them, which is amazing when you consider that internal combustion engines running on
petrol have an efficiency of only around 20-30%. If we add up all these inefficiencies and
compare current generation batteries, to the best and worst case scenario of current gen
hydrogen. We can see how they measure up. Even with the BEST case scenario. Not taking into account any transport due
to onsite production, and assuming very high electrolysis efficiency of 80%, and assuming
a HIGH fuel cell efficiency of 80%, hydrogen still comes out at less than half the efficiency. The worst case scenario is even worse off. So while you may be able to go further on
one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle,
the cost that is needed to deliver that one fill up would be astronomically higher compared
to charging batteries due to these energy losses and efficiencies. Based on our worst case scenario, we would
expect the cost per kilometre to be about 3.5 times greater for hydrogen, but as we
saw earlier it’s actual 8 times the price. So additional costs of production unrelated
to efficiencies are obviously at play. The cost of construction of the facility is
one and the profit the station will take from sale is another. For now, these inefficiencies and costs are
driving the market, where most investment and research is going into battery powered
electric vehicles. So which wins? Both are equally more green than internal
combustion engines, assuming equal renewable resources are used to power them. Fuel cells allow for fast fill up times and
long ranges; a big advantage. But battery powered vehicles might catch up
in range by the time there are enough hydrogen stations to ever make fuel cell vehicles viable. While fuel cells are efficient relative to
combustion engines, they are not as efficient as batteries. They may make more sense for operation disconnected
from the grid or as we saw in our last video using hydrogen for planes actually could make
a lot of sense, but once again that’s a topic for another video. For now, battery powered electric vehicles
seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. As battery-powered cars become more common,
we’re also starting to see self-driving cars become the norm. If the job of driver is slowly automated away
and consumers have a bunch of free time to read or watch online video, it may be wise
to use that opportunity to start learning new skills and Skillshare is great place to
do it. You could take this course on Photoshop for
beginners and learn a skill that has helped this channel immensely. You may have noticed that we introduced a
new thumbnail design the channel. This done in part because the channels views
we trending downwards for past 2 months, despite putting extra effort into production quality. We needed to rethink our strategy for branding,
and I felt the blueprints strength was that it was easily recognisable as mine, but they
all also look so similar it’s difficult to tell when there is a new video. So we got to work in photoshop to use the
strengths of blueprint design and build on its weaknesses and we can up with this transitioning
effect. Taking designs to reality, which I think fits
the theme channel perfectly. We saw immediate effects with the views on
our last video jumping 80% compared on our 2 month average. This is the power of illustration and you
can learn how to use software like Photoshop and Illustrator on Skillshare These days you can teach yourself pretty much
any skill online and Skillshare is a fantastic place to do it. With over 20,000 classes ranging from animation,
electronics, programming and much more. The classes follow a clear learning curve,
so you just click and watch without having to curate your own learning experience. A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month
for unlimited access to all courses, but the first 1000 people to sign up with this link
will get their first 2 months for free. So ask yourself right now. What skill have you been putting off learning. What project have you been dreaming of completing,
but you aren’t sure if you have the skills to do it. Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare
using the link below to get your first 2 months free. You have nothing to lose and a valuable life
skill to gain. As usual thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me, the
links to my twitter, facebook, discord server, subreddit and instagram pages are below. I’m about to do a Q&A on the subject matter
of this video on my instagram stories, so if you are interested in having some questions
answered the link for that is belo


Pulling up to a hydrogen filling station is no different that pulling up to a fossil fuel station.
Who wants to DO THAT, when the can charge their car at where they live ?
Not only that, this world does not need anymore huge 18 wheeler tankers destined for filling stations. …..The less big rigs on the road, the better.

As ever, nobody counts the actual costs of producing the things that make the tech possible. Either purposeful lying or obfuscating the whole picture!

This video is incredibly skewed and misses one of the most important points in the debate surrounding hydrogen vehicles and Battery powered electric vehicles – the production of the actual vehicle and long term sustainability. To produce an electric vehicle requires a large amount of lithium, lithium mining is the crude oil of the future and is significantly worse for the environment than refining crude oil. To the extent that currently, although a BEV is emissions free at the point of use, when brand new they have already produced enough emissions as an ICE car has in production and then the first 4 years of its use. This issue is exacerbated when you consider that an electric vehicles requires a replacement of its batteries every 5-10 years. Lithium is an infinitely more finite resource than hydrogen and the environmental toll of increasing its demand so significantly is scary to think about. As a result lithium producing countries (usually ones with very lax labour safety and environmental laws such as China) have a vested interest in lobbying for the adoption of BEVs over hydrogen vehicles.

So while as an end user product the BEV is more efficient in terms of drivetrain losses and charging, it is overall much more damaging to the environment and less sustainable. I think we owe it to ourselves to future proof our solution instead of creating another conflict generating and environmentally damaging crude oil scenario.

One important aspect of hydrogen is that it can be stored in principle endlessly, whereas a battery has a very high investment cost for capacity.

A fuel cell/electrolyser is thus fundamentally different than a battery. And on a big scale storage is probably much more efficient than in a car.

Hydrogen shouldnt be expensive since I anticipate it will be generated by cheap electricity or even electricity with negative price. That is I think the idea of the concept behind it. Use the energy that is generated by solar cells especially on noon and not used by the households

Anyway I am not sure if hydrogen use in the car is really the best option. Though, I could even imagine that some other fuel generated by electrolysis could be stored from summer to winter or shipped from australia to US (and vice versa). I mean Australia has a huge solar capacity and most probably a lot of the energy is redundant thus, why not transport this energy to the other side of the globe

OK maybe more Australia japan and US CHile for example

Not sure this is the full picture when it comes to comparing costs/efficiencies.

I suspect that li-ion batteries will not last as long as a hydrogen tank – I also assume that the materials are far more abundant and less exotic than those that make up a fuel cells hydrogen storage tank. Similarly differences in production processes. I would imagine that it is far harder to manufacture batteries than a storage tank etc… then shipping them and all that.
This as well as the energy density do make hydrogen interesting as a fuel source surely. I also wonder about dry vs wet mass – you know, batteries weigh the same regardless of whether the have energy in them or not. I'm not trying to swing in favour of any, just curious about all this too.

I wonder, have you done/thought about trying to look at the whole picture for all fuels and engine combinations? including petroleum and a jet? I wonder if one of these small efficient jet engines could be used to power an electric motor with good efficiencies over at least existing ICE motors and power trains.

I noticed that you keep referring to getting electricity only from renewable sources. The problem with that is to date only 12.2% of the US electricity consumption comes from renewable sources and as the use of electric vehicles increases I don’t see renewable sources being able to keep up with the demand. The big problem with solar systems are they require huge areas and constant cleaning of the panels to maintain efficientcy, and wind mills are extremely ugly as they fill the sky with flailing arms and over time become a maintenance nightmare.
Hydro electric and Nuclear are by far the most efficient way of creating huge amounts of power.

Complete renewable lmao, and nuclear which is more polluting than any of them because how we obtain uranium and the waste and danger of the plants. For electric cars we need power to charge the batteries. This will be a disaster or many disasters and cancers will get more and more common.

hi, how about the cost of change the bateries every 5 to 8 years? you could consider the life time cost in total… not only efficiency

yah well batteries aren't free to make,, we barely make enough for smartphones and they produce more waste than fuel cells would, we could bypass batteries for energy storage and produce more hydrogen and then just use that however inefficient it was(we'd still need batteries but not like in fully electric cars), we could still make enough, but then again solar panels also use toxic elements and a large part of that hydrogen would come from that( still better than nuclear but even that could be used) at any case we won't have problems with energy demands even if we run out of oil..its just that corporations think only about profit and it doesn't make sense for them to switch yet.

I think you're not quite comparing the same thing when comparing charging vs hydrogen production. Because the electricity isn't produced on site there are significant production losses.

Does hydrogen require as much resources? I understood that it requires more energy than batteries, because it's less efficient. But batteries are made with rare earth and such. Does hydrogen branch also that much resource consuming? Can't we have a better carbon footprints by using nuclear power couple with hydrogen than using coaland petroleum powers with batteries cars?

Just a question here I'm far from a specialist in those matters.

4100 people think that the real science around fuel cells is bullshit.

I have seen this in spades in the real world. People don't understand that hydrogen is not a fuel like gasoline. It's inefficient, it's expensive, it's highly explosive and it LEAKS THROUGH SOLID METAL.

Hydrogen powered cars have been in development since the 70's, and they've always been "just ten years away from viability." They always will be because they're fundamentally not a good option and the market continues to show that. That's why EVs are stealing the show. They're better, cheaper, faster, less polluting, and more efficient.

Electric cars will Peak out at 25% of Market share in the UK. Totally impractical for real Use.
My Reasons are Solid & Something they have not Thought of / or Dare mention to the General Public.
Also, I have a method of Extending the Range of EV's to Unlimited Miles with zero time wasted Charging. I have solved one of Their biggest problems.
I also Have a method of "SELF CHARGING CARS. "

How Many Employers / Companies will Provide Car Charging in the company car park for staff cars ? Who will pay for the electric ?

If you considered the efficency in the generation of hydrogen, why don't consider the efficency of the production of electricy for the charge of the stations for EV? (considering that thermal power plants will be still being the main character in the next couples of decades, while eolic and solar energy is still growing up). Just to be more accurate in the efficency comparison. Personally, I think EV are will be more into the human transportation, and HV will make their better performance in charge and heavy duty tasks. Great video, BTW!

Sad that you didn't mention 3 major problems that also come with electric powered cars.
1. We do not have enough lithium and cobalt on our planet to make cars for all of us.
2. The pollution and destruction generated from making these batteries. Including the CO² in the process, which is what we do not want in the first place.
3. The power taken from the grid (the demand) must be stored in it to be available. This alone leads to a multitude of problems itself. It's impossible to cover the peak when ALL people come home from work and want to charge their cars(imagining only electric cars would exist). Yes, physically impossible – a hard fact in power engineering. It's basically a DDOS attack on the electric grid.

Changing the way we fuel or vehicles will come with a price. It's naive to think this will resolve without hurting a bit financially. Hydrogen has the advantage to be better storeable and movable in addition to it's higher energy-density. Also it's a hundreds time faster to refuel. The whole production of vehicles that use hydrogen more CO² friendly compared to lithium-ion.. The only sane way is to use both technologies and benefit from breakthroughs in research. Be it in more efficient hydrogen production or in lighter batteries that can hold more power.

The major problem is that the vast majority of cars moving around only contain ONE puny human. That is the true energy waste. Governments all across the globe must work on building a public transportation that is an alternative to individual transport. Only this truly saves energy. In addition to that more tracks for cargo trains must be build to drastically reduce the number of trucks. The whole long distance logistics must be forced on rail. These two things a crucial to lower the total energy consumed by vehicles.

Lots of false equivalents in this article.
I think that there is a definite bias.
If you really don't know your science the bullshit will convince you.

The only possible solution is to produce hydrogen ONBOARD the car. A prototype of this had been developed in Italy many years ago, if I remember well. Of course it has been not taken in consideration by the majors. So you wipe out all the intermediate actors of the production and storing of the hydrogen and their disadvantages. Not to mention the leakage in tank and piped of the car. This is the only possible future for electric cars.

Battery cells are the most crappy and nonviable solution. There are not enough raw materials and rare elements to build batteries cell for billions of cars!!! Nobody talks about this. They just produce crap cars to sale, without future. There are also not enough kW, in the power distribution grid to charge millions of cars contemporary, during the night or day time.

Batteries are expensive to produce and recycle and battery efficiency drops significantly in low temperatures, I think hydrogen does have a future. It's a pity we can't convert blarney into auto motive force lol

Like how yall did the price breakdown for cars but what about supply a buidling with electricity how does the cost break down there

Still though, it is always relative and this is where it becomes interesting. I live in SE Asia where you still buy the gas cans which costs nearly a day wage for locals and usually needs to be refilled every 2-3 months. This while in contrast, they can use a cheap solar panel and old motorbike battery, to create hydrogen cooking gas, basically 100% free (20 usd for a good enough solar panel, batteries that are used, so free).

Aside of that, that same solar panel and older battery, can not produce enough for electric cooking, so then there is no loss but only gains in practical usage and reality.

Also, obviously the corporations decide to sell that hydrogen in stations for 85$ / high taxes from governments, while I am pretty sure it can be offered much cheaper, if willingly.
I pay less than a dollar for a liter of gasoline here too. Secret and ugly truth is, as always it is about profits, turning everything electric and green for fake climate change, is a bigger business than Oil was in history so far, and 9/10 oil companies end up owning those new businesses too.

Why am i not surprised to see a verified checkmark channel attacking hydrogen cars with no accurate breakdown of the costs of electric cars…..

Also, electric cars are not about saving the environment, they are about control. With a population driving electric cars with computers, you can access their hardware and shut the vehicle down and basically control whether they can drive and where. A population driving hydrogen cars with no computer can drive freely and potentially even produce their own fuel. Electric cars are a sinister trick being FORCED ON US(in the case of the UK) to implement an Orwellian technocracy(hence why they are being forced on us with the slippery slope of diesel bans both on newly manufactured cars and the proposed ban on diesel cars driving into London – soon it will be petrol).

This whole debate is nothing more than a battle between 2 new religions which are both wrong. Here is my opinion and I respect your right to disagree. In the end the answer will be algae biofuel. For a variety of reasons it must be algae biofuel. There is no other option.

all nice and dandy, but we dint have enough lithium to fit all cars with batteries, on the other hand we have no problem in fitting H tanks in cars.

euro 5 emission standards are set, 4 cylinder turbos with free valve (pneumatic valves)technology = 30% more efficient, cleaner emission, 30% smaller form factor & . thats probably more or less the actual future of engines

I have a question though.. you're in a car equipped with hydrogen fuel cell, then car crash happens.. won't it explode or something?

But the truth is that none of those renewable energies that you're speaking of our what actually charges these electric cars. The power source that charges them his coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, and other electrical generation stations. So how clean is that? Windmills are killing birds by the hundreds and thousands. Solar's just not able to pull enough power yet.

And that power loss you were referring to is inaccurate. I was told that hydrogen requires far less heat to continue cumbustion. And there's no reason that a vehicle with a higher power rating like hydrogen can't start taking some of the wheels spin to generate more electricity. The idea would be to store pure water in the tank. Electrolysis happens near the combustion site so you're not carrying hydrogen around. You won't be using air to combust it but instead pure oxygen. The combustion can occur and there would be no nitrogen in the exhaust. Instead it gets cool down through the exhaust and recaptured into the tank. You may lose some in the process but there's no reason why you can't continue to recycle it. Hydrogen has the potential to be the ultimate green fuel of the future. Batteries wind up in landfills even rechargeables.

there have been experiments in using alga in manufacturing hydrogen, all you need is a big pool and sunlight (and the byproduct is oxygen). the university of Cornell had one such experiment going a few years back.

While there is a lot of research effort put into this video, a central point has to be emphasised: storage and peaks in demand. An electric grid – which btw has to be upscaled massively if battery-powered cars were to become the standard! – has to handle enormous peaks at the times of day when people will want to recharge, e.g. after work. Those spikes have to be taken into account, as there will have to be enough current potential in the grid, which in turn will need massive storage facilities or back-up power plants or alike. Hydrogen, on the other hand, can just be stored and used on demand. Including this in the analysis would most certainly tilt the 'resource efficiency balance' to quite a degree.

I like the analysis and pointing at the different uses for different needs could be more majored upon – school run and shop run Mums (and Dads) could use battery whilst long distance commercial vehicles could use hydrogen? What are the splits of usage? Can we have dual fuel battery / hydrogen vehicles? Others have pointed out some gaps in the e2e analysis and I wondered if we were missing the lost energy from carrying all the batteries whilst driving… surely this has an impact?

Thanks for another very informative video. One major thing not mentioned (I know, you can't mention everything) is that batteries can suck up solar power when the sun shines for use in the evening when demand spikes. Battery powered cars will soon be integrated into smart grids to power homes as well as transportation, further reducing the need for "peaker plants", running on natural gas. Fuel cells will have their place (probably aviation) but batteries are so much more versatile and simple. I love that solar panels on my roof power my car. Doesn't get much simpler (and local) than that.

I'd be driving a Tesla if I didn't live in Canada. But due to the cold, the batteries can lose up to 40% of their charge in winter. Not to mention very slow charging… There's always pros and cons to every technology.

This research if applied would put hydrogen vehicles in front of EVs, in terms of fuel costs, . Also it is not really fair to compare the two after one has been invested in to lower costs for a few years now.

Use nuclear energy in electrolysis process to produce hydrogen, simple. Main idea is to stop global warming by eliminating fossil fuel use and producing oxygen at the same time.

We need better batteries! Carbon nanotubes or even better gold nanotubes unfortunately they are really expensive & difficult to produce & supply is limited

You have completely ignored the the embodied energy in manufacturing the batteries and the manufacturing of batteries is not green so your statement that they are equally green is false

Lithium battery technology is not scalable for every vehicle in this world. Hydrogen technology might be if people would give it a chance by supporting this technology. Nowadays lithium industry is almost under China monopoly. Hydrogen fuel cell on the other hand uses some rare materials(Pt) but there is room for improvement and is theoretically possible. Lithium battery energy density has almost reach its theoretical max value hance lithium is dead end along the fact that there is not enought Lithium on this planet to power every vehicle. Hydrogen on the other hand can power trucks, trailers, tractors and even airplanes.

A Tesla S with a 2 to 2,4 c/km filling cost is a feat of engineering. With 3 or more seats occupied, it is more efficient than a high speed train. Unfortunately, these numbers are only a tiny part of the picture. With a three year/10 000 miles leasing cost of about 67 c/km, annual property tax above 4% in my CT town, and expensive insurance, the Tesla doesn't make sense anymore.

I believe there's a technology that's been developed (not public) which uses salt water in the process of extracting hydrogen. Something like a 90%+ efficiency rate in comparison to the current methods. The company is private and are still improving their methods, but a little bird tells me it's getting better.
Take this with a grain of salt as I cannot confirm.

18% of U.S. electricity is from renewables. If you compare against that presumption, why not make the same dreamy presumptions for the H ..? Still; my vote is NUCLEAR

how is the influence of the vehicle materials recyclability at the end of its service? or the energy manufacturing facility of the same?

But there is one major problem with electric cars, though the car in itself using a battery may be more green then an internal combustion engine. Where would that electricity come from? The power grid. Increasing the amount of electric cars would increase the demand for electricity. How is that electricity generated? Having dinosaur (fossil) fuel power plants working at a higher rate to supply the increased demand would only shift the pollution up stream to the companies generating the electricity rather then eliminating or reducing it.

So you didn't even mention the dangers of hydrogen. Mixed with air it is highly explosive even in small amounts. Other than that a good video.

You forgot to take driving efficiencies into account, hydrogen vehicles should be more efficient since they are lighter… Right?

I know the main Hydrogen tank needs time to repressurise after every filling. So how many Fuel Cell vehicles can a station serve in a 1hr period? 4?

Station costs need to be looked at too.
Stations that use hydrogen delivered as a gas have an average storage of 180 kg/day and an estimated the total cost of $2 million, which includes equipment, design, construction, and commissioning.

The cost of a single port EVSE unit ranges from $300-$1,500 for Level 1, $400-$6,500 for Level 2, and $10,000-$40,000 for DC fast charging. Installation costs vary greatly from site to site with a ballpark cost range of $0-$3,000 for Level 1, $600- $12,700 for Level 2, and $4,000-$51,000 for DC fast charging.

With DC fast charging stations, you can add multiple chargers to significantly lower the average cost, that's something you can't do with Hydrogen.

Honestly I’m a fan of Hydrogen, while it may have many problems the same can be said for the other options as well, cutting out Pollution completely is very unlikely, we need to focus more on minimizing it to the point where our planet can fight back

This is a great video but to my experience there are two factors missing in the comparison. Batteries effectiveness and lifetime are both temperature sensitive which means TCO over a longer period should be taken into the equasion and calculated into the efficiency loss. Both factors are less variable with Hydrogen Fuel cells. Hydrogen production is great for energy storage in periods of overproduction of electricity. In Europe there have been peak Electricity production periods when the electricity price was negative. This has lead to users (Industrial) being paid to use electricity. The production of Hydrogen could capture and buffer these peaks to validate the over production and help buffer electricity prices in both directions. As investments in solar and wind energy continue, more electricity production peaks are to be expected which will have a positive effect on the Hydrogen production and availability.

Real engineering , you should do a video on how the CSIRO has had a polymer exchange breakthrough in more efficient hydrogen production and transporting hydrogen as ammonia rather than gas.

Your also forgetting that electric motors wear out as well, batteries wear out or undergo chemical changes needing complete replacement no repair option. Wiring insulation breaks down and steel rusts too so electric cars arent anything spectacular either.

Here's the solution for the future: Thorium salt reactors for energy, hydrogen for cars, produced off peak and with solar cells and other renewable energy sources.

You're welcome.

An extremely deceiving video, entirely on the side of the battery lobby, What about the environmental cost of mining lithium, what about battery life time, replacement and recycling. On overall blinding us with percentages doesn't make it truthful.

nice and very interesting video. But lacks to take into account the Li-ion battery cost, energy spent on their production and lifespan, as they need to be replaced after some time. Could you please revise the video in order to take account for these variables? thanks in advance.

Great to see a fellow Irishman making some quality content rather than just uploading videos of fights on the Luas or lads wrecking something. Fair play, slick presentation and good research 👍🏻🇮🇪 Subscribed

Hydrogen is dirty to produce,and lithium batteries ditto,and are incredibly expensive to replace.Hydrogen is extremely flameable,dangerous to handle and transport.

Argentina has more than 50% of cars having their gas tanks replaced by LNG cylinders? do they know something we don´t?

You fail to account for all the energy of the finding the location, land appropriation and mining and processing of lithium for the batteries and then – all the fuel those machines use (mining and fabrication) in doing that. Plus what about all the waste of the lithium batteries when they're all spent? Hydrogen has a smaller overall 'creation' footprint although possibly, yes… less efficient at this current time.

Too bad manufacturers don't take LNG and Propane seriously.
Had the whole industry changed… we'd not be digging new mines worldwide.
Oh wait,…. that's China.

BOOM, your views of hydrogen production may need to be reviewed.

at time 4:49 the explanation of hydrogen fuel CHANGES: 1st it was shown that producing hydrogen was also polluting; then NON-polluting techniques were shown. Bur the non-polluting techniques were "costly" .
IF the goal is to produce at lowest cost then hydrogen is a LOSER ! too expensive.
IF the goal is to eliminate the pollution caused by fossil fuels coal, oil , natural gas: co$tly hydrogen is the SOLUTION.

It's currently cheaper to own/operate an electric car rather than own/operate a hydrogen car ONLY because we already invested trillions of dollars into CREATING that efficiency. If we did that for hydrogen, we would have DRASTICALLY cleaner cars AND POWERPLANTS that create electricity… we save the eco system with cleaner cars that won't have horribly polluting depleted batteries to store/recycle and our power plants could be turned to run on hydrogen, which has H20 as a by-product, instead of eco destroying coal & nuclear plants.

As with petroleum we are putting all our eggs in electricity, what is plan B, daily in our lives, we are growing not only the use of electric duty our dependency . We have seen and others have experienced a major power cut, depending where you are the effects are minor to chaos. We need a second form of energy, you hear very little about the use of bacteria as an energy supply.

would it be possible to post the links to articles etc you used in this video? I am doing a project concerning hydrogen so the links to where you found information could be really helpfull. thanks a lot in advance

Leave a Reply