Hello! This is a reupload because some of you expressed the graphs were misleading, and I agreed. The tiny bars were animated not to scale as an artistic choice, but in the interest of accuracy we decided to take the video down and change that. I hope you enjoy learning something from this video, or it at least sparks a desire to research and learn more! Edit: Reuploaded again because the first comment wasn't "first"
Exactly, I was excited to see what her conclusion was going to be, but once I saw Toyota sponsored this it lost are credibility to me. Nothing against Physics Girl, it’s just once something like this is sponsored, it gives off the wrong vibe. Still, I can see she’s trying to be unbiased.
@@coolminer6242 Also, if she's disclosing up front who's paying for it, she's giving you the grains of salt to take it with. The content is still better than nothing.
Well IMO, Diana has made a good job at not being too biased. What I take from this video is that fuel cells are a very niche market (long haul heavy duty semi). The question is, why the biggest car manufacturer investing only in this niche market?
@@xmtxx The issue stems from things like the BEV vs FCEV weight graph. That graph comes from a 2009 study. In 2009 there were almost no EV's available and technology had advanced significantly for them. It shows the FCEV weight at a constant 1,250Kg and BEV's climing to 3000Kg to reach 400 miles of range. However, that's just not accurate in 2021. We have EVs (Tesla Model S Long Range) capable of 400 miles, and that weighs only 100kg more than the Toyota Mirai does. And they both weigh around 2000Kg. That's a 1750Kg disparity that makes people think that BEVs are impractical when they are in fact very practical. I cannot think of a rational reason why she would use that graph when this is easily accessible information other than to specifically mislead people to appease Toyota.
On average, Americans drive ~26 miles per day. 95% of trips are under 30 miles. Under those conditions, recharging at home from a 240V charger is more than sufficient.
Thank you very much. I spend a year with fiat 500e (electric with about 90 miles of range) in LA in 2015 and that was the most frustrating driving experience of my life. This is when I needed to be late because car did not charge for some error when it was on the station charging. This is the time when I needed to be super scared if I will be able to get to another charging station and if it is going to work because the one I am at now is not working. This is the time when I needed to call a friend I was driving to visit to pick me up at a charging station where I will need to leave my car for charging. With your example of 95% trips under 30 miles I should have had no issues. Reality is much more harsh.
@@ponpetr 90 miles is a pathetic range for LA. All the time you must've sat in a traffic snarl with the air conditioning going full blast... 120 miles would be a little more reasonable. And for that longer trip maybe you should've rented a car.
@@popefacto5945 I get your point... But "maybe you should have rented a car" sounds very flippant considering they already bought a car. That said, I think in a few years when the range is over 200, and there's enough charging available to allow for redundancy (and lower cost). I do think BEV will probably fill most of the needs for "runabouts"... But then there are plenty of people who will need something else, and if that something else is hydrogen rather than petroleum we should all be happy.
@10:10 "if you replace all 15 million electric cars in California with battery electric and plug them all in, the grid would fail". But if hydrogen "uses about twice as much to produce/use hydrogen than battery", isn't that still a much better scenario than creating all that hydrogen? Regardless of the path, we're going to need more electricity generation and less fossil fuel generation
this is super important. the "switching every car to an EV breaks the grid" argument is a fossil-fuel company strawman argument to slow the adoption of electric cars. but even if this was a difficult issue, "switching every car to FCEV" might do worse to the grid, due to the inefficiencies of hydrogen production/storage/etc.
The grid works on 3 levels. 24/7 plants, 9am-9pm plants, and peak plants. Most of the cars charge at night, where demand is the least, and other plants can be made to switch on. The downside is that cost would rise to make the peak plants a 24/7 option, or change the 9-9 plants to overnight plants as well.
@@tiepup Who pays for that? You just moved the funding problem from more people to less people. You really think Sears, Walmart and Amazon are going to do that?
@@tiepup Tell it to Walmart, and businesses like them that don't worry about long term because they shut down move and rebuild before they see the return on solar.
Not if you produce hydrogen at the source e.g. at a nuclear power station. You could also balance the extra capacity of your grid to produce extra hydrogen. It enables you to not have to turn of turbines when there is no demand.
Let's be real hydrogen is just a BEV with more steps. Also find it funny the hydrogen proponents were making arguments that their system wouldn't be as affected by the grid. Your fuel source requires more grid energy to generate energy than just charging a BEV. The only good argument for hydrogen I see is using it as a long term energy storage system.
Given that this was sponsored by Toyota, it’s still feels like an ad even though she tries to give the other side of the argument, it would have been better if EV manufacturers were also interviewed for their perspective
It is. The EPA and charging info are just wrong. Average EPA on BEV is 250 miles and needing more like 20 to 25 min to charge up. The Mirai EPA is 357mi for limited mode and the 400mi for XLE model. Toyota is basically comparing their highest EPA hydrogen car with cheapest EV's (Bolt)
She disclosed the sponsorship up front and in the description. And she talked both sides. In terms of giving BEV more time, have you missed the past decade?
Pretty disappointed you mentioned that if every BEV plugged in at the same time the grid would fail, but didn't mention the opportunity for charging BEV's to be paired with excess solar production during the day to relieve strain on the grid. And you didn't mention how much EXTRA energy would be needed to make and transport all the hydrogen instead.
it's like saying what happens if all the hydrogen needed was created at once using electrolysis.. guess what... the grid will blow up 3x the amount because of the high inefficiency
yeah, series is sponsored and all, but this was paid advertisement; the rate of fuelling is higher, but to make it sustained the grid load would also be several times higher than if was batteries instead of hydrogen.
Yeah it was an advertisement. Which is fine, we could have talked about the details of the technology, rather than misleading the audience for personal gain.
That doesn't work. Charging will take place during rush hours, where people are driving their cars anyway. So they stop for a 5min charge with couple of hundred kw DC charger to top off at roughly the same time. For hydrogen, electrolysis can take place in the off hours, and when the people refuel their cars during the commute, the hydrogen is readily available in the tanks. That makes a lot better use of the power grid.
Japan had no CNG, LPG, Coal, or oil, but it discovered it's exploitable sea floor has an enormous reserve of hydrates. Yes folks that is being developed now. Equipment is developed along with refining and shipping. This produces natural gas and HYDROGEN for transport and industry. Fifty years of availability, makes the government happy.
another huge infrastructure issue that wasn't mentioned was the cost of installing new hydrogen refueling stations (1-5 million) vs that of a bev charging station (100k-300k). This is a huge factor!
this is why BEVs are currently on top, much cheap to add infrastructure. However she did mention that BEV infrastructure does depend on the grid. As BEVs scale, the grid would also need scaling. H2 can either be tied to the grid for onsite production via electrolysis or shipped not unlike our current gas infra. That's some flexibility.
@@monstercameron This is entirely true however, because the production to car efficiency is much lower compared to BEV's, about double the energy will be needed to produce the hydrogen for all the cars to go the same distance. So mass hydrogen production would require more electricity than just putting it directly into cars.
Another thing is that BEV stations can be put basically anywhere there's electricity. School parking lot, sure. Your house, sure! Parking garage, sure. Can't put a hydrogen station in your house, probably not in a parking garage. Definitely not at a school parking lot. I'm sure the places you put a hydrogen station will be much more limited.
@@culturedfrog7999 yes efficiency matter. However, due to the energu density, H2 will give consumer more range...That's a user experience win. Which is to say I don't think it's clear cut at all.
95ish% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuel. Electrolysis is too energy inefficient/expensive. How could we produce enough cheap hydrogen via clean sources? I would have liked to see this addressed.
In the future if >850C heat source can be reached with either concentrated solar or thorium molten salt reactor, then water can be split to hydrogen via a thermo-chemical process. Necessary reactants sulfur & iodine get repeatedly recycled to make this work. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle. Still in development.
You're not wrong exactly, but it's worth mentioning that a lot of the cost of electrolysis comes from a lack of scale. A scaled-up green hydrogen industry would be able to do a lot more for a lot cheaper.
I'm a french engineer that works in a start up that has develloped a carbonless way to produce hydrogen, and let me say that hydrogène is in no way the solution to transports : producing hydrogen without cracking méthane is sooooo inefficient it's painfull, you say about 30% efficiency for it, i say about 5% with the actual numbers that we have before modification to make them public. Currently, and it's no way near changing, 99% of the hydrogène that is use in the World (most of it is used in ammoniac production for agricutur, not for power cell transportation) is produce by cracking methane and therefore 1g of H2 produce 10g of CO2, so encouraging the use of hydrogène for transportation while we don't even produce it "greenly" for agricultur is quite ironic i'd say
@@lightdark00 Electrolysis is about 50% efficient while battery charging is about 95% efficient. Fuel cell is about 50% efficient, battery discharge about 95% efficient. Throwing away over half the energy means over double the CO2 in production of solar never mind the hydrogen consumables.
@@mychevysparkevdidntcatchfi1489 Added mass of a battery in a vehicle should count to losses in efficiency. If I have to accelerate 50% more mass because of low energy density of batteries it doesn’t sound like efficiency.
Correction: High-end BEVs have 500+ miles of range. Also, you mentioned that the cleanest way to produce hydrogen is electrolysis but in reality, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from natural gas (producing tons of emissions). While fuel cell is superior technology to ICE, I do not think it will ever overtake BEV in widespread adoption.
@@The_Flamekeepers How long do the batteries last? As in how many years before they break down? Batteries degraded from just sitting on a shelf, and I can never find good numbers from EV manufactures on this.
@@Justin73791 it’s hard to know from any OEMs other than Tesla, but Tesla’s data covers nearly (or perhaps more than) a decade of vehicles on the road in real world conditions. FYI charging cycles matters more than years on the shelf.
I appreciate the attempt by Dianna to present a balanced take on things, despite some perceived bias/optimism of Toyota employees. The argument that that BEV's don't work for everyone because of living situation (no garage) vs FCEV is somewhat weak because you can still find electricity anywhere. Coffee shops, mall parking lots. Easy to expand to apartments and more common places. Even street lights have been proposed. Bottom line is the situation is pretty good for a good chunk of people, and getting better by the day. Can't quite put a hydrogen tanks everywhere though, so you'll never be able to get away from making dedicated trips to a station. I agree that Hydrogen can be a part of a healthy and diversified infrastructure, especially for energy storage if you have plentiful excess renewable energy, but I'm still not sold on its use case for commuter vehicles. More specific to car design, hydrogen might have a weight efficiency vs batteries but it's volumetric energy density isn't great whereas battery tech is improving at a much faster rate. Its storage at pressure also makes it more difficult to package, since you can't hide them under the floor of the passenger compartment. The best user experience, from an ergonomic and aesthetic perspective will be found with BEVs.
Using hydrogen for trucks and stuff like that would be very nice. Especially those who drive in cities all day. Although i admire those powerful diesel trucks, i would prefer ev trucks in places with a lot of people around. But imagine if we find a way to turn CO2 and H2O back into hydrocarbons and O2. But i dont think thats going to happen anytime soon
And while not everyone can install a charger at home today, it’s completely possible and increasingly normal to generate electricity at home. It takes me longer to fill my car, but I’m usually asleep while it happens and don’t have to worry about going anywhere other than my destination or whether a supply chain or technical issue makes fuel unavailable or suddenly very expensive. I like the idea of diversity, though.
This is not a great take re charging. I own a m3 and was lucky enough to live pretty close to a supercharger in miami. Supercharging to full can take upto an hour. On level 2 charging like I do now in my garage, it takes a few hours and level one is over a day. I went to Jacksonville a few months back on a road trip and there weren't many super chargers in that huge city. It definitely is much harder if you don't have a personal/dedicated location to charge.
@@monstercameron As BEVs become more popular, anyone who owns a rental property will face ever increasing pressure to install chargers. If the numbers say that having chargers lets you set rent higher, or attracts a more wealthy renters, they'll be falling over themselves to install.
Toyota, maker of the hydrogen fuel cell car used in the video, sponsors video about comparing hydrogen fuel cell vs battery charged vehicles. Nope, nothing concerning about that.
Yeah, this is a lot of FUD from Toyota. They're actively trying to scare people away from BEVs because they've invested in FCEVs and they're scared by the entire rest of the industry embracing BEVs. They simply cannot afford to go it alone and build out all of the infrastructure for FCEVs themselves. FCEVs are dead on arrival but they're trying to do CPR - or at least delay BEVs until they can figure out how to pivot.
@@mzmegazone I wouldn’t say fcev are dead on arrival. There are other countries that produce more hydrogen than they can use. This would be a fantastic use for them. Like the video said there can be two solutions. One doesn’t have to win over the other. They raise a good point about people who don’t have an ability to charge their bev at night. Fcev would be good for that too. It would be better for a road trip. I don’t see that as dead on arrival.
@@jonathanfairchild I know EV owners who can't charge at home. They hit a DCFC once or twice a week. Battery capacity and vehicle range continues to rise, and charging speeds continue to increase. The 'inconvenience' of charging a BEV is less so all the time. We're better off investing in building out DCFC infrastructure than trying to bootstrap a hydrogen infrastructure from next to nothing. Most of today's hydrogen is a byproduct of fossil fuel production. That's neither environmentally friendly nor sustainable. If green sources of hydrogen are developed or is much, much more valuable for industries where batteries are not a good option - such as aviation. Hydrogen will see growing demand as a direct fuel as well as feedstock for efuels - synthetic jet fuel produced from hydrogen and captured carbon. There is a real struggle to produce enough of these fuels, so any hydrogen used for FCEVs is a net negative. If the funds spent on trying to make FCEVs happen were spent on improving BEV infrastructure, everyone would benefit. Pushing FCEVs at this point is simply producing a divided market and holding back progress and adoption. They've been touting FCEVs for decades, abs they still aren't ready for widespread use. In that time BEVs have gone from a novelty to a viable product to the mainstream, with an explosion of products coming in the next few years. FCEVs have no such momentum. They remain a novelty with billions in investment required to make them even marginally viable for most consumers. Hydrogen has a future in some markets, automobiles isn't one of them.
@@mzmegazone In Norway 65% of our new cars sold is bevs. We have also tried out, and totaly left the fruitless idea of hydrogen electric cars, a couple of years ago. The people who bougt hydrogen cars has no place to fill them with hydrogen anymore.
@@kimantonsen5595 Exactly. FCEVs are an evolutionary dead end for small vehicles. I do believe hydrogen has a future in aviation - either directly or as feedstock for efuels - but that is a very different infrastructure. Same for shipping. You only need H2 distribution at airports and actual ports. Rail is best electrified - where that's more difficult perhaps H2 (combustion or fuel cells) has a role. But, again, your infrastructure is much less and more concentrated. Trucking becomes more difficult, but automobiles would require basically reproducing the gas station infrastructure with H2. That's a massive investment - and BEVs are well ahead. It is much easier to drop a charger into a parking garage, public lot, etc., than it is to install H2 filling stations. That's a key difference - BEV charging infrastructure can be massively distributed. And for those who can charge at home or work, it is far superior.
a) There's something wrong with the vehicle test weght vs range graph. It does not require 1500 Kg of additional weight to achieve a 400 mile range. b) Fuel cells also have a limited life, which you dismiss with a "batteries lose range, hydrogen fuel cells, not so much". Last time I heard the costs of replcing the fuel cell in a car, it was in the $100k range. c) Hydrogen fuel stations are eye-wateringly expensive to build and maintain compared to charging infeastructure. d) Hydrogen production by electrolysis at the required scale is also expensive. I don't think it will ever happen, except in places of high densiy/demand like California. BEVs have no step change required.
Spot on. I think the weight penalty for 400 miles is closer to 500 kg, which is still a lot, but it's a far cry from 1.5 metric tonnes. And it keeps getting lighter every year.
The problem with hydrogen isn't the weight, it's the volume. Especially since it needs to be stored at very high pressure (or low temperature) and those vessels can't be shaped easily. So the reason hydrogen cars have issues getting more range is the space the tanks use. That's not as much a problem for batteries at this point.
the problem of hydrogen its poor performence (power ratio) new merai have about 95 hp per metric ton while the standard model 3 which is alot cheaper have 175 hp per metric ton 👍
@@keepthefaith9805 Yes that's correct, unlike the efficiency problem, storage issues could be improved with smaller, higher pressure tanks. But that would also come with other downsides like more expensive fuel and infrastructures, and further reduced efficiency. But there's not really a point to pursue it when BEV are cheaper and more convenient already. I don't think FCEV will ever make sense for general road use. Just get a BEV.
That’s fair, but I think the point made in the video that hydrogen could be used for so many other applications than average commuter vehicles still makes the development of the technology “worth it”.
@@CrossoverGenius well , no , after calculating repair costs and if you refer to factories or facilities they use power grid electric motors so they get 90% efficient :) the main fight was in automobile industry because cars stop and move a lot and run at variable speeds most of the time
As an engineer and climate activist, I'm deeply disappointed by this video. Yes, the sponsoring made it clear from the get go, but this is more a commercial for nerdy people than an honest science communication attempt. I can tell you tried to make it balanced and impartial, but that didn't quite actually happen. Interview a few people in the BEV sector or other car manufacturers and researchers that are considering all options, not just the outlier that's heavily investing in hydrogen...
So as an engineer, tell me how you can drive a 10 tons truck with a load of another 15 tons making it 25 tons in total with just batteries. Please tell me "engineer".
not possible, thats why the tesla truck never got released. Because once you add that 20 tons of battery juice on a 10-15 tons truck you can only tow a few more tons that it will become useless since there are weight resitrictions on the road and bridges as well as the whole thing would become a disaster. You pseudo-engineer
@@gameblamerfan dude, you're being aggressive for no reason. At no point did he say that BEV are the only choice or anything that your response would actually be relevant to. In fact neither did the folks in the video. Both technologies have their applications. He just said that if you're only showing the opinion of people heavily invested into fuel cell technology, then the opinion is obviously biased. Showing what battery people don't like about fuel cells would fix that. Otherwise it is indeed just a commercial. Regarding to the tesla semi, the reason they haven't released it yet is that they are battery production constrained. They can make a lot of cars out of the same number of cells they'd need for a semi. They aren't a company that has to promise outlandish stuff just to get some attention for sales. If it wasn't viable, they'd ditch it already.
@@tiepup and wasted energy to make the hydrogen. All to charge a battery just like in a battery EV. Added complexity and extra thermodynamic losses for no benefit.
@@KenLord hydrogen cars take 5 minutes to refuel, are more durable and modular, and safer in crashes. most importantly, with a small battery that could be completely replaced by a supercap bank, it doesn't require children mining lithium.
@@gasun1274 Just to clarify, it's cobalt that uses child labour in third world countries. You might be mixing up that travesty with Elon threatening to coup Bolivia to access their lithium mine.
@@gasun1274 Also you forget, there isn't only lithium as an option. Next year for example na+ batteries are ramping up in production. Newer reports are showing which car is better for the environment by far.
Maybe this addressed elsewhere, but in the short segment on efficiency we get a single statement “if hydrogen is generated by electrolysis…”, but almost no hydrogen IS generated by electrolysis and prospects that that will change aren’t good. In reality, almost all hydrogen is generated by steam reforming of methane, or worse, by steam reforming of coal. While the electric grid is getting greener with the growth of renewables supplanting fossil fuels in electricity - and doing so in an economically competitive way - that is just not currently in the cards for hydrogen.
She starts the video talking about this being sponsored series by Toyota and that she got at least a free car out of it. How can she make that point clearer? She does not say that hydrogen based transport is the end-all be all greatness.
@Tamiasciurus not to be rude, but youre lagging a bit. Toyota and others are all ready to implement them. Very soon. A year maybe two AT MOST. The thing with their plan is though, regular ev for daily use, hydrogen for distance. Not end all be all
@@anonymous_anonymity lol on the contrary from Toyota, Mr. Musk doesn't need to pay people like this channel. Great production though, really informational!
This is my first vid I saw on this channel. If this really is supposed to be educational channel then I hope this is a joke. This has little about education and much more about biased info about (at least) this topic.
@@Deploracle The trees have plenty CO2 without our help... What about the ocean vegetation? You know that more CO2 = more acidous water = less plants in the oceans?
@@giovannifrrri5495 Way more efficient than ICEVs (check how much energy just producing the fuel takes) and HEVs. Plus I live in Sweden, we don't burn anything to produce electricity and low-carbon electricity is growing all over the world.
@@monstercameron that’s assuming you are empty or that you drive 240 miles every single day… When in reality people drive 50 miles a day average which means 10 hours to charge is plenty to replenish the days usage… and cars sit for 20 hours a day.
Not everyone can charge at home, for now. In the example in the video she is is renting the house and can not put in a charger. In the future people will not rent a house that does not have a charger installed. And for apartments, that will be a big draw point for BEV owners if they have charging in the parking assignments. A lot of the "downside" argument is the current status of things. Who knows what it will look like in 5 year.
I couldn't charge at home for the first two months until I moved. The next two months I ... was lazy and didn't bother setting up my charger at home. It was just as easy to just charge on the street chargers. As long as your city puts in infrastructure, charging isn't an issue.
I think that’s what the end of the video is about. Battery is better for some, but for others hydrogen is better. Both can help reduce the number of gas cars on the road
@@eduardoroca1991 next year we have a 800km range bev, which one can load in 8 minutes from 0-80%. Also na+ batteries will ramp up in production. Btw, any hydrogen car has range problems. They don't get full in lots of circumstances.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 I won't hold my breath for these new long range BEVs. Tesla cars have also shown to not have nearly the range that they're advertised.
Tbh I'm disappointed by this series. Although you put up the legally required "this is an ad" disclaimer, it feels like one of your normal, actually scientific and balanced, non-opinionated and politics-free videos. Which it clearly isn't, and other people have pointed that out. I simply cannot trust anything presented in this video because Toyota stands behind it with corporate interest. (Others have pointed out the company's issues which I wasn't even aware of, unfortunately.) With all of that, I can't be watching this video. For everyone else, I recommend Real Engineering's The Truth About Hydrogen, which is actually the kind of scientific video we need on the topic. And I believe that Diana and her team could do something of similar or greater value, if it isn't sponsored.
Oh so you mean Teslarati videos don't have corporate interest? It was a great and balanced video, free of BEV industry's false claims and ads, and telling the real story.
@@GautamPrabhakar who mentioned Teslarati? Of course they are biased too, but this video contains evident false data and misleading claims, as many have pointed out in the other comments.
I really enjoyed this episode. A very balanced and well presented argument in favour of HFC cars. I have also driven the Mirai, and the Hyundai Nexo and the Honda Clarity, they were all really good cars that worked very well. Yes, there are some serious problems with the filling stations, we used to have 12 here in the UK, we now have 5 because they were not used enough to maintain them economically. But reliability issues with H2 filling stations is a fairly simple technical issue which I'm sure can be overcome. However the one question not asked in this video, and for me it is the massive, oversized elephant in a very small room. Where does the hydrogen come from? I know there will be an immediate answer, 'we can split water using excess electricity from renewables ' and that is 100% true, okay, there are massive energy losses, you need 4 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of hydrogen. But even that is nit picking. Where does the hydrogen we use today come from? 98% of commercial hydrogen comes from steam reforming natural gas, it's produced in an oil refinery, it is a fossil fuel derivative. Yes, it's clean, yes, when you pass H2 through a fuel cell the only waste product is water. But when we extract hydrogen from natural gas we 'bleed off' the CO2 into the atmosphere. And yes, the fossil fuel industry are all over this, 'we are going to capture that carbon and sequestrate it in old oil caverns underground.' They have been talking about doing this since 1990, and all the tests have proven unworkable or economically unviable. So to sum up, a hydrogen fuel cell car is a very inefficient fossil fuel car.
@@splendidsystems 14% Nuclear, 5% biomass, 1% coal (soon none), 29% Wind (rising), 5% solar (rising), 2% Hydro, gas 32%, 1% unknown and 11% imported (primarily France). An EV with an efficiency of around 3 Miles per kWh (production to wheel) and will, including all production of both vehicles, have a lower total emission footprint by the time it's done 25k miles, powered on the average mix of the UK grid. Even with the most efficient hydrogen production methods we have now, and improved efficiency of electric motors and car aerodynamics, you would still expect to get a "Green hydrogen" FCEV only 1 mile/kWh from production of the electric to wheels on the road. An electric car's battery can now expect to have 95%+ of it's elements recycled after it has finished it's life cycle - estimated to be over 100,000 miles and then reused for grid storage for a number of years before being disassembled.
@@hargibson18 obfuscate? have you seen what BEVs do in the cold? their range drops to less than half, hydrogen maintains a consistent range regardless of temperature and altitude.
@@gasun1274 skandinavian people dont seem to have a problem with that. in norway more than 50% of new cars are BEV, and norway us not known for its tropical temperatures 😉
After watching this, it seems like the benefits of creating consumer-FCEVs doesn't make up for the infrastructure requirements... I still think they'd be great for trucking, or other industrial uses (particularly for electric planes!), but those are all places where you could make specialized refueling stations, rather than making public ones on every street corner.
I think that's the general consensus at the moment, that initially hydrogen will make the most impact for use with trains, buses, trucks and boats. Hydrogen cars will be niche, but maybe there'll be a tipping point as the infrastructure grows and hits critical mass.
@@johnmcnulty6171 why start building the infrastructure in the first place? We already have electric lines going everywhere... In some places they're putting electric car charging ports on old street lamps when they switch over to energy efficient bulbs.
@@guamae Because BEV's are not practical for a substantial number of drivers. Also, lithium is a finite element, BEV's can only play a role at best. If we want to move away from ICE we will need to embrace FCEV's.
@@Robert-cu9bm honestly, that's something we need to do anyways, particularly in the US. Our electrical grid is outdated, inefficient, and too vulnerable to the extreme weather that is only going to keep getting more common.
One major assumption is that we will only ever have lithium-ion batteries. There is an enormous amount of research going into batteries that are safer, charge faster, and have higher energy density.
As do Lithium batteries today. The graph shown was from 2009. Deliberately ignoring the fact that energy densities have improved many times since then.
You're right, we should compare the fuel cell technology of today against the as-yet uninvented battery technology of the future. Very fair comparison.
@@vacri54 But the point is they are comparing the fuel cell of today with the battery tech from 12 years ago. Since then battery prices have dropped 90& and their energy density has doubled. Fuel cells had a window of opportunity to become a viable technology for cars. They missed it. BEVs have too many advantages, are established at scale and they are rapidly improving. Fuel calls are a mature technology that is comparatively stagnant.
If there's a H2 infrastructure, us enthusiasts that want engines to tinker on can have hydrogen ICE engines. Works especially good in Rotary engines. Water out the tail pipe.
@@THall-vi8cp Still less than burning fossil fuels in ICE cars - as those fossil fuels are just a combination of (mostly) carbon and hydrogen you get both CO2 and H2O as results.
@@NikaHollywood You really want to have people tinker with a car that basically is a bomb on wheels - if those 700 bar /10000 psi tank bursts and discharges into the cabin you are dead no matter if the hydrogen ignites or not.
The overall efficiency really makes me lean conventional battery whenever possible. The place I see Hydrogen being good would be emission-free air travel where the less weight means everything. Also it's much easier to plan infrastructure between a few airports.
Ya I could see this being good for trucking and airplanes, which are dependent on weight but in just reg personal travel I think batteries are just fine
So what I understand the fuel cells aren't efficient enough and add extra weight and cost, so they're looking at burning the hydrogen instead. No carbon emissions but the problem is at the high temperatures nitrous oxides are produced which aren't good, but at a lower level than traditional airplane engines.
Completely agree. Until batteries achieve much more energy storage per pound, airplanes could use Hydrogen. But, the inefficiency of Hydrogen, inability to charge at home, putting frozen, extremely pressurized liquid into a tank, and lack of hydrogen refueling facilities will combine to make Hydrogen not able to catch on. And those with a hydrogen car will thusly have the auto-equivalent of betamax.
depends on how you look at emission free. Since most hyrdogen comes from crude oil. So the vehicle may not be "emission free", but nearly everything else about it still is emission heavy. Even to some extent, it could be worst in emission if we were to keep the hydrogen but dump the carbon from crude oil.
The issue with hydrogen air travel is how do you store the fuel. While the fuel is light, it either needs to be kept in heavy reinforced containers under pressure, or at cryogenic temperature, which also requires heavy equipment.
"Losing capacity over time" - FCEVs still need a small battery, which will deteriorate over time. How long does a fuel cell last ? Also Hydrogen tanks need replacing every 10-15 years due to embrittlement.
Of course, but a small battery and a tank will be much cheaper and easier to replace than a 70 odd kWh chassis sized battery. My guess is that we'll see most small city cars moving the BEV route, with sedans, tourers, recreational vehicles (SUVs, 4x4s), and logistics vehicles (including trucks, planes and ships etc.) move the hydrogen route.
@@ayreon213 EV batteries are already lasting for longer than most consumer vehicles these days are ever driven before being scrapped. The drop in efficiency doesn't significantly affect their function.
@@hs_747 all of this is named and explained in the video. Battery recycling is trailing behind production because the demand is lower at the moment. currently, battery vehicle production is steeply ramping up and it will take a decade at least for the battery recycling tp follow. You may know that many people building power walls can't find used batteries because there's more demand than supply. there's a lot of R&D backed by big players that are interested to recycle batteries because it makes economic sense. If things make economic sense, it will happen. If we wait for people to "be nice", it won't. In case it makes a difference geographically, I'm in Europe. By the way, Hydrogen vehicles would have the same battery recycling issues, just less of them, as Mike already stated.
@@hs_747 There's not enough of them (batteries) to "feed" a gigafactory yet... and you're completely neglecting used battery market. Used EV batteries are highly sought after for DIY(-ish) home storage, ICE->BEV conversions, replacements of worn out battery packs for good ones from wrecked cars (Nissan Leafs, mainly) etc. Most car battery packs simply are too sought after to be recycled.
*Sigh* I really enjoy Diana's videos but I feel like this series is bias due to Toyota being the sponsor. I would've really been interested in seeing a non-bias comparison between the two technologies
Toyota makes both hydrogen fuel and battery powered vehicles. What do you mean by bias due to Toyota? In this episode she just interviewed the hydrogen power division. And that's actually good because it's a very less explored field. I didn't even know that commercial fuel cell vehicles were already available. You'll get loads of people interviewing BEV manufacturers all over UA-cam. But when it comes to fuel cells, not so much. Just be aware, that Toyota makes loads of battery powered vehicles as well. Maybe not in USA but they definitely do in Asia. They have no reason to be biased towards Hydrogen cells
@@conscireshooter True. I agree Toyota does produce BEV. However, in this case their main objective is to promote their FCEV. This video compares both technologies so it would be less bias if she also had BEV companies interviewed as well.
@@conscireshooter actually they only make plug-in hybrids, not full BEVs as of yet. They announced they will be trying to make a full BEV SUV maybe in 3-5 years, but as of current they are actively trying to destroy the adoption of BEV vehicles. This isn't exactly a secret or anything either... www.autoblog.com/2021/08/16/honda-toyota-oppose-ev-union-incentives/ Honda is joining them on their crusade to take out the knees of BEV adoption.
@@bobsalita3417 Google BZ series by Toyota. It's a whole line of EVs planned to launch within a few years in Asia. They were inaugurated earlier this year
If the "electrical grid is down" Not only will you not be able to charge your EV, but fuel stations will be off line too, including FCEV stations. Companies are starting to install battery storage with EV chargers, the main purpose of this is to charge the battery when demand on the grid is low, but it would also be useful in a situation when the grid is down.
I'm actually puzzled why they bet so hard on the non-plug-in hybrids, they have plenty of experience with hybrids, why not let people with a parking spot charge for their daily commute over night, by giving the car a plug? BEV's are getting better with range, but plug-in hybrids still go further on a charge and a tank. Of course the most efficient ICE cars go even further than that (which isn't what they said when they introduced hybrids). But for the most commutes, a car is rarely going more than 75km a day. Perfect reason to go for a plug-in hybrid, a home charger and a flat rate subscription for charging. I just don't understand why Toyota didn't see PHEV coming.
@@BenjaminVestergaard technically yes, but most plug-in-hybrids are only sold to make your fleet look better than it really is. There was a study done, where they found that a high percentage of hybrid vehicles had their charge cable still in original wrapping in the bunk, never used. They just drive it like an ICE car with a smaller tank and that's it. And when you then think about how most sold hybrids are also SUVs, which are mostly useless tons of steel parading around one overweight person in their mid-fourties additional to about 4m³ of empty space just as a status symbol... Then they're wasting even more energy to haul all that useless mass around.
@@midnight8341 well, here in Denmark I think that the smaller crossovers are more popular. Much people say that they choose that class of cars just to sit a bit higher up. But of course those cars are hardly anything but hatchbacks with a bit more ground clearance and worse aerodynamics. Anyway, my point was just that now you can get almost all Toyota models as hybrids, but why didn't Toyota just add a plug? At least then the customers that actually wanted to drive as EV for their daily commute could do so. But of course I know that a lot of customers just find it impractical, at least it'd be a choice. And I do know that many PHEV's have ridiculous charge times for just 50km EV range, even at fastchargers. Rented a Hyundai which took 3 hours at its fastest. But at least it had a plug.
It's all about infrastructure. The availability of it is the winner for me. In my area there isn't any hydrogen. However, EV charger are plenty and so far they're free of charge!
And power points. Can use the mobile chargers off any power point. And an upgrade is easily sorted out with an electrician. Can't do that with hydrogen.
Once the infrastructure is in place, hydrogen will take over. The trucks are going to force hydrogen development, which will make it more available to personal cars. The batteries are too heavy for the trucks, making them very inefficient for heavy vehicles.
@@tonymouannes You are assuming that batteries today will never improve energy density...while I agree that hydrogen is interesting for heavy vehicles, fuel cell technology and hydrogen infrastructure are aiming at a moving target. If batteries 10 years from now have twice the energy and half the cost of today's batteries, it's hard to imagine hydrogen-based transportation on a nationwide scale being competitive, given the enormous cost of putting in a nationwide network of hydrogen refueling stations. Local delivery vehicles? Maybe.
@@JerryFlowersIII Some of the issues with hydrogen and FCEV's (inefficiency, high relative cost, lack of infrastructure) are mentioned in the video though she soft-pedals them somewhat (perhaps because the sponsor's looking over her shoulder). They're obviously feeding her bad/outdated information about BEV's. Maybe you should watch the video and PAY ATTENTION. Maybe you should ask yourself why 150-year-old technology is being rehashed in the 2020's after falling on its face in the 2000's.
If to many battery electric cars overload the power grid, and hydrogen cars need double the amout of electricity per mile. Then aren't hydrogen cars a bigger problem?
I think part of the idea is that hydrogen would be be produced on the grid. It would probably be made in central locations with dedicated generators and then shipped around just like petrol today.
More than 95% of hydrogen are made from fossile fuel now. And you'd have hundreds of thousand of pieces of yard art if all cars turned FCEVs over night with those very few hydrogen stations, while the grid would still be able to cope.
Diana, what is the life span of the hydrogen fuel cells? I was involved in a project about 15 years ago where back up electricity was provided with hydrogen. With that technology the fuel cells need maintains every 1500 hours. I'm sure it's a lot better now, but how much? Will the fuel cells last as long a the car, or will they need to be replaced periodically? And what will the cost be?
Not Diana though, but anyway, fuel cells have come a long way since then. In fact, the durabillity of FC has improved dramatically. According to DOE it is around 5k for mobile applications. Toyota claims that their FC should outlive their car(150-200k miles). Bear in mind one intersting fact. When FC is at the end of their lifespan, it is much much more easier to recycle and obtain critical minerals back from the FC such as platinum and iridium. That is a huge factor when considering the environment. 👍
@@PanEvropa2004 out live the car at 150-200k miles? It wasn't a few decades ago car manufacturers were trying to make cars last a half million or more miles. Strange how that number has gone DOWN over the years rather than up.
@@SWRaptor1 I agree. Though FCEV are relatively new and there are reasons to believe, that this number will significantly improve with a adoption of hydrogen economy.
@@PanEvropa2004 no, this number will improve when we drastically reduce the number of moving parts in automobiles. This advantage is to BEV vehicles and their adoption is much further along than hydrogen. Once you can feasibly state that 90%+ of hydrogen comes from renewables, it's just another fossil fuel as it mostly comes from fracking.
@@PanEvropa2004 the fuel cell should outlast the car at 150 - 200k miles. Interesting. Because she mentioned batteries losing capacity over time... Without bothering to say the a Tesla at 200k miles only loses about 10% capacity, and can keep on being used long after that. And the new Tesla 4680 batteries, with new chemistries and better efficiency / less losses to resistance, are coming in the next 6 months or so.
the huge inconvenience of hydrogen: 1. volumetric energy density. The gravimetric looks fine, but doesn't consider which volume one kg of hydrogen takes. 2. filling: it's fast when you're one of the first 8 customers at the pump. After 6 to 10 fillings the station needs compressing the hydrogen to 800 or 900 bar, which typically takes 25 to 40 min. So then battery would be faster
hydrogen may be greener than dino juice, but it has a MAJOR disadvantage: you can charge an electric car at home, but who has a hydrogen station at home or within a few dozen miles? also, you need electricity to make hydrogen, which is less efficient than charging a battery. no, hydrogen cars won't catch on. not sure about trucks, tho'
Well, companies already make on-site hydrogen generators, adapting it to the home market and bundling it with solar panels could help address that. Selling your solar to the power company is already pretty 'meh', but using your excess solar to maintain a home tank is another possible use.
What are you talking about? Hydrogen is mainly made today from fossil fuels. What green? It COULD be made using green energy, but when it's cheaper and easier to use natural gas... which do you think corporations are going to do?
@@neeneko losing 50% of your produced energy and needing a product to do so is sad bro, when you can have a battery Wich probably cost less, and loses less energy.
i have been seeing a lot of talk lately around how hydrogen is sourced and its net carbon impact, along with terms like 'grey' and 'blue' hydrogen... and it is clear to me that (as are most things meant for popular consumption these days) these articles are biased towards one particular position or another... i would appreciate a video in this series (or thereafter) that looks at the science behind how hydrogen can be sourced on the scale needed to serve a national or international market for fuel cell vehicles, as well as an objective presentation of the pros and cons for the various methods and sources in terms of net energy, cost, environmental impact and sustainability, etc... i have of course googled for this, but it is difficult to tell what is objectively factual (and complete) and what is slanted by opinion. i would trust you for this information far more than i would any online article. thank you for your continued excellent youtube material!
My current take on this - There are three main ways of making Hydrogen: Steam Reforming, Electrolysis and Gasification. The efficiency numbers I have seen for these processes have varied a bit: Small Scale SMR - 65-75%, Large Scale SMR - 70-80%, Electrolysis - 65-80%, Gasification - 40-50%. Depends on who did the study, when it was done and what they included in their calculations. However I did find a table that looked at it from 'grams of CO2/MJ of Energy' for over a dozen systems (from source to pump, including transport/processing storage etc). For example: Electricity from nuclear energy, electrolysis on retail site, hydrogen compression (88 MPa) - 8 gCO2eq MJ− 1 Central electrolysis from wind energy, hydrogen liquefaction, liquid hydrogen road transport to retail site, hydrogen cryo-compression in to vehicle tank (35 MPa) = 4.2 gCO2eq MJ− 1 Natural gas delivered by pipeline (4000 km), centrally reformed in a 200 MW plant with an efficiency of 75% and CCS technology = 43.2 gCO2eq MJ− 1 Farmed wood, small-scale gasifier and hydrogen liquefaction, liquid hydrogen road transport to retail site, hydrogen cryo-compression in to vehicle tank (35 MPa) - 8.8 gCO2eq MJ− 1 The document I got this from focused a lot on the lower monetary costs of SMR, but did acknowledge how bad it was in terms of CO2 production and Methane Production. It did also suggest ways of improving the SMR process so at least they are looking into it. Personally though, if the electricity for the electrolysis comes from a renewable source like wind/solar/tidal, I guess you can put nuclear in there as well, is the way we need to go almost regardless of monetary costs.
It's an interesting problem, and the reason I don't expect hydrogen to ever break out of a small niche use. Electrolysis at least can be green (at least as far as carbon goes) if the electricity source is green - Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, etc. The problem is why add an extra conversion step & source of inefficiency to use electricity to make hydrogen when you already have the electricity & can use it directly (to charge a battery)?
@@WhiskyCanuck based solely on this video, it seems like FCEV can tackle larger weights, and has the advantage of quick refills, compared to BEV, so would be much more useful for a fleet of big rigs.
Although I have criticised the first two versions I really hope you don't take it down again. Let's discuss openly, Dianna(+team)! :) I'm glad the video is back with improvements! :) I'm aware these videos are Toyota-sponsored but I think there should be more critical views on hydrogen-electric cars/vehicles. For them to go the same distance as purely battery electric cars we need about 2-3 times as much energy in ‚production‘. (~55kWh/kg for 100km range in a car vs. 15-25kWh/100km). German scientist Volker Quaschning and economist Claudia Kemfert regularly call hydrogen the ‘champagne of energy resources‘. I think for a rapid reduction of emissions we need to preserve green hydrogen and e-fuels mainly for the energy-intensive industry and planes/ships/maybe heavy duty trucks. We shouldn't ‘waste‘ green electricity to H2-cars. Also H2-cars and green hydrogen will stay too expensive for many people for many years, which further delays our energy/mobility transition. Regarding 6:51 : And yet BEVs need way less energy than hydrogen-electric cars. Again: Yes, there are use-cases for hydrogen, but in cars not so much, I think. 8:09 & 8:41 Volkswagen is aiming for BEV-trucks as well, not so much for hydrogen-electric, but I'm not well-informed enough in trucking. 8:39 I'm sorry, has anything changed with Nikola or is it still a disastrous scam? 10:06 And if we tried to fill all these vehicles with hydrogen at the same time that probably wouldn't work as well. At least with BEVs we have a decentralised refilling infrastructure and many people can recharge at home. (Yes, not everybody) 10:13 Some(!) trucks can charge while (un)loading, but for now I agree, trucks might work better with hydrogen-electric technology. 11:35 No, Without electricity you cannot use the electrical pumps at hydrogen stations. Or am I missing something?🤨 P.S.: Had to edit this comment I posted unter the previous two versions because of slightly changed video length. :)
On the other hand, one major advantage of hydrogen is the relatively efficient transmission cost. You can produce it in energy rich areas (like solar setups in deserts) and transport it by tanker, allowing you to decouple generation and consumption in a way that becomes very inefficient with electricity. There is also the major economic question of how battery prices will change as demand goes up. Right now they are 'cheap' due to relatively low demand, but ramping up the supply chain to support several orders of magnitude more production AND constant replacement could change that equation.
If it’s sponsored by a company that will only push hydrogen only for current fleet emissions criteria and not even looking at full battery it seems slightly sketchy. I’ll watch but wish you would have made this without Toyota
Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, I don't think she would have gotten a lot of this information without it and I don't think it's fair to discredit it just due to that fact. Not everything here is sugar coated, the efficiency is a glaring issue and it was presented fairly, I imagine the next two videos in the series will continue that trend
After watching the video there are definitely a lot of things that could have been said or brought up that should have been but would have made the sponsor mad. I would encourage you to remake this video non sponsored and really dig into it more as this doesn’t really give a true comparison Especially when you can’t name the leading competitor by far yet use them in the thumbnail.
Eh, she presented the facts. She showed where battery was better and where hydrogen CAN be better (for now). So I don't think she was overly biased due to the sponsorship. Toyota knows where they stand. That's why they are pushing this idea of "It's totally not a competition. We need both". When in reality, we're just a few battery technology breakthroughs to where that weight, range, and recharge rate issue drops dramatically. Making the negatives of batteries no more. At which point, I suspect apartments and rental homes will just naturally evolve to include multiple chargers for vehicles and the charging grid will expand faster ( /cough, nuclear plants /cough). Now, for ships and freight, who knows how long that would take. I could see hydrogen being the dominant method in those arenas for a bit until the battery weight issue is resolved (if it can be).
5:35 What about the fact that 95% of H2 is currently being produced in steam reforming of CH4 process that outputs CO2 and more of it than if a car was driving just on the CH4...
But methane is 80 times better green house gas than co2. If that methane would otherwise be released into atmosphere it is at worst equivalent to burning methane. Then there are other stages of making hidrogen fuel...
@@white_shadow_123 I hope you meant CH4 is a 80x worse green house gas... Either way the problem is that to produce H2 you have to use up more CH4 and energy than if you would just run the car on CH4...
That's kinda like saying "what about electricity generated by coal plants" a decade ago..... things changed; electricity generation has gotten cleaner.
@@holycrapchris See, even then that was a disingenuous argument. A BEV that was charged by a grid that used pure coal power was still more environmentally friendly than normal ICE vehicles. Since the power plants aren't size limited, as well as being a lot fewer than cars, they're able to reach much higher efficiencies than internal combustion engines. It also takes a lot less energy to transport any type of fuel to less locations than the hundreds of thousands of gas stations. EDIT: Please see xmtxx2's comment below mine. Coal may not be better, but a pure natural gas grid still would be. My apologies.
@@kingknapp That's false. With a small car, electricity produced by coal, would emit 220g of CO2 / km. Diesel is 160 and gas is 185 (source in french: ua-cam.com/video/zjaUqUozwdc/v-deo.html). That's why in poland, (which is heavily powered by coal), an EV produce more CO2 than an ICE. With fuel, it's pretty equivalent to diesel, with natural gas, you are already at 90g/km. In comparison, PV is at 12g, wind 3, and nuclear 1.3. But poland is pretty much the only country where it is like that. Even in the USA, with it's mix, its well favorable to have an EV. We are on the same boat, please refrain from claiming false arguments, it taint "our" (EV supporters) overall credibility.
@@Deploracle The majority of hydrogenis produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification
My BEV has virtually no maintenance. Check tires for wear, top up the washer bottle and check brakes for wear. That’s about it. How does an HEV compare for maintenance?
I guess that, since both BEV and HEV are electric vehicles and their main difference is the storage device (battery vs fuel cell), there's where you'll find the biggest difference. Considering that batteries degrade a lot over time and ussage (avobe all when using fast charge) and fuel cells degrade much slowly in comparison, HEV should require less maintenance. In fact, the most expensive maintenance task with BEV is the replacement of the battery (and also one of the main sources of polution about BEVs). Also, because any BEV expecting to have big autonomy has to add a lot of weight in batteries compared to a HEV, it is expected to have more wear on tyres and brakes with BEV compared to HEV if we're talking about long range vehicles. This is just a guess. Im no expert nor have the numbers
@@fresita_jugosa That's exactly what Toyota would like you to believe in. Current batteries in good BEVs last longer than ICEVs and have a longer warranty than hydrogen installation and fuel cell stack in Mirai. Surprised?
@@lightdark00 of course there is. And we're talking only about the maintenance of the vehicles; the infrastructure for hydrogen is hugely more demanding in maintenance than the power grid. It's like the comparison between the efficiency of fuel cells vs batteries. It's true that, for the same weight, hydrogen is more energetically dense. However in volumetric efficiency the story reverses. That's the reason why hydrogen is not a realistic option for planes, but at the same time is pretty appealing for trucks. All in all, a very complex situation, pretty hard to analyze.
For Mirai, you have to change the ion filter every 35k, around $500. But you don't have a loss in battery efficiency. FCEV's have the edge in this department.
35% is more like a fairy tale efficiency. The actual efficiency of FCEV is closer to 20% than to 30%. And fuel cells are not new, Apollo used them. But since then there has not been a lot of advance in their efficiency.
The FC in itself is not the efficiency issue. The issue start on how to split water into H2+O2, compress the H2, carry compressed H2 to station (not needed if water is split at station). In the FC vehicle, all the energy that went into compressing H2 cannot be used. FCs are not that "bad" in efficiency land by themselves, > 75% IIRC.
@@ikocheratcr It is more like a bit above 60% for the fuel cell in real life. The higher efficiencies are usually under controlled conditions, not on the road. But as you stated the other factors add up too and this drives the total efficiency to about 20%.
@@guidokorber2866 60% .. wow I was not aware it is that low. Do you know where the 40% goes? In the sense of heat in water vapor on the output, or that it just heat up and need extra cooling to work?
@@ikocheratcr Mostly waste heat, some cooling is required. And in the winter some heating is required to prevent the resulting water from freezing and clogging the drain.
That wasn't the point. If all the cars in LA were battery electric, there isn't enough grid capacity to recharge them overnight to drive to work in the morning.
@@mattpujol4787 yes there is. If suddenly now 50% of the cars would switch to EV the grid would easily handle it overnight. What about producing clean H2 for the hydrogen cars? It uses 2-3x more energy for the same driving distance. This means that in order to power those 50% of H2 cars you would have to have at least 3x more power in available in the grid...
@@mlepa understood. I was answering the specific "But if!". The efficiency if hydrogen production was clearly addressed head on. What hydrogen has over electric today is fueling time. That's always been the argument for gasoline over electric. Hydrogen answers that. Also, hydrogen has a possibility to be generated from nuclear or solar or wind,which makes it desirable over fossil fuel anything. Reading the comments on this video is reminiscent of the letters to the editor in Popular Science when they'd run an article on electric cars. The tech has promising aspects, give it time and let's see what comes of it.
@@mattpujol4787 Electrolysis is an order of magnitude less effecient than steam reforming methane. 90-95% of hydrogen today is created from a potent greenhouse gas, and CO2 is the byproduct... Methane leaks are so common that gas utilities just factor them in as 'transmission losses' How about we just stop fracking and leave the gas underground? If we need methane let's pivot to hydrates that are melting faster and faster as our oceans are forced to absorb more heat, rather than leaving these exposed deposits to evaporate into our atmosphere.
@@jimurrata6785 Understood. The challenge with methane is to affect climate change, you'd want to capture cow farts, which is an order of magnitide more difficult than fixing electrolysis. The current source of methane is a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction (lots of flared gas.is methane). If the H2 is generates from renewables or nukes, it's way better for the planet than extracted methane prodiction.
the argument that batteries has less of an impact is contradicted with how you can't recycle 90% of the battery. if you think batteries today are recycled in any meaningful amount, that's pretty silly of you. plus the cost of transporting the mats for the battery, all the energy it requires to create them and then ship them around. the weight that puts on the energy grid, so now all the lines need to be upgraded to handle all of that. then you need batteries on the grid to keep up with massive spikes on the energy grid as people add/remove their massive battery banks. no solution is without it's problems, try not to gloss over the ones batteries have.
12:05 There are no Winners or Losers.... Sounds like what Betamax would have said about the home video market when VHS started to take the lead in market share
@@elliottmcollins Didn't TV stations and the like continue to use essentially an industrial version of Betamax forever? Looking it up Sony's professional version of video tape Betacam was definitely in use from 1982 well into the 21st century, although with some major redesigns along the way, so not Betamax but definitely not VHS...
@@allanolley4874 It is "true". The reality was the only Betacam really cut it for professional environment of that time. SVHS was not that great, with the same consumer issues that VHS. The way video and audio were stored on Betacam allowed for linear editing without issues, while on VHS it was sort of a half solution. In the consumer market VHS won cause it was damn cheap, while Sony tried hard to charge expensive for Betamax. Having two formats in the market was very expensive for a lot of people, and once VHS look like a winner, many video producing companies ran away from betamax.
This video is way to opinionated, specifically as it is sponsored by toyota. Fuel Cell is quite old technology and just can‘t get off the ground - mostly because of the comparably bad efficiency, which was well hidden behind the better energy density of hydrogen. Presenting it as „upcoming“ while it the first hydrogen station was errected a decade before the first super charger is just a joke. Also a mirai has a degrading battery too. I would be more happy if the sponsors wouldn‘t shape the message of the video, honestly
Sorry you are overlooking the basic principle here that hydrogen is only a energy storage system one that's far less efficient the battery storage. Your argument does not makes sense if you are suggesting batteries will draw too much from the grid when hydrogen production would require more energy from the grid with less efficiency. There is no net positive from using a less efficient process.
My thoughts exactly and there are far more efficient methods of storing renewable energy to smooth out supply than by using hydrogen. I can't see a good reason to use hydrogen for cars, for HGV's (Trucks) and large off road vehicles I can see a use case though.
I think one of the ideas behind hydrogen infrastructure is that you can bottle it up in one place and then use it at another. Actually pumping such fuel does not put any load on the power grid, it would just pull from an already filled tank that was filled from an initial power generator.
California's grid strains during the summer when everyone turns on the relatively low power AC. Imagine if they all had evs charging at level 2 ~7KW, the grid would definitely not be able to handle it, let alone fast charging at 10s of KWs...
@Physics Girl, You say something like, if we plugged in all the BEV's at the same time the grid will go down.... But if we generated all the hydrogen for a third of the amount of FCEV at the same time the grid would go down. The fact that people use most power during the day and charge during the night means a more distributed load. Using tech that charges at time where the rate is the lowest means that you not only get the cheapest power, but BEV's would actually help stabilize the grid usage. Another huge point is that the main purpose of EV's is to help the environment. If vehicles take 3 times more power to run it is going to take a lot more infrastructure to produce that extra power, until we get rid of carbon burning power plants this is going to mean we are using fossil fuels. Also we are much more likely to use the cheapest way to produce hydrogen, which is basically the using modified fossil fuels but less efficiently than burning them directly, so it is likely to be worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle unless that is made illegal which is currently not on the table in any country to my knowledge. The comments on some of the issues with BEV's are also not really accurate anymore. Most Tesla batteries will not have to get replaced for the life time of the car and I am sure other companies will be similar, if not now then very soon. I do agree that FCEV's may have their place. They may work better for big rigs or boat's, but even that is still up for debate since there is no significant independent statistics to go on yet. I had such respect for you and the videos that you do, but to get sponsorship for a significant debate from one of the car companies that is lobbying the governments to slow down the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and then come to the conclusion that it is that their tech is the best approach while stating reasons that it is not is sad. I would love to understand how this is anything other than a purchased ad for Toyota more than a science video.
"I had such respect for you and the videos that you do, but to get sponsorship for a significant debate from one of the car companies that is lobbying the governments to slow down the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and then come to the conclusion that it is that their tech is the best approach while stating reasons that it is not is sad. I would love to understand how this is anything other than a purchased ad for Toyota more than a science video." I feel the same way!
I totally agree with you, she is getting off the science field to business.We can't predict the future of both of these vehicles but publicly bashing one ain't a 'sciencie' thing.
RE "if we plugged in all the BEV's at the same time the grid will go down"; I wonder if they remembered to remove from the equation all the electricity that would have been used to manufacture/refine gasoline? If all the gas cars are replaced, we won't need to make all the gasoline, which frees up a lot of electricity.
In Norway like in EU we use more electric power in our petroleum production(20%), then all our cars combined(7%) if we go 100% electric. Bet it also is the same way in some class divided developing countries, like the usa.
That's kind of the point of this video. Each have their benefits and one may work better for others. HEVs can refuel in 5 minutes at a station, BEVs can charge at home gradually while not in use. HEVs have more range typically etc etc.
@@JerryFlowersIII I know it is the point of the video and they both have their benefits but at the end of the day im saying li-ion is better, hydron is made through electrolysis which takes tons of electricity and water🤦♂️, Water will run out just like any fossil fuel. Im basically trying to say people should focus on improving the grid and battery's. I understand hydrogen cell can refuel much faster and that is a huge benefit but i feel battery will get to that point too. Anyway all this is just my opinion 😅🤦♂️
@@OnlyFacts196 Uhh... water is um... I mean, OK, technically it is finite, but compared to the amount of fossil fuels, the amount of water available to humanity is vast. Like, absurdly huge. I don't think hydrogen is gonna be the way forward, but this, in particular, is not a concern.
Where is the hydrogen being sourced from? From what I understand it's sourced from the fossil fuel industry. Electrolysis isn't ideal from what I've read as it takes a lot of energy. How do we ensure the source is green?
@@agabrielrose The cost of getting lithium is less then hydrogen. Lithium is only in construction, so you don't need to refill lithium, like you need with hydrogen. Hydrogen cars still need lithium, just less then a normal EV, as Hydrogen EV still need a small batter. And hydrogen is not wildly used, but lithium is (in almost any technology) so scaling up lithium production is easier then making new hydrogen electrolysis stations (if you don't what to burn up fossil fuels), which still will need lithium batteries to store the electricity for hydrogen production.
Dianna, please make a non-sponsored video about this subject addressing the problems people in the comments have pointed out. I'd love to hear more about the subject.
I drove 50,000 miles in an electric vehicle and never had to charge it away from home. The biggest drawback to electric vehicles is that our electric providers do not have public point of sale receptacles to sell the electricity which is virtually everywhere. If there is a common 110-120 socket that is where a charging point resides; every business ,home and apartment in the world is a charging station.
Toyota has a very weird anti electric car attitude. To this day they are really refusing to put any serious effort into developing evs. So many of the articles online with such lies as 'eV are actually bad for the environment' or 'if we turn to the eV too quickly we'll loose a lot of jobs' or 'we really need to investigate many options (but for some reason not evs' come from Toyota. Just Google the a few of the latest statements of their CEO. Which is weird because Toyota was a leader in hybrid cars, and came out with an hydrogen car ages ago (but spoilers, they didn't sell many, and in the many years they had, it stagnated. Not a large boost in confidence when eV are exploding). Be very very careful of manufactured information about eVs coming from Toyota
Hydrogen won't win this one...electricity is all about storage and that technology is moving forward by leaps and bounds as is new battery technology. Electric cars and trucks have much less complexity and required maintenance which is another winning argument. We still need more rail than heavy trucks and electrification will solve that problem also.
Hydrogen is tragic for aircraft. Just about the worst energy storage technology. The issue is the volumetric capacity of hydrogen and the lack of suitable locations in an aircraft that you could store the tanks. For 99.9% of aviation gaseous hydrogen just doesn't make sense.
@@8710ify There is a good lecture by one of the chief designers at NASA who helped develop the blended body wing. ua-cam.com/video/x0vYuPmOPYE/v-deo.html Batteries are poor in energy/weight, but Hydrogen is great. In blended body designs, there is plenty of space to install hydrogen tanks. The engineers consider the Energy/Volume vs Energy/Weight in the designs. Hydrogen has a higher energy/weight ratio than fossil fuels so that's a plus. As an energy efficiency issue, both fossil fuels and hydrogen are around the 30% range. So Hydrogen makes sense. Yes the volume of hydrogen is an issue, but it's solvable. Blended body wing designs seem to be the answer. In cars however, I don't see a point in hydrogen for mainstream use. It's too inefficient. Too many steps to get from energy sources to effective work.
@@fahadkelantan I think you're missing the point here. The problem with packing hydrogen into an aircraft (blended or traditional wing) is that you need a wing that can fit the hydrogen in the first place. The chord has to be massive and the wingspan has to be massive compared to more traditional liquid fuels (or even batteries for that matter). Once you factor in the bulk volumetric density of gaseous hydrogen (in tanks) you have to make an enormous and very inefficient blended wing design to pack in these tanks. It just doesn't make any real world sense other than on super short haul routes if the hydrogen is "free" (renewable generation or off a high-temp nuclear process). Thin wings make efficient aircraft. A hydrogen tank packed wing is just about the anti-christ of this.
A blended mix as tech grows is intriguing. When we’ve tried hydrogen on diesels as an additive it’s been awesome. Too bad generating power creates the core issue of emissions.
Also, an important consideration is that refining petroleum into gasoline actually takes more electricity than charging a car to go the same range. So transitioning to electric vehicles is far more efficient than either gas or hydrogen case on energy demand.
I'm curious, does that factor include the amount of output of the equipment needed to mine, harvest, extract, and haul the materials needed for those batteries. I'm a stats guy, i want a detailed breakdown of everything for me to make up my mind about things. Not a general overview.
@@tyrind2001 This is quite wrong because it's just 15% electricity ( search Do Gasoline Based Cars Really Use More Electricity than Electric Vehicles Do? on google) it's more about 0.2 kilowatt hours of electricity used for each gallon of gasoline produced. So for 10 gallons (im not sure it's representative) you have less than 5% the electricity needed for a battery. If the energy used was electricity, it could be "more true", but I love Tesla and all etc
@@tyrind2001 To be fair, most of the exotics used in battery production are in the tailings of existing mines. The difficult part is separating the rare earth elements.
@@tyrind2001 one must also come to terms with the fact that raw crude needs to also account for all of the equipment needed to drill, fracture, extract, and haul the materials needed to procure that fossil fuel from underground. Not to mention the obscene amount of fresh water needed for the fracking process. Cause fresh water is super abundant right?
Being from outside of the cities in Australia, where distances can be vast, hydrogen has always been my favoured choice. I always wished that batteries were designed to be interchangeable, so you could pull into a petrol station, remove depleted battery, and insert a new one. Five minute operation. It would be nice if all electric car companies could come to an agreement on battery tech to make this possible. Battery is great if you live in a city where distances driven are less per day, and chargeable overnight. Unfortunately, the driving done in my area, fuel cell is the only realistic option. Unfortunately, we don't even nearly have the infrastructure yet, but the Western Australian government is seriously investigating improving things going forward, so hopefully soon!!
I normally really love your videos so I am disappointed to see you putting out this hydrogen PR for Toyota. They are actively lobbying aganst battery electric vehicles to prop up their own profits at what long term cost electric car adoption and this damage to the environment. :(
Bruh it maybe PR but she also just stated the truth... this video is not about simply pushing for hydrogen, its more of letting people know how good hydrogen can be. Battery will only work on small vehicles. Ships, Planes and Trucks will use Hydrogen. This means development and improvement of Hydrogen infrastructure will happen and it cant be stopped... i dont understand why Battery Frogs are always mad and always attacking videos about hydrogen. Did you put that comment because Elon said its Fool Cell? Have you ever though Elon have his own interest in mind when he said that? Perhaps its the conspiracy about Toyota lobbying for hydrogen? And the elite pushing for Hydrogen adoption? Perhaps those conspiracy ate all real? How about you educate yourself and learn how Hydrogen might or could be better?
Almost everything I can see on this topic tells me battery electric is going to be the norm. Hydrogen electric will fill certain key niches, but won't see the burgeoning widespread use of battery electrics we are beginning to see today.
I've been driving an EV for the past 7 years. I just charge at home at no cost (solar power), if you don't have the capacity to do it at home, go to a charge station (you'd have to do that with a hydrogen car anyway). The range of 400km to 500km for newer cars is plenty. Fast charges are perfectly fine with under 30min to get to 80% of charge (because you should rest after driving 400+km anyway). Put simply, the issues with EV's are pretty much solved and were only minor issues whilst they were developing. Hydrogen issues are all over the place - infrastructure, cost of hydrogen is far more than for gas (not mentioned in the video), servicing the car is difficult, and the cost of the actual car is very high. I can see advantages to Hydrogen, but more so in ships or possibly planes. Unless you can make hydrogen at home, it will have trouble competing with EV's.
California and the rest of the USA is only falling behind on this development, like they always do. In Norway bevs is the norm and has been for years now, and more then 65% of our new cars sold in Norway is bevs. But we have also tried out, and totaly left the fruitless idea of hydrogen electric cars a couple of years ago.
1. The real trasportation work is made by trucks. Which, obviously, can't wait leisulerly waiting in one's coffeeshop... 2. One's goods, in order for one to consume them, besides being transported to them, must be manufactured/fabricated/drilled-out/excavated-from/molded/processed/shipped-to... Heavy machinery does that, which also has no time to wait. Once the infrastrucure is made thanks to/because of 'real' demand from the industries, it's going to be the only way to go.
Overall, pretty good analysis, but also had a bit of misinformation. It was claimed that only "high end" battery EVs have a range over 200 miles, but the US average for a light vehicle was about $39k in 2020, roughly comparable to a Tesla Model 3 which definitely gets more than 200 even with the standard range version. It was also claimed that renters can't install chargers, but this video said it was focused on California, which has a "right to charge" law allowing renters the right to install chargers. I also wish they had compared the storage volume, engine power, and security concerns.
@@k1fizz right to charge also means you can take your issue up with your apartments management. Which might actually result in outdoor electrical outlets all over your parking lot for charging. It would be a massive boon to the apartment complex to advertise you have EV charger access in the parking lots. Win-Win
It's quite disappointing to see this biased video from this channel. The problem of efficiency is key here. If you were a policy maker, which one would you support, a battery EV or FC EV which consumes twice the energy of the BEV due to inferior efficiency. With the current energy mix of most of countries , hydrogen EV (H2 made by electrolysis) practically emits more CO2 than ICE cars. Most of the issues listed here for Bev, like charging time or driving range are already resolved with the new generation EVs. As an insider in the industry I don't really see hope for fuel cells at least for the cars, it's an interesting technology but it cannot complete with Battery for road vehicles.
what we want isn't efficiency but environmental sustainability and cleanliness. which, in the long run without seemingly impossible major scientific breakthroughs, hydrogen seems to pose a much better deal than traditional batteries
@@MsHumanOfTheDecade Yes you want efficiency, because it directly translate into what you pay for the same distance travelled. It is not so much about policy making, it is about the price for the consumer
I'm in my 6th year driving an EV and often hear some of these arguments from friends against battery technology. I've never run out of power as I charge every night on 220 at my house. I rarely use the superchargers. In California, many houses have 220 outlets installed in the garage for electric dryers but most dryers sold are gas so the outlet is unused. My EV cost per mile is 3.4 cents compared to 23 cents for my wife's gas car. As a point of reference, my brother leased a Toyota Hydrogen Mirai only because Toyota provided a debit card to fill up for free during the lease. There is only 1 hydrogen station in San Diego County so he has far more planning to make sure he doesn't run out.
You can not fill up a hydrogen car when there is no electricity. Those filling stations waste a lot of energy in compressing the hydrogen to get it into the car tank.
@@deeeeeeps Hydrogen causes embrittlement in tanks (tanks need replacement every ten years) and is a small molecule which leaks though the tiniest of gaps. Please show an actual tank with 10 year old Hydrogen gas in it. Why would anyone WANT to store energy for that long?
@@mattpujol4787 Or you could burn the hydrogen to produce light and then power the station via solar cells… This whole H2 thing is like a giant Rube Goldberg machine.
i think if hydrogen is produced in an environment friendly way then people will stop talking about its efficiency, because losses wont turn up as increased emissions.
@@AshutoshSingh-to9vx *nod* another thing that really should be factored in is efficiency in long distance transmission. How much hydrogen does it take to move a tanker of the stuff a long distance vs loss of transmitting a similar amount of electric across high voltage lines.
The argument against charging the vehicles overnight is specious, as the power can be drawn at varying times over the day. With only a 25% energy conversion efficiency, it would cost LESS energy overall to use Battery than it would to use Hydrogen.
Its not an argument for using less energy, but the timing of it. Hydrogen can potentially be produced when there is oversupply, and can be stored a long time.
@@Ravi-fx6vf yes, just like BEVs can be charged during peak production, and automatically store it onboard. (and can even supply power back to the grid in the case of V2G tech)
The person talking about trucks seemed to suggest that all trucks are running 24 hours a day. That is totally wrong. Drivers must drive no more than 10 hours a day that means even a 2 man team has a truck not moving for 4 hours a day. The truck charges during that time and would have no impact on the productivity of the truck.
Hydrogen is touted as the most abundant substance in the universe, so it's logical to make a hydrogen based infrastructure as long as it's safe and economical. Safety is the key word. Just ask the people on the Hindenburg.....
@@seldoon_nemar it would also be extremely difficult to regulate fuel cell as they are high pressure. And airplanes anyway are so efficient it wouldn’t make too much sense to invest there, not now at least
I think Ships and especially Boats are perfect for Hydrogen. I consider Hydrogen as range extender for Batteries, anything over 100-200kw/h is a lot extra weight, where the cost of the extra technology and fuel-cost would make sense
I recharge my EV from my house.. And it costs me 1 UK pence per mile from a 100% renewable energy tariff... And I have 3x the range I need to cover commuting and therefore 99% of my journeys. IF hydrogen some how works out how to beat that convenience.. I'll eat my car.
And for people who don't have the option of having a place to charge, either at work or overnight? If you bothered to watch the video before commenting you'd know the general consensus was both options are needed. With the number of people living in major metropolitan areas and not owning their own home, BEV's are not practical. We need FCEV's and more importantly improved public transport in major metropolitan areas. Because driving your own personal hunk of heavy metal around will never be efficient.
Conclusion (since Toyota probably told you not to do one..): Fuel cells only start to make sense in larger vehicles since BEV's are a lot more efficient, also everyone has electricity at their home and can simply use a plug for charging since most cars only move 1 out of 24 hours.
Sad to see all this talk about hydrogen being clean and yet no talk of how the hydrogen production industry is horribly carbon producing. They have a long way to go to make it clean at scale.
Hello! This is a reupload because some of you expressed the graphs were misleading, and I agreed. The tiny bars were animated not to scale as an artistic choice, but in the interest of accuracy we decided to take the video down and change that. I hope you enjoy learning something from this video, or it at least sparks a desire to research and learn more!
Edit: Reuploaded again because the first comment wasn't "first"
Again again?
But twice?
So you don’t like any comments, got it.
How much did Toyota pay you for this glorified AD?
This is just ridiculous.
You know what? This hydrogen fuel cell series would be a lot more believable if it was not sponsored by the TOYOTA.
they have their place, but this is just an advert.
Exactly, I was excited to see what her conclusion was going to be, but once I saw Toyota sponsored this it lost are credibility to me. Nothing against Physics Girl, it’s just once something like this is sponsored, it gives off the wrong vibe. Still, I can see she’s trying to be unbiased.
@@coolminer6242 Also, if she's disclosing up front who's paying for it, she's giving you the grains of salt to take it with. The content is still better than nothing.
Well IMO, Diana has made a good job at not being too biased.
What I take from this video is that fuel cells are a very niche market (long haul heavy duty semi).
The question is, why the biggest car manufacturer investing only in this niche market?
@@xmtxx The issue stems from things like the BEV vs FCEV weight graph. That graph comes from a 2009 study. In 2009 there were almost no EV's available and technology had advanced significantly for them. It shows the FCEV weight at a constant 1,250Kg and BEV's climing to 3000Kg to reach 400 miles of range. However, that's just not accurate in 2021. We have EVs (Tesla Model S Long Range) capable of 400 miles, and that weighs only 100kg more than the Toyota Mirai does. And they both weigh around 2000Kg. That's a 1750Kg disparity that makes people think that BEVs are impractical when they are in fact very practical. I cannot think of a rational reason why she would use that graph when this is easily accessible information other than to specifically mislead people to appease Toyota.
On average, Americans drive ~26 miles per day. 95% of trips are under 30 miles. Under those conditions, recharging at home from a 240V charger is more than sufficient.
Thank you very much. I spend a year with fiat 500e (electric with about 90 miles of range) in LA in 2015 and that was the most frustrating driving experience of my life. This is when I needed to be late because car did not charge for some error when it was on the station charging. This is the time when I needed to be super scared if I will be able to get to another charging station and if it is going to work because the one I am at now is not working. This is the time when I needed to call a friend I was driving to visit to pick me up at a charging station where I will need to leave my car for charging. With your example of 95% trips under 30 miles I should have had no issues. Reality is much more harsh.
@@ponpetr 90 miles is a pathetic range for LA. All the time you must've sat in a traffic snarl with the air conditioning going full blast... 120 miles would be a little more reasonable. And for that longer trip maybe you should've rented a car.
What if you can't charge at home!!!!!
@@popefacto5945 I get your point... But "maybe you should have rented a car" sounds very flippant considering they already bought a car.
That said, I think in a few years when the range is over 200, and there's enough charging available to allow for redundancy (and lower cost).
I do think BEV will probably fill most of the needs for "runabouts"... But then there are plenty of people who will need something else, and if that something else is hydrogen rather than petroleum we should all be happy.
Rental cars exist too.
@10:10 "if you replace all 15 million electric cars in California with battery electric and plug them all in, the grid would fail". But if hydrogen "uses about twice as much to produce/use hydrogen than battery", isn't that still a much better scenario than creating all that hydrogen? Regardless of the path, we're going to need more electricity generation and less fossil fuel generation
this is super important. the "switching every car to an EV breaks the grid" argument is a fossil-fuel company strawman argument to slow the adoption of electric cars. but even if this was a difficult issue, "switching every car to FCEV" might do worse to the grid, due to the inefficiencies of hydrogen production/storage/etc.
The grid works on 3 levels. 24/7 plants, 9am-9pm plants, and peak plants.
Most of the cars charge at night, where demand is the least, and other plants can be made to switch on.
The downside is that cost would rise to make the peak plants a 24/7 option, or change the 9-9 plants to overnight plants as well.
@@tiepup Who pays for that? You just moved the funding problem from more people to less people. You really think Sears, Walmart and Amazon are going to do that?
@@tiepup Tell it to Walmart, and businesses like them that don't worry about long term because they shut down move and rebuild before they see the return on solar.
Not if you produce hydrogen at the source e.g. at a nuclear power station. You could also balance the extra capacity of your grid to produce extra hydrogen. It enables you to not have to turn of turbines when there is no demand.
Let's be real hydrogen is just a BEV with more steps. Also find it funny the hydrogen proponents were making arguments that their system wouldn't be as affected by the grid. Your fuel source requires more grid energy to generate energy than just charging a BEV. The only good argument for hydrogen I see is using it as a long term energy storage system.
Given that this was sponsored by Toyota, it’s still feels like an ad even though she tries to give the other side of the argument, it would have been better if EV manufacturers were also interviewed for their perspective
You don't think BEV manufacturers have been interviewed enough over the past decade?
It is. The EPA and charging info are just wrong. Average EPA on BEV is 250 miles and needing more like 20 to 25 min to charge up. The Mirai EPA is 357mi for limited mode and the 400mi for XLE model. Toyota is basically comparing their highest EPA hydrogen car with cheapest EV's (Bolt)
@@vacri54 Agreed. I’ve heard basically only the BEV perspective until now. So I’m grateful for this video.
It’s in the title guys! Hydrogen vs BEV, you can’t do a Hydrogen vs BEV video without giving the perspective from the other side
She disclosed the sponsorship up front and in the description.
And she talked both sides.
In terms of giving BEV more time, have you missed the past decade?
Pretty disappointed you mentioned that if every BEV plugged in at the same time the grid would fail, but didn't mention the opportunity for charging BEV's to be paired with excess solar production during the day to relieve strain on the grid. And you didn't mention how much EXTRA energy would be needed to make and transport all the hydrogen instead.
it's like saying what happens if all the hydrogen needed was created at once using electrolysis.. guess what... the grid will blow up 3x the amount because of the high inefficiency
Im with you on this. It was straight up slanted
yeah, series is sponsored and all, but this was paid advertisement; the rate of fuelling is higher, but to make it sustained the grid load would also be several times higher than if was batteries instead of hydrogen.
Yeah it was an advertisement. Which is fine, we could have talked about the details of the technology, rather than misleading the audience for personal gain.
That doesn't work. Charging will take place during rush hours, where people are driving their cars anyway. So they stop for a 5min charge with couple of hundred kw DC charger to top off at roughly the same time.
For hydrogen, electrolysis can take place in the off hours, and when the people refuel their cars during the commute, the hydrogen is readily available in the tanks. That makes a lot better use of the power grid.
I like how the guy is amazed that a boat can be totally silent ... When we had sail boat for much longer than engine have been a thing 😂
I was thinking the same exact thing.....like what even was that? was looking for this comment.
Also, just realised that 0
Paddle boat are way older than sails, and are silent too if you don't consider the grunting from the rowers 😂
Rich guy doesn't do sailing. Too slow, want fast.
@@psikot do you know how expensive a sail boat is ? I motorboat regularly, and i definitely can't afford a sail boat 😂😂
sail boats are not quiet. LOL
Japan had no CNG, LPG, Coal, or oil, but it discovered it's exploitable sea floor has an enormous reserve of hydrates. Yes folks that is being developed now. Equipment is developed along with refining and shipping. This produces natural gas and HYDROGEN for transport and industry. Fifty years of availability, makes the government happy.
another huge infrastructure issue that wasn't mentioned was the cost of installing new hydrogen refueling stations (1-5 million) vs that of a bev charging station (100k-300k). This is a huge factor!
this is why BEVs are currently on top, much cheap to add infrastructure. However she did mention that BEV infrastructure does depend on the grid. As BEVs scale, the grid would also need scaling. H2 can either be tied to the grid for onsite production via electrolysis or shipped not unlike our current gas infra. That's some flexibility.
@@monstercameron This is entirely true however, because the production to car efficiency is much lower compared to BEV's, about double the energy will be needed to produce the hydrogen for all the cars to go the same distance. So mass hydrogen production would require more electricity than just putting it directly into cars.
Another thing is that BEV stations can be put basically anywhere there's electricity. School parking lot, sure. Your house, sure! Parking garage, sure. Can't put a hydrogen station in your house, probably not in a parking garage. Definitely not at a school parking lot. I'm sure the places you put a hydrogen station will be much more limited.
@@culturedfrog7999
The difference is the fueling time, and energy density.
That's where hydrogen has the advantage.
@@culturedfrog7999 yes efficiency matter. However, due to the energu density, H2 will give consumer more range...That's a user experience win. Which is to say I don't think it's clear cut at all.
95ish% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuel. Electrolysis is too energy inefficient/expensive. How could we produce enough cheap hydrogen via clean sources? I would have liked to see this addressed.
About the only way is through building some next gen nuclear plants, but that's a matter that some green energy folks won't touch.
In the future if >850C heat source can be reached with either concentrated solar or thorium molten salt reactor, then water can be split to hydrogen via a thermo-chemical process. Necessary reactants sulfur & iodine get repeatedly recycled to make this work. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle. Still in development.
@@scarpfish which we desperately need to do anyway
@@scarpfish renewables are already cheaper per energy produced than building a new nuclear power plant
You're not wrong exactly, but it's worth mentioning that a lot of the cost of electrolysis comes from a lack of scale. A scaled-up green hydrogen industry would be able to do a lot more for a lot cheaper.
I'm a french engineer that works in a start up that has develloped a carbonless way to produce hydrogen, and let me say that hydrogène is in no way the solution to transports : producing hydrogen without cracking méthane is sooooo inefficient it's painfull, you say about 30% efficiency for it, i say about 5% with the actual numbers that we have before modification to make them public. Currently, and it's no way near changing, 99% of the hydrogène that is use in the World (most of it is used in ammoniac production for agricutur, not for power cell transportation) is produce by cracking methane and therefore 1g of H2 produce 10g of CO2, so encouraging the use of hydrogène for transportation while we don't even produce it "greenly" for agricultur is quite ironic i'd say
Thank you!!! Exactly.
Wow je savais pas du tout, merci !
@@lightdark00 Electrolysis is about 50% efficient while battery charging is about 95% efficient. Fuel cell is about 50% efficient, battery discharge about 95% efficient. Throwing away over half the energy means over double the CO2 in production of solar never mind the hydrogen consumables.
@@mychevysparkevdidntcatchfi1489
Added mass of a battery in a vehicle should count to losses in efficiency. If I have to accelerate 50% more mass because of low energy density of batteries it doesn’t sound like efficiency.
@@lightdark00 Except that you would need 2-3.6x more solar to make up for the inefficiency of hydrogen.
I like that the guy mentioned Nikola at 8:40. We all saw how that one played out..
Correction: High-end BEVs have 500+ miles of range.
Also, you mentioned that the cleanest way to produce hydrogen is electrolysis but in reality, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from natural gas (producing tons of emissions).
While fuel cell is superior technology to ICE, I do not think it will ever overtake BEV in widespread adoption.
Link your sources bro. I would love to see your 500+ mile range BEV.
@@criancrna1487 Lucid Air has 500+ mi range. Tesla has also been working on a 500 mi vehicle. Aptera has a 1000 mi ev with a less conventional design.
@@The_Flamekeepers So, no real world tests?
@@The_Flamekeepers How long do the batteries last? As in how many years before they break down? Batteries degraded from just sitting on a shelf, and I can never find good numbers from EV manufactures on this.
@@Justin73791 it’s hard to know from any OEMs other than Tesla, but Tesla’s data covers nearly (or perhaps more than) a decade of vehicles on the road in real world conditions. FYI charging cycles matters more than years on the shelf.
I appreciate the attempt by Dianna to present a balanced take on things, despite some perceived bias/optimism of Toyota employees.
The argument that that BEV's don't work for everyone because of living situation (no garage) vs FCEV is somewhat weak because you can still find electricity anywhere. Coffee shops, mall parking lots. Easy to expand to apartments and more common places. Even street lights have been proposed. Bottom line is the situation is pretty good for a good chunk of people, and getting better by the day. Can't quite put a hydrogen tanks everywhere though, so you'll never be able to get away from making dedicated trips to a station. I agree that Hydrogen can be a part of a healthy and diversified infrastructure, especially for energy storage if you have plentiful excess renewable energy, but I'm still not sold on its use case for commuter vehicles.
More specific to car design, hydrogen might have a weight efficiency vs batteries but it's volumetric energy density isn't great whereas battery tech is improving at a much faster rate. Its storage at pressure also makes it more difficult to package, since you can't hide them under the floor of the passenger compartment. The best user experience, from an ergonomic and aesthetic perspective will be found with BEVs.
Using hydrogen for trucks and stuff like that would be very nice. Especially those who drive in cities all day. Although i admire those powerful diesel trucks, i would prefer ev trucks in places with a lot of people around.
But imagine if we find a way to turn CO2 and H2O back into hydrocarbons and O2. But i dont think thats going to happen anytime soon
And while not everyone can install a charger at home today, it’s completely possible and increasingly normal to generate electricity at home. It takes me longer to fill my car, but I’m usually asleep while it happens and don’t have to worry about going anywhere other than my destination or whether a supply chain or technical issue makes fuel unavailable or suddenly very expensive.
I like the idea of diversity, though.
also 96% of hydrogen manufactured is from fossil fuels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
This is not a great take re charging. I own a m3 and was lucky enough to live pretty close to a supercharger in miami. Supercharging to full can take upto an hour. On level 2 charging like I do now in my garage, it takes a few hours and level one is over a day. I went to Jacksonville a few months back on a road trip and there weren't many super chargers in that huge city. It definitely is much harder if you don't have a personal/dedicated location to charge.
@@monstercameron As BEVs become more popular, anyone who owns a rental property will face ever increasing pressure to install chargers. If the numbers say that having chargers lets you set rent higher, or attracts a more wealthy renters, they'll be falling over themselves to install.
Toyota, maker of the hydrogen fuel cell car used in the video, sponsors video about comparing hydrogen fuel cell vs battery charged vehicles.
Nope, nothing concerning about that.
Yeah, this is a lot of FUD from Toyota. They're actively trying to scare people away from BEVs because they've invested in FCEVs and they're scared by the entire rest of the industry embracing BEVs. They simply cannot afford to go it alone and build out all of the infrastructure for FCEVs themselves. FCEVs are dead on arrival but they're trying to do CPR - or at least delay BEVs until they can figure out how to pivot.
@@mzmegazone I wouldn’t say fcev are dead on arrival. There are other countries that produce more hydrogen than they can use. This would be a fantastic use for them. Like the video said there can be two solutions. One doesn’t have to win over the other. They raise a good point about people who don’t have an ability to charge their bev at night. Fcev would be good for that too. It would be better for a road trip. I don’t see that as dead on arrival.
@@jonathanfairchild I know EV owners who can't charge at home. They hit a DCFC once or twice a week. Battery capacity and vehicle range continues to rise, and charging speeds continue to increase. The 'inconvenience' of charging a BEV is less so all the time. We're better off investing in building out DCFC infrastructure than trying to bootstrap a hydrogen infrastructure from next to nothing.
Most of today's hydrogen is a byproduct of fossil fuel production. That's neither environmentally friendly nor sustainable. If green sources of hydrogen are developed or is much, much more valuable for industries where batteries are not a good option - such as aviation. Hydrogen will see growing demand as a direct fuel as well as feedstock for efuels - synthetic jet fuel produced from hydrogen and captured carbon. There is a real struggle to produce enough of these fuels, so any hydrogen used for FCEVs is a net negative.
If the funds spent on trying to make FCEVs happen were spent on improving BEV infrastructure, everyone would benefit. Pushing FCEVs at this point is simply producing a divided market and holding back progress and adoption.
They've been touting FCEVs for decades, abs they still aren't ready for widespread use. In that time BEVs have gone from a novelty to a viable product to the mainstream, with an explosion of products coming in the next few years.
FCEVs have no such momentum. They remain a novelty with billions in investment required to make them even marginally viable for most consumers.
Hydrogen has a future in some markets, automobiles isn't one of them.
@@mzmegazone In Norway 65% of our new cars sold is bevs.
We have also tried out, and totaly left the fruitless idea of hydrogen electric cars, a couple of years ago.
The people who bougt hydrogen cars has no place to fill them with hydrogen anymore.
@@kimantonsen5595 Exactly. FCEVs are an evolutionary dead end for small vehicles. I do believe hydrogen has a future in aviation - either directly or as feedstock for efuels - but that is a very different infrastructure. Same for shipping. You only need H2 distribution at airports and actual ports. Rail is best electrified - where that's more difficult perhaps H2 (combustion or fuel cells) has a role. But, again, your infrastructure is much less and more concentrated. Trucking becomes more difficult, but automobiles would require basically reproducing the gas station infrastructure with H2. That's a massive investment - and BEVs are well ahead. It is much easier to drop a charger into a parking garage, public lot, etc., than it is to install H2 filling stations. That's a key difference - BEV charging infrastructure can be massively distributed. And for those who can charge at home or work, it is far superior.
a) There's something wrong with the vehicle test weght vs range graph. It does not require 1500 Kg of additional weight to achieve a 400 mile range.
b) Fuel cells also have a limited life, which you dismiss with a "batteries lose range, hydrogen fuel cells, not so much". Last time I heard the costs of replcing the fuel cell in a car, it was in the $100k range.
c) Hydrogen fuel stations are eye-wateringly expensive to build and maintain compared to charging infeastructure.
d) Hydrogen production by electrolysis at the required scale is also expensive.
I don't think it will ever happen, except in places of high densiy/demand like California. BEVs have no step change required.
Spot on. I think the weight penalty for 400 miles is closer to 500 kg, which is still a lot, but it's a far cry from 1.5 metric tonnes. And it keeps getting lighter every year.
The problem with hydrogen isn't the weight, it's the volume. Especially since it needs to be stored at very high pressure (or low temperature) and those vessels can't be shaped easily. So the reason hydrogen cars have issues getting more range is the space the tanks use. That's not as much a problem for batteries at this point.
the problem of hydrogen its poor performence (power ratio) new merai have about 95 hp per metric ton while the standard model 3 which is alot cheaper have 175 hp per metric ton 👍
At this point. That's the point. 😁
@@keepthefaith9805 Yes that's correct, unlike the efficiency problem, storage issues could be improved with smaller, higher pressure tanks. But that would also come with other downsides like more expensive fuel and infrastructures, and further reduced efficiency.
But there's not really a point to pursue it when BEV are cheaper and more convenient already. I don't think FCEV will ever make sense for general road use. Just get a BEV.
That’s fair, but I think the point made in the video that hydrogen could be used for so many other applications than average commuter vehicles still makes the development of the technology “worth it”.
@@CrossoverGenius
well , no , after calculating repair costs and if you refer to factories or facilities they use power grid electric motors so they get 90% efficient :) the main fight was in automobile industry because cars stop and move a lot and run at variable speeds most of the time
As an engineer and climate activist, I'm deeply disappointed by this video. Yes, the sponsoring made it clear from the get go, but this is more a commercial for nerdy people than an honest science communication attempt.
I can tell you tried to make it balanced and impartial, but that didn't quite actually happen. Interview a few people in the BEV sector or other car manufacturers and researchers that are considering all options, not just the outlier that's heavily investing in hydrogen...
So as an engineer, tell me how you can drive a 10 tons truck with a load of another 15 tons making it 25 tons in total with just batteries. Please tell me "engineer".
not possible, thats why the tesla truck never got released. Because once you add that 20 tons of battery juice on a 10-15 tons truck you can only tow a few more tons that it will become useless since there are weight resitrictions on the road and bridges as well as the whole thing would become a disaster. You pseudo-engineer
@@gameblamerfan dude, you're being aggressive for no reason. At no point did he say that BEV are the only choice or anything that your response would actually be relevant to. In fact neither did the folks in the video. Both technologies have their applications.
He just said that if you're only showing the opinion of people heavily invested into fuel cell technology, then the opinion is obviously biased. Showing what battery people don't like about fuel cells would fix that. Otherwise it is indeed just a commercial.
Regarding to the tesla semi, the reason they haven't released it yet is that they are battery production constrained. They can make a lot of cars out of the same number of cells they'd need for a semi. They aren't a company that has to promise outlandish stuff just to get some attention for sales. If it wasn't viable, they'd ditch it already.
@timemachine_194 ty for asking, still just majoring in computer engineering and economics
@timemachine_194 I assume you're John Titor right?
"move away from petroleum dependance"... By using hydrogen that comes from an energy intensive process stripping it from natural gas, releasing CO2.
@@tiepup and wasted energy to make the hydrogen. All to charge a battery just like in a battery EV.
Added complexity and extra thermodynamic losses for no benefit.
@@KenLord hydrogen cars take 5 minutes to refuel, are more durable and modular, and safer in crashes. most importantly, with a small battery that could be completely replaced by a supercap bank, it doesn't require children mining lithium.
@@gasun1274 Just to clarify, it's cobalt that uses child labour in third world countries. You might be mixing up that travesty with Elon threatening to coup Bolivia to access their lithium mine.
@@gasun1274 we already have a 8 minute loading car, the safest cars in crash statistics and crash statistics are teslas.
@@gasun1274 Also you forget, there isn't only lithium as an option. Next year for example na+ batteries are ramping up in production. Newer reports are showing which car is better for the environment by far.
Maybe this addressed elsewhere, but in the short segment on efficiency we get a single statement “if hydrogen is generated by electrolysis…”, but almost no hydrogen IS generated by electrolysis and prospects that that will change aren’t good. In reality, almost all hydrogen is generated by steam reforming of methane, or worse, by steam reforming of coal. While the electric grid is getting greener with the growth of renewables supplanting fossil fuels in electricity - and doing so in an economically competitive way - that is just not currently in the cards for hydrogen.
Should be a lot clearer that this is an ad. Especially coming from an educational channel.
She starts the video talking about this being sponsored series by Toyota and that she got at least a free car out of it. How can she make that point clearer? She does not say that hydrogen based transport is the end-all be all greatness.
@Tamiasciurus not to be rude, but youre lagging a bit. Toyota and others are all ready to implement them. Very soon. A year maybe two AT MOST. The thing with their plan is though, regular ev for daily use, hydrogen for distance. Not end all be all
@Tamiasciurus Hallo Mr. Paid Troll by Elon Musk.
@@anonymous_anonymity lol on the contrary from Toyota, Mr. Musk doesn't need to pay people like this channel. Great production though, really informational!
This is my first vid I saw on this channel. If this really is supposed to be educational channel then I hope this is a joke. This has little about education and much more about biased info about (at least) this topic.
When I heard Nikola I laughed louder than I should
Same here.
Yeah, that added some much needed credibility for fool cells.
Same :D
There's no way that laugh was too loud :)
@420KinK What? Not even with a rubber band engine?
8:52 - not actually zero emissions if the H2 is made from steam reforming CH4+H2O = CO2 + H2...
Many here don't like emissions but .. what do you guys think trees "breathe"? Clean air as we define it is poisonous to trees.
@@Deploracle The trees have plenty CO2 without our help... What about the ocean vegetation? You know that more CO2 = more acidous water = less plants in the oceans?
@@mlepa Trees have more CO2 than they can process.
BEV also mostly use fossil fuels to charge up
@@giovannifrrri5495 Way more efficient than ICEVs (check how much energy just producing the fuel takes) and HEVs. Plus I live in Sweden, we don't burn anything to produce electricity and low-carbon electricity is growing all over the world.
"Even startup companies. Hyzon, Nikola" 🤣
3 days old and aged like milk already.
I don't get it.
@@rylandrc ua-cam.com/video/IKlZgI65gEk/v-deo.html
@@Doshinkyo thanks
Worth noting that not all BEVs need a standalone charging station installed. I just plug mine into a standard 110VAC wall socket in my garage.
And if you so desire you can charge it using solar/green power. Don't need to burn fossil fuels to make that hydrogen.
assuming tesla model 3's smallest battery ~50KW / (110V * 15Ahr ~1.7KWh ), that's 1 day 6 hours 18 minutes-ish for a full charge
@@monstercameron that’s assuming you are empty or that you drive 240 miles every single day…
When in reality people drive 50 miles a day average which means 10 hours to charge is plenty to replenish the days usage… and cars sit for 20 hours a day.
@@cybertrk I gave the worse case scenario. all it takes is one weekend or a busy week to shake up the daily mileage cycle.
@@SandTiger42
But then you can only charge during the day.
I get that not everyone can charge at home, but for those who can: damn that's convenient! No hydrogen car can beat that.
100%
Totally agree
Not everyone can charge at home, for now. In the example in the video she is is renting the house and can not put in a charger. In the future people will not rent a house that does not have a charger installed.
And for apartments, that will be a big draw point for BEV owners if they have charging in the parking assignments.
A lot of the "downside" argument is the current status of things. Who knows what it will look like in 5 year.
I couldn't charge at home for the first two months until I moved.
The next two months I ... was lazy and didn't bother setting up my charger at home. It was just as easy to just charge on the street chargers.
As long as your city puts in infrastructure, charging isn't an issue.
I think that’s what the end of the video is about. Battery is better for some, but for others hydrogen is better. Both can help reduce the number of gas cars on the road
Charging an EV only takes 20 seconds: 10 seconds to plug the cable in the evening, 10 seconds to unplug it in the morning.
this vid honestly makes me lean further away from hydrogen.
See if you can test drive one. You will lean further away when you feel how they accelerate.
@@psikot Is that really such an important thing? Driving range seems to be much more important.
@@eduardoroca1991 next year we have a 800km range bev, which one can load in 8 minutes from 0-80%. Also na+ batteries will ramp up in production. Btw, any hydrogen car has range problems. They don't get full in lots of circumstances.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 I won't hold my breath for these new long range BEVs. Tesla cars have also shown to not have nearly the range that they're advertised.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 But I'm pretty sure more people would care about the range on the highway a lot more than urban range.
Tbh I'm disappointed by this series. Although you put up the legally required "this is an ad" disclaimer, it feels like one of your normal, actually scientific and balanced, non-opinionated and politics-free videos. Which it clearly isn't, and other people have pointed that out. I simply cannot trust anything presented in this video because Toyota stands behind it with corporate interest. (Others have pointed out the company's issues which I wasn't even aware of, unfortunately.) With all of that, I can't be watching this video. For everyone else, I recommend Real Engineering's The Truth About Hydrogen, which is actually the kind of scientific video we need on the topic. And I believe that Diana and her team could do something of similar or greater value, if it isn't sponsored.
Oh so you mean Teslarati videos don't have corporate interest? It was a great and balanced video, free of BEV industry's false claims and ads, and telling the real story.
@@GautamPrabhakar who mentioned Teslarati? Of course they are biased too, but this video contains evident false data and misleading claims, as many have pointed out in the other comments.
@@juggernaut93 “fasle data and misleading claims” such as?
Donate to them so they don't have to do ads.
I really enjoyed this episode.
A very balanced and well presented argument in favour of HFC cars. I have also driven the Mirai, and the Hyundai Nexo and the Honda Clarity, they were all really good cars that worked very well.
Yes, there are some serious problems with the filling stations, we used to have 12 here in the UK, we now have 5 because they were not used enough to maintain them economically.
But reliability issues with H2 filling stations is a fairly simple technical issue which I'm sure can be overcome.
However the one question not asked in this video, and for me it is the massive, oversized elephant in a very small room.
Where does the hydrogen come from?
I know there will be an immediate answer, 'we can split water using excess electricity from renewables ' and that is 100% true, okay, there are massive energy losses, you need 4 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of hydrogen.
But even that is nit picking.
Where does the hydrogen we use today come from?
98% of commercial hydrogen comes from steam reforming natural gas, it's produced in an oil refinery, it is a fossil fuel derivative.
Yes, it's clean, yes, when you pass H2 through a fuel cell the only waste product is water.
But when we extract hydrogen from natural gas we 'bleed off' the CO2 into the atmosphere.
And yes, the fossil fuel industry are all over this, 'we are going to capture that carbon and sequestrate it in old oil caverns underground.'
They have been talking about doing this since 1990, and all the tests have proven unworkable or economically unviable.
So to sum up, a hydrogen fuel cell car is a very inefficient fossil fuel car.
Where does the electricity come from?
@@splendidsystems you don't know?
@@splendidsystems 14% Nuclear, 5% biomass, 1% coal (soon none), 29% Wind (rising), 5% solar (rising), 2% Hydro, gas 32%, 1% unknown and 11% imported (primarily France).
An EV with an efficiency of around 3 Miles per kWh (production to wheel) and will, including all production of both vehicles, have a lower total emission footprint by the time it's done 25k miles, powered on the average mix of the UK grid.
Even with the most efficient hydrogen production methods we have now, and improved efficiency of electric motors and car aerodynamics, you would still expect to get a "Green hydrogen" FCEV only 1 mile/kWh from production of the electric to wheels on the road.
An electric car's battery can now expect to have 95%+ of it's elements recycled after it has finished it's life cycle - estimated to be over 100,000 miles and then reused for grid storage for a number of years before being disassembled.
I guess you need to get a BEV sponsor now and do the opposite pitch so we can compare results.
Lol yeah exactly. This is literally an ad for Toyota, but just with a layer of abstraction so as to try and obfuscate that reality.
Physics Girl has really gone downhill since leaving PBS and becoming a corporate shill
@@magickpalms4025 unlike the rest of youtube who shill for tesla, the apple analog of the auto industry
@@hargibson18 obfuscate? have you seen what BEVs do in the cold? their range drops to less than half, hydrogen maintains a consistent range regardless of temperature and altitude.
@@gasun1274 skandinavian people dont seem to have a problem with that. in norway more than 50% of new cars are BEV, and norway us not known for its tropical temperatures 😉
After watching this, it seems like the benefits of creating consumer-FCEVs doesn't make up for the infrastructure requirements...
I still think they'd be great for trucking, or other industrial uses (particularly for electric planes!), but those are all places where you could make specialized refueling stations, rather than making public ones on every street corner.
I think that's the general consensus at the moment, that initially hydrogen will make the most impact for use with trains, buses, trucks and boats. Hydrogen cars will be niche, but maybe there'll be a tipping point as the infrastructure grows and hits critical mass.
@@johnmcnulty6171 why start building the infrastructure in the first place?
We already have electric lines going everywhere... In some places they're putting electric car charging ports on old street lamps when they switch over to energy efficient bulbs.
@@guamae
But we would have to upgrade all those lines.
@@guamae Because BEV's are not practical for a substantial number of drivers. Also, lithium is a finite element, BEV's can only play a role at best. If we want to move away from ICE we will need to embrace FCEV's.
@@Robert-cu9bm honestly, that's something we need to do anyways, particularly in the US.
Our electrical grid is outdated, inefficient, and too vulnerable to the extreme weather that is only going to keep getting more common.
One major assumption is that we will only ever have lithium-ion batteries. There is an enormous amount of research going into batteries that are safer, charge faster, and have higher energy density.
As do Lithium batteries today. The graph shown was from 2009. Deliberately ignoring the fact that energy densities have improved many times since then.
Yes, battery research has piggy backed on smartphone revolution to reduce cost by whopping 80% during last decade and ready to repeat it this decade.
You're right, we should compare the fuel cell technology of today against the as-yet uninvented battery technology of the future. Very fair comparison.
@@vacri54 But the point is they are comparing the fuel cell of today with the battery tech from 12 years ago. Since then battery prices have dropped 90& and their energy density has doubled.
Fuel cells had a window of opportunity to become a viable technology for cars. They missed it. BEVs have too many advantages, are established at scale and they are rapidly improving. Fuel calls are a mature technology that is comparatively stagnant.
Australia has developed a graphene/aluminum battery that seems more like a super capacitor to me.
It will definitely be good to have both of these options in the future, especially if we can heavily reduce the use of ICE vehicles.
If there's a H2 infrastructure, us enthusiasts that want engines to tinker on can have hydrogen ICE engines. Works especially good in Rotary engines. Water out the tail pipe.
@Ethan Wood
And if enough hydrogen ICE cars are on the road, increased humidity to go with it.
@@THall-vi8cp Still less than burning fossil fuels in ICE cars - as those fossil fuels are just a combination of (mostly) carbon and hydrogen you get both CO2 and H2O as results.
@@NikaHollywood You really want to have people tinker with a car that basically is a bomb on wheels - if those 700 bar /10000 psi tank bursts and discharges into the cabin you are dead no matter if the hydrogen ignites or not.
My current gas tank is a bomb. What's your point?
The overall efficiency really makes me lean conventional battery whenever possible.
The place I see Hydrogen being good would be emission-free air travel where the less weight means everything. Also it's much easier to plan infrastructure between a few airports.
Ya I could see this being good for trucking and airplanes, which are dependent on weight but in just reg personal travel I think batteries are just fine
So what I understand the fuel cells aren't efficient enough and add extra weight and cost, so they're looking at burning the hydrogen instead. No carbon emissions but the problem is at the high temperatures nitrous oxides are produced which aren't good, but at a lower level than traditional airplane engines.
Completely agree. Until batteries achieve much more energy storage per pound, airplanes could use Hydrogen. But, the inefficiency of Hydrogen, inability to charge at home, putting frozen, extremely pressurized liquid into a tank, and lack of hydrogen refueling facilities will combine to make Hydrogen not able to catch on. And those with a hydrogen car will thusly have the auto-equivalent of betamax.
depends on how you look at emission free. Since most hyrdogen comes from crude oil. So the vehicle may not be "emission free", but nearly everything else about it still is emission heavy. Even to some extent, it could be worst in emission if we were to keep the hydrogen but dump the carbon from crude oil.
The issue with hydrogen air travel is how do you store the fuel. While the fuel is light, it either needs to be kept in heavy reinforced containers under pressure, or at cryogenic temperature, which also requires heavy equipment.
"Losing capacity over time" - FCEVs still need a small battery, which will deteriorate over time. How long does a fuel cell last ? Also Hydrogen tanks need replacing every 10-15 years due to embrittlement.
Of course, but a small battery and a tank will be much cheaper and easier to replace than a 70 odd kWh chassis sized battery. My guess is that we'll see most small city cars moving the BEV route, with sedans, tourers, recreational vehicles (SUVs, 4x4s), and logistics vehicles (including trucks, planes and ships etc.) move the hydrogen route.
@@ayreon213 EV batteries are already lasting for longer than most consumer vehicles these days are ever driven before being scrapped. The drop in efficiency doesn't significantly affect their function.
@@hs_747 all of this is named and explained in the video. Battery recycling is trailing behind production because the demand is lower at the moment. currently, battery vehicle production is steeply ramping up and it will take a decade at least for the battery recycling tp follow. You may know that many people building power walls can't find used batteries because there's more demand than supply. there's a lot of R&D backed by big players that are interested to recycle batteries because it makes economic sense. If things make economic sense, it will happen. If we wait for people to "be nice", it won't.
In case it makes a difference geographically, I'm in Europe.
By the way, Hydrogen vehicles would have the same battery recycling issues, just less of them, as Mike already stated.
@@hs_747 I do agree btw that Tesla should be doing this!
@@hs_747 There's not enough of them (batteries) to "feed" a gigafactory yet... and you're completely neglecting used battery market. Used EV batteries are highly sought after for DIY(-ish) home storage, ICE->BEV conversions, replacements of worn out battery packs for good ones from wrecked cars (Nissan Leafs, mainly) etc. Most car battery packs simply are too sought after to be recycled.
*Sigh* I really enjoy Diana's videos but I feel like this series is bias due to Toyota being the sponsor. I would've really been interested in seeing a non-bias comparison between the two technologies
Toyota makes both hydrogen fuel and battery powered vehicles.
What do you mean by bias due to Toyota?
In this episode she just interviewed the hydrogen power division. And that's actually good because it's a very less explored field.
I didn't even know that commercial fuel cell vehicles were already available. You'll get loads of people interviewing BEV manufacturers all over UA-cam. But when it comes to fuel cells, not so much.
Just be aware, that Toyota makes loads of battery powered vehicles as well.
Maybe not in USA but they definitely do in Asia. They have no reason to be biased towards Hydrogen cells
@@conscireshooter "Toyota makes loads of battery powered vehicles.." And those models are?
@@conscireshooter True. I agree Toyota does produce BEV. However, in this case their main objective is to promote their FCEV. This video compares both technologies so it would be less bias if she also had BEV companies interviewed as well.
@@conscireshooter actually they only make plug-in hybrids, not full BEVs as of yet. They announced they will be trying to make a full BEV SUV maybe in 3-5 years, but as of current they are actively trying to destroy the adoption of BEV vehicles. This isn't exactly a secret or anything either... www.autoblog.com/2021/08/16/honda-toyota-oppose-ev-union-incentives/
Honda is joining them on their crusade to take out the knees of BEV adoption.
@@bobsalita3417 Google BZ series by Toyota. It's a whole line of EVs planned to launch within a few years in Asia. They were inaugurated earlier this year
If the "electrical grid is down" Not only will you not be able to charge your EV, but fuel stations will be off line too, including FCEV stations. Companies are starting to install battery storage with EV chargers, the main purpose of this is to charge the battery when demand on the grid is low, but it would also be useful in a situation when the grid is down.
This video is just a Toyota Fuel Cell ad and it still reaffirm my opinion that hydrogen fuel cell is the wrong technology to focus on.
See if you can test drive one. You will lean further away when you feel how they accelerate.
I see Toyota still trying to cover up there lobbying efforts to slow the adoption of electric vehicles
I'm actually puzzled why they bet so hard on the non-plug-in hybrids, they have plenty of experience with hybrids, why not let people with a parking spot charge for their daily commute over night, by giving the car a plug?
BEV's are getting better with range, but plug-in hybrids still go further on a charge and a tank. Of course the most efficient ICE cars go even further than that (which isn't what they said when they introduced hybrids). But for the most commutes, a car is rarely going more than 75km a day. Perfect reason to go for a plug-in hybrid, a home charger and a flat rate subscription for charging.
I just don't understand why Toyota didn't see PHEV coming.
@@BenjaminVestergaard technically yes, but most plug-in-hybrids are only sold to make your fleet look better than it really is. There was a study done, where they found that a high percentage of hybrid vehicles had their charge cable still in original wrapping in the bunk, never used. They just drive it like an ICE car with a smaller tank and that's it. And when you then think about how most sold hybrids are also SUVs, which are mostly useless tons of steel parading around one overweight person in their mid-fourties additional to about 4m³ of empty space just as a status symbol... Then they're wasting even more energy to haul all that useless mass around.
@@midnight8341 well, here in Denmark I think that the smaller crossovers are more popular. Much people say that they choose that class of cars just to sit a bit higher up. But of course those cars are hardly anything but hatchbacks with a bit more ground clearance and worse aerodynamics.
Anyway, my point was just that now you can get almost all Toyota models as hybrids, but why didn't Toyota just add a plug? At least then the customers that actually wanted to drive as EV for their daily commute could do so. But of course I know that a lot of customers just find it impractical, at least it'd be a choice.
And I do know that many PHEV's have ridiculous charge times for just 50km EV range, even at fastchargers. Rented a Hyundai which took 3 hours at its fastest. But at least it had a plug.
Amen ;)
@@BenjaminVestergaard rent a Tesla next time.
Can we have a non-sponsored view on this?
Yup. Hydrogen cars, objectively, have many issues, but you wouldn’t guess it from this infomercial.
There's a lot of material on this issue out there.
@@elliottmcollins This is a purportedly objective scientific channel.
Would be cool if both hydrogen and electric vehicles coexist.
It's all about infrastructure. The availability of it is the winner for me. In my area there isn't any hydrogen. However, EV charger are plenty and so far they're free of charge!
And power points. Can use the mobile chargers off any power point. And an upgrade is easily sorted out with an electrician. Can't do that with hydrogen.
I think hydrogens best use cases are in public transport (Buses, Taxis etc) and the Trucking industry
Once the infrastructure is in place, hydrogen will take over. The trucks are going to force hydrogen development, which will make it more available to personal cars.
The batteries are too heavy for the trucks, making them very inefficient for heavy vehicles.
@@tonymouannes maybe!
@@tonymouannes You are assuming that batteries today will never improve energy density...while I agree that hydrogen is interesting for heavy vehicles, fuel cell technology and hydrogen infrastructure are aiming at a moving target. If batteries 10 years from now have twice the energy and half the cost of today's batteries, it's hard to imagine hydrogen-based transportation on a nationwide scale being competitive, given the enormous cost of putting in a nationwide network of hydrogen refueling stations. Local delivery vehicles? Maybe.
Don't believe the hype. I've been following this for 30+ years and it still faces the same issues today, having seen only marginal improvements...
how so?
If you could elaborate those issues and improvements it would help the conversation move along.
It pretty easy to say something like that without backing it up and leaving.
@@JerryFlowersIII Some of the issues with hydrogen and FCEV's (inefficiency, high relative cost, lack of infrastructure) are mentioned in the video though she soft-pedals them somewhat (perhaps because the sponsor's looking over her shoulder). They're obviously feeding her bad/outdated information about BEV's.
Maybe you should watch the video and PAY ATTENTION. Maybe you should ask yourself why 150-year-old technology is being rehashed in the 2020's after falling on its face in the 2000's.
See if you can test drive one. You will lean further away when you feel how they accelerate.
Can this truly be an impartial video when it is sponsored by Toyota and its Mirai ?
Thank you for confirming I'm not getting rid of my gas and diesel vehicles any time soon.
If to many battery electric cars overload the power grid, and hydrogen cars need double the amout of electricity per mile. Then aren't hydrogen cars a bigger problem?
I think part of the idea is that hydrogen would be be produced on the grid. It would probably be made in central locations with dedicated generators and then shipped around just like petrol today.
definitely !
@@neeneko so the H fuel shipping needs to be taken into account into the efficiency… and it will drop further…
More than 95% of hydrogen are made from fossile fuel now. And you'd have hundreds of thousand of pieces of yard art if all cars turned FCEVs over night with those very few hydrogen stations, while the grid would still be able to cope.
@@Makatea Well, yeah, but we are moving away from ICE because of fossil fuels, what's the point if we still need oil to power our cars?
2:31 The first hydrogen station in CA... "dispenser unavailable". That doesn't inspire much confidence. XD
Diana, what is the life span of the hydrogen fuel cells? I was involved in a project about 15 years ago where back up electricity was provided with hydrogen. With that technology the fuel cells need maintains every 1500 hours. I'm sure it's a lot better now, but how much? Will the fuel cells last as long a the car, or will they need to be replaced periodically? And what will the cost be?
Not Diana though, but anyway, fuel cells have come a long way since then. In fact, the durabillity of FC has improved dramatically. According to DOE it is around 5k for mobile applications. Toyota claims that their FC should outlive their car(150-200k miles). Bear in mind one intersting fact. When FC is at the end of their lifespan, it is much much more easier to recycle and obtain critical minerals back from the FC such as platinum and iridium. That is a huge factor when considering the environment. 👍
@@PanEvropa2004 out live the car at 150-200k miles? It wasn't a few decades ago car manufacturers were trying to make cars last a half million or more miles. Strange how that number has gone DOWN over the years rather than up.
@@SWRaptor1 I agree. Though FCEV are relatively new and there are reasons to believe, that this number will significantly improve with a adoption of hydrogen economy.
@@PanEvropa2004 no, this number will improve when we drastically reduce the number of moving parts in automobiles. This advantage is to BEV vehicles and their adoption is much further along than hydrogen. Once you can feasibly state that 90%+ of hydrogen comes from renewables, it's just another fossil fuel as it mostly comes from fracking.
@@PanEvropa2004 the fuel cell should outlast the car at 150 - 200k miles. Interesting.
Because she mentioned batteries losing capacity over time... Without bothering to say the a Tesla at 200k miles only loses about 10% capacity, and can keep on being used long after that.
And the new Tesla 4680 batteries, with new chemistries and better efficiency / less losses to resistance, are coming in the next 6 months or so.
the huge inconvenience of hydrogen:
1. volumetric energy density. The gravimetric looks fine, but doesn't consider which volume one kg of hydrogen takes.
2. filling: it's fast when you're one of the first 8 customers at the pump. After 6 to 10 fillings the station needs compressing the hydrogen to 800 or 900 bar, which typically takes 25 to 40 min. So then battery would be faster
hydrogen may be greener than dino juice, but it has a MAJOR disadvantage: you can charge an electric car at home, but who has a hydrogen station at home or within a few dozen miles?
also, you need electricity to make hydrogen, which is less efficient than charging a battery.
no, hydrogen cars won't catch on. not sure about trucks, tho'
Well, companies already make on-site hydrogen generators, adapting it to the home market and bundling it with solar panels could help address that. Selling your solar to the power company is already pretty 'meh', but using your excess solar to maintain a home tank is another possible use.
What are you talking about? Hydrogen is mainly made today from fossil fuels. What green? It COULD be made using green energy, but when it's cheaper and easier to use natural gas... which do you think corporations are going to do?
@@neeneko losing 50% of your produced energy and needing a product to do so is sad bro, when you can have a battery Wich probably cost less, and loses less energy.
@@SandTiger42 And how do you think electricity is produced? And how green do you think lithium batteries are?
@@SandTiger42 depends on their business model?
i have been seeing a lot of talk lately around how hydrogen is sourced and its net carbon impact, along with terms like 'grey' and 'blue' hydrogen... and it is clear to me that (as are most things meant for popular consumption these days) these articles are biased towards one particular position or another... i would appreciate a video in this series (or thereafter) that looks at the science behind how hydrogen can be sourced on the scale needed to serve a national or international market for fuel cell vehicles, as well as an objective presentation of the pros and cons for the various methods and sources in terms of net energy, cost, environmental impact and sustainability, etc... i have of course googled for this, but it is difficult to tell what is objectively factual (and complete) and what is slanted by opinion. i would trust you for this information far more than i would any online article. thank you for your continued excellent youtube material!
My current take on this - There are three main ways of making Hydrogen: Steam Reforming, Electrolysis and Gasification. The efficiency numbers I have seen for these processes have varied a bit: Small Scale SMR - 65-75%, Large Scale SMR - 70-80%, Electrolysis - 65-80%, Gasification - 40-50%. Depends on who did the study, when it was done and what they included in their calculations.
However I did find a table that looked at it from 'grams of CO2/MJ of Energy' for over a dozen systems (from source to pump, including transport/processing storage etc). For example:
Electricity from nuclear energy, electrolysis on retail site, hydrogen compression (88 MPa) - 8 gCO2eq MJ− 1
Central electrolysis from wind energy, hydrogen liquefaction, liquid hydrogen road transport to retail site, hydrogen cryo-compression in to vehicle tank (35 MPa) = 4.2 gCO2eq MJ− 1
Natural gas delivered by pipeline (4000 km), centrally reformed in a 200 MW plant with an efficiency of 75% and CCS technology = 43.2 gCO2eq MJ− 1
Farmed wood, small-scale gasifier and hydrogen liquefaction, liquid hydrogen road transport to retail site, hydrogen cryo-compression in to vehicle tank (35 MPa) - 8.8 gCO2eq MJ− 1
The document I got this from focused a lot on the lower monetary costs of SMR, but did acknowledge how bad it was in terms of CO2 production and Methane Production. It did also suggest ways of improving the SMR process so at least they are looking into it.
Personally though, if the electricity for the electrolysis comes from a renewable source like wind/solar/tidal, I guess you can put nuclear in there as well, is the way we need to go almost regardless of monetary costs.
Excellent request! Check out “Engineering with Rosie”. Rosie gave an excellent review of hydrogen sources and use technology, without the hype.
It's an interesting problem, and the reason I don't expect hydrogen to ever break out of a small niche use. Electrolysis at least can be green (at least as far as carbon goes) if the electricity source is green - Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, etc.
The problem is why add an extra conversion step & source of inefficiency to use electricity to make hydrogen when you already have the electricity & can use it directly (to charge a battery)?
Agreed.
@@WhiskyCanuck based solely on this video, it seems like FCEV can tackle larger weights, and has the advantage of quick refills, compared to BEV, so would be much more useful for a fleet of big rigs.
Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas. This results in the emission of a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
Although I have criticised the first two versions I really hope you don't take it down again. Let's discuss openly, Dianna(+team)! :)
I'm glad the video is back with improvements! :)
I'm aware these videos are Toyota-sponsored but I think there should be more critical views on hydrogen-electric cars/vehicles.
For them to go the same distance as purely battery electric cars we need about 2-3 times as much energy in ‚production‘. (~55kWh/kg for 100km range in a car vs. 15-25kWh/100km). German scientist Volker Quaschning and economist Claudia Kemfert regularly call hydrogen the ‘champagne of energy resources‘. I think for a rapid reduction of emissions we need to preserve green hydrogen and e-fuels mainly for the energy-intensive industry and planes/ships/maybe heavy duty trucks.
We shouldn't ‘waste‘ green electricity to H2-cars. Also H2-cars and green hydrogen will stay too expensive for many people for many years, which further delays our energy/mobility transition.
Regarding 6:51 : And yet BEVs need way less energy than hydrogen-electric cars. Again: Yes, there are use-cases for hydrogen, but in cars not so much, I think. 8:09 & 8:41 Volkswagen is aiming for BEV-trucks as well, not so much for hydrogen-electric, but I'm not well-informed enough in trucking. 8:39 I'm sorry, has anything changed with Nikola or is it still a disastrous scam? 10:06 And if we tried to fill all these vehicles with hydrogen at the same time that probably wouldn't work as well. At least with BEVs we have a decentralised refilling infrastructure and many people can recharge at home. (Yes, not everybody) 10:13 Some(!) trucks can charge while (un)loading, but for now I agree, trucks might work better with hydrogen-electric technology. 11:35 No, Without electricity you cannot use the electrical pumps at hydrogen stations. Or am I missing something?🤨
P.S.: Had to edit this comment I posted unter the previous two versions because of slightly changed video length. :)
On the other hand, one major advantage of hydrogen is the relatively efficient transmission cost. You can produce it in energy rich areas (like solar setups in deserts) and transport it by tanker, allowing you to decouple generation and consumption in a way that becomes very inefficient with electricity.
There is also the major economic question of how battery prices will change as demand goes up. Right now they are 'cheap' due to relatively low demand, but ramping up the supply chain to support several orders of magnitude more production AND constant replacement could change that equation.
What about the waste generated from battery cars? That's a lot of Li ion.
If it’s sponsored by a company that will only push hydrogen only for current fleet emissions criteria and not even looking at full battery it seems slightly sketchy. I’ll watch but wish you would have made this without Toyota
definitely.
Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, I don't think she would have gotten a lot of this information without it and I don't think it's fair to discredit it just due to that fact. Not everything here is sugar coated, the efficiency is a glaring issue and it was presented fairly, I imagine the next two videos in the series will continue that trend
After watching the video there are definitely a lot of things that could have been said or brought up that should have been but would have made the sponsor mad. I would encourage you to remake this video non sponsored and really dig into it more as this doesn’t really give a true comparison Especially when you can’t name the leading competitor by far yet use them in the thumbnail.
Eh, she presented the facts. She showed where battery was better and where hydrogen CAN be better (for now). So I don't think she was overly biased due to the sponsorship. Toyota knows where they stand. That's why they are pushing this idea of "It's totally not a competition. We need both". When in reality, we're just a few battery technology breakthroughs to where that weight, range, and recharge rate issue drops dramatically. Making the negatives of batteries no more. At which point, I suspect apartments and rental homes will just naturally evolve to include multiple chargers for vehicles and the charging grid will expand faster ( /cough, nuclear plants /cough).
Now, for ships and freight, who knows how long that would take. I could see hydrogen being the dominant method in those arenas for a bit until the battery weight issue is resolved (if it can be).
@@chaunceyphilpot3986 She showed stats from 15y ago ! (from battery powered electric vehicle battery capacity/mass ) !
5:35 What about the fact that 95% of H2 is currently being produced in steam reforming of CH4 process that outputs CO2 and more of it than if a car was driving just on the CH4...
But methane is 80 times better green house gas than co2. If that methane would otherwise be released into atmosphere it is at worst equivalent to burning methane. Then there are other stages of making hidrogen fuel...
@@white_shadow_123 I hope you meant CH4 is a 80x worse green house gas... Either way the problem is that to produce H2 you have to use up more CH4 and energy than if you would just run the car on CH4...
That's kinda like saying "what about electricity generated by coal plants" a decade ago..... things changed; electricity generation has gotten cleaner.
@@holycrapchris See, even then that was a disingenuous argument. A BEV that was charged by a grid that used pure coal power was still more environmentally friendly than normal ICE vehicles. Since the power plants aren't size limited, as well as being a lot fewer than cars, they're able to reach much higher efficiencies than internal combustion engines. It also takes a lot less energy to transport any type of fuel to less locations than the hundreds of thousands of gas stations.
EDIT: Please see xmtxx2's comment below mine. Coal may not be better, but a pure natural gas grid still would be. My apologies.
@@kingknapp That's false. With a small car, electricity produced by coal, would emit 220g of CO2 / km. Diesel is 160 and gas is 185 (source in french: ua-cam.com/video/zjaUqUozwdc/v-deo.html).
That's why in poland, (which is heavily powered by coal), an EV produce more CO2 than an ICE.
With fuel, it's pretty equivalent to diesel, with natural gas, you are already at 90g/km.
In comparison, PV is at 12g, wind 3, and nuclear 1.3.
But poland is pretty much the only country where it is like that.
Even in the USA, with it's mix, its well favorable to have an EV.
We are on the same boat, please refrain from claiming false arguments, it taint "our" (EV supporters) overall credibility.
*This is just gasoline with extra steps*
Nope. The hydrogen is never burned.
@@Deploracle it's oxidized so yeah it is burnt
@@whatthefunction9140 That's a reach.
@@Deploracle The majority of hydrogenis produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification
@@Deploracle Starts with Natural Gas, ends up as Carbon Dioxide and Water. I don't really care if the is actual fire in between those.
My BEV has virtually no maintenance. Check tires for wear, top up the washer bottle and check brakes for wear. That’s about it. How does an HEV compare for maintenance?
I guess that, since both BEV and HEV are electric vehicles and their main difference is the storage device (battery vs fuel cell), there's where you'll find the biggest difference. Considering that batteries degrade a lot over time and ussage (avobe all when using fast charge) and fuel cells degrade much slowly in comparison, HEV should require less maintenance. In fact, the most expensive maintenance task with BEV is the replacement of the battery (and also one of the main sources of polution about BEVs).
Also, because any BEV expecting to have big autonomy has to add a lot of weight in batteries compared to a HEV, it is expected to have more wear on tyres and brakes with BEV compared to HEV if we're talking about long range vehicles.
This is just a guess. Im no expert nor have the numbers
@@fresita_jugosa That's exactly what Toyota would like you to believe in. Current batteries in good BEVs last longer than ICEVs and have a longer warranty than hydrogen installation and fuel cell stack in Mirai. Surprised?
@@lightdark00 of course there is. And we're talking only about the maintenance of the vehicles; the infrastructure for hydrogen is hugely more demanding in maintenance than the power grid. It's like the comparison between the efficiency of fuel cells vs batteries. It's true that, for the same weight, hydrogen is more energetically dense. However in volumetric efficiency the story reverses. That's the reason why hydrogen is not a realistic option for planes, but at the same time is pretty appealing for trucks. All in all, a very complex situation, pretty hard to analyze.
@@kedaruss Source?
For Mirai, you have to change the ion filter every 35k, around $500. But you don't have a loss in battery efficiency. FCEV's have the edge in this department.
35% is more like a fairy tale efficiency. The actual efficiency of FCEV is closer to 20% than to 30%.
And fuel cells are not new, Apollo used them. But since then there has not been a lot of advance in their efficiency.
The FC in itself is not the efficiency issue. The issue start on how to split water into H2+O2, compress the H2, carry compressed H2 to station (not needed if water is split at station). In the FC vehicle, all the energy that went into compressing H2 cannot be used.
FCs are not that "bad" in efficiency land by themselves, > 75% IIRC.
@@ikocheratcr It is more like a bit above 60% for the fuel cell in real life. The higher efficiencies are usually under controlled conditions, not on the road.
But as you stated the other factors add up too and this drives the total efficiency to about 20%.
@@guidokorber2866 60% .. wow I was not aware it is that low. Do you know where the 40% goes? In the sense of heat in water vapor on the output, or that it just heat up and need extra cooling to work?
@@ikocheratcr Mostly waste heat, some cooling is required. And in the winter some heating is required to prevent the resulting water from freezing and clogging the drain.
Get well soon, we need an update video 😢❤
11:35 - are you trying to tell me that when there's a grid failure, the H2 refueling stations will work? common... they won't :P
That wasn't the point. If all the cars in LA were battery electric, there isn't enough grid capacity to recharge them overnight to drive to work in the morning.
@@mattpujol4787 yes there is. If suddenly now 50% of the cars would switch to EV the grid would easily handle it overnight. What about producing clean H2 for the hydrogen cars? It uses 2-3x more energy for the same driving distance. This means that in order to power those 50% of H2 cars you would have to have at least 3x more power in available in the grid...
@@mlepa understood. I was answering the specific "But if!". The efficiency if hydrogen production was clearly addressed head on. What hydrogen has over electric today is fueling time. That's always been the argument for gasoline over electric. Hydrogen answers that. Also, hydrogen has a possibility to be generated from nuclear or solar or wind,which makes it desirable over fossil fuel anything.
Reading the comments on this video is reminiscent of the letters to the editor in Popular Science when they'd run an article on electric cars. The tech has promising aspects, give it time and let's see what comes of it.
@@mattpujol4787 Electrolysis is an order of magnitude less effecient than steam reforming methane.
90-95% of hydrogen today is created from a potent greenhouse gas, and CO2 is the byproduct...
Methane leaks are so common that gas utilities just factor them in as 'transmission losses'
How about we just stop fracking and leave the gas underground?
If we need methane let's pivot to hydrates that are melting faster and faster as our oceans are forced to absorb more heat, rather than leaving these exposed deposits to evaporate into our atmosphere.
@@jimurrata6785 Understood. The challenge with methane is to affect climate change, you'd want to capture cow farts, which is an order of magnitide more difficult than fixing electrolysis. The current source of methane is a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction (lots of flared gas.is methane). If the H2 is generates from renewables or nukes, it's way better for the planet than extracted methane prodiction.
The argument that hydrogen has less of an impact is contradicted with how inefficient it is.
so we continue driving fossil fuels because it is "more efficient"?
the argument that batteries has less of an impact is contradicted with how you can't recycle 90% of the battery. if you think batteries today are recycled in any meaningful amount, that's pretty silly of you.
plus the cost of transporting the mats for the battery, all the energy it requires to create them and then ship them around. the weight that puts on the energy grid, so now all the lines need to be upgraded to handle all of that. then you need batteries on the grid to keep up with massive spikes on the energy grid as people add/remove their massive battery banks.
no solution is without it's problems, try not to gloss over the ones batteries have.
@@rocksfire4390 only 10% recyclable on a lithium-ion battery? I highly doubt that...
@@rocksfire4390 Just google: Düsenfeld or Volkswagen Recycling Salzgitter. Well above 90% ist possible in recycling.
@@rocksfire4390 Agreed.
But we have to consider how this Hydrogen is produced as well.
Hydrogen is much more abundant in the universe than earth bound elements
12:05 There are no Winners or Losers.... Sounds like what Betamax would have said about the home video market when VHS started to take the lead in market share
If Betamax were the only one that worked in industrial applications, it would still be doing pretty well today.
Truth
@@elliottmcollins Didn't TV stations and the like continue to use essentially an industrial version of Betamax forever?
Looking it up Sony's professional version of video tape Betacam was definitely in use from 1982 well into the 21st century, although with some major redesigns along the way, so not Betamax but definitely not VHS...
@@allanolley4874 It is "true". The reality was the only Betacam really cut it for professional environment of that time. SVHS was not that great, with the same consumer issues that VHS. The way video and audio were stored on Betacam allowed for linear editing without issues, while on VHS it was sort of a half solution. In the consumer market VHS won cause it was damn cheap, while Sony tried hard to charge expensive for Betamax.
Having two formats in the market was very expensive for a lot of people, and once VHS look like a winner, many video producing companies ran away from betamax.
Who will win between solar and wind power?
This video is way to opinionated, specifically as it is sponsored by toyota. Fuel Cell is quite old technology and just can‘t get off the ground - mostly because of the comparably bad efficiency, which was well hidden behind the better energy density of hydrogen. Presenting it as „upcoming“ while it the first hydrogen station was errected a decade before the first super charger is just a joke. Also a mirai has a degrading battery too.
I would be more happy if the sponsors wouldn‘t shape the message of the video, honestly
Betamax versus VHS battle comes to the EV market. Cracking hydrocarbons or water is energy intensive.
Sorry you are overlooking the basic principle here that hydrogen is only a energy storage system one that's far less efficient the battery storage. Your argument does not makes sense if you are suggesting batteries will draw too much from the grid when hydrogen production would require more energy from the grid with less efficiency. There is no net positive from using a less efficient process.
My thoughts exactly and there are far more efficient methods of storing renewable energy to smooth out supply than by using hydrogen. I can't see a good reason to use hydrogen for cars, for HGV's (Trucks) and large off road vehicles I can see a use case though.
I think one of the ideas behind hydrogen infrastructure is that you can bottle it up in one place and then use it at another. Actually pumping such fuel does not put any load on the power grid, it would just pull from an already filled tank that was filled from an initial power generator.
Don't waste your time with this Marxist.
California's grid strains during the summer when everyone turns on the relatively low power AC. Imagine if they all had evs charging at level 2 ~7KW, the grid would definitely not be able to handle it, let alone fast charging at 10s of KWs...
Yeah this bit made no sense at all, in order to create hydrogen cleanly it would be worse than just charging a battery lol.
They never talked about the process supplying the hydrogen and the intensive process it is.
@Physics Girl, You say something like, if we plugged in all the BEV's at the same time the grid will go down.... But if we generated all the hydrogen for a third of the amount of FCEV at the same time the grid would go down. The fact that people use most power during the day and charge during the night means a more distributed load. Using tech that charges at time where the rate is the lowest means that you not only get the cheapest power, but BEV's would actually help stabilize the grid usage.
Another huge point is that the main purpose of EV's is to help the environment. If vehicles take 3 times more power to run it is going to take a lot more infrastructure to produce that extra power, until we get rid of carbon burning power plants this is going to mean we are using fossil fuels. Also we are much more likely to use the cheapest way to produce hydrogen, which is basically the using modified fossil fuels but less efficiently than burning them directly, so it is likely to be worse for the environment than an ICE vehicle unless that is made illegal which is currently not on the table in any country to my knowledge.
The comments on some of the issues with BEV's are also not really accurate anymore. Most Tesla batteries will not have to get replaced for the life time of the car and I am sure other companies will be similar, if not now then very soon. I do agree that FCEV's may have their place. They may work better for big rigs or boat's, but even that is still up for debate since there is no significant independent statistics to go on yet.
I had such respect for you and the videos that you do, but to get sponsorship for a significant debate from one of the car companies that is lobbying the governments to slow down the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and then come to the conclusion that it is that their tech is the best approach while stating reasons that it is not is sad. I would love to understand how this is anything other than a purchased ad for Toyota more than a science video.
"I had such respect for you and the videos that you do, but to get sponsorship for a significant debate from one of the car companies that is lobbying the governments to slow down the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and then come to the conclusion that it is that their tech is the best approach while stating reasons that it is not is sad. I would love to understand how this is anything other than a purchased ad for Toyota more than a science video."
I feel the same way!
I totally agree with you, she is getting off the science field to business.We can't predict the future of both of these vehicles but publicly bashing one ain't a 'sciencie' thing.
I agree.
I simply cannot see any good argument for Hydrogen powered cars. They will only keep going if heavily subsidised. So what is the point?
RE "if we plugged in all the BEV's at the same time the grid will go down"; I wonder if they remembered to remove from the equation all the electricity that would have been used to manufacture/refine gasoline? If all the gas cars are replaced, we won't need to make all the gasoline, which frees up a lot of electricity.
In Norway like in EU we use more electric power in our petroleum production(20%), then all our cars combined(7%) if we go 100% electric. Bet it also is the same way in some class divided developing countries, like the usa.
Fuel cells for Trucks, Trains, Ships, and Planes. Batteries for Passengers, runabouts, and last mile delivery.
I like being able to charge my car at home. Hydrogen just sounds like a step backwards to be honest
Not everyone can recharge overnight at home. Also, if you want to drive above the range of your car in a day, you will have to go to a supercharger.
@@tonymouannes I agree with you, but we should rather focus on upgrading the grid it will benefit more people not just drivers.
That's kind of the point of this video.
Each have their benefits and one may work better for others.
HEVs can refuel in 5 minutes at a station, BEVs can charge at home gradually while not in use.
HEVs have more range typically etc etc.
@@JerryFlowersIII I know it is the point of the video and they both have their benefits but at the end of the day im saying li-ion is better, hydron is made through electrolysis which takes tons of electricity and water🤦♂️, Water will run out just like any fossil fuel. Im basically trying to say people should focus on improving the grid and battery's. I understand hydrogen cell can refuel much faster and that is a huge benefit but i feel battery will get to that point too. Anyway all this is just my opinion 😅🤦♂️
@@OnlyFacts196 Uhh... water is um... I mean, OK, technically it is finite, but compared to the amount of fossil fuels, the amount of water available to humanity is vast.
Like, absurdly huge. I don't think hydrogen is gonna be the way forward, but this, in particular, is not a concern.
Where is the hydrogen being sourced from? From what I understand it's sourced from the fossil fuel industry. Electrolysis isn't ideal from what I've read as it takes a lot of energy. How do we ensure the source is green?
By further developing the technology and government policies?
That's the same argument for electric cars though. We just have an easier time storing the energy in hydrogen than we have as pure electricity.
@@nobodyimportent8795 Are you operating under the illusion that lithium extraction is cost free?
@@agabrielrose The cost of getting lithium is less then hydrogen. Lithium is only in construction, so you don't need to refill lithium, like you need with hydrogen. Hydrogen cars still need lithium, just less then a normal EV, as Hydrogen EV still need a small batter. And hydrogen is not wildly used, but lithium is (in almost any technology) so scaling up lithium production is easier then making new hydrogen electrolysis stations (if you don't what to burn up fossil fuels), which still will need lithium batteries to store the electricity for hydrogen production.
@@nobodyimportent8795 The cost to the planet.
Dianna, please make a non-sponsored video about this subject addressing the problems people in the comments have pointed out. I'd love to hear more about the subject.
Donate to them so they don't have to do ads.
Diana with 1 n
@@psikot I'm a patron and content like this makes me second guess that.
I drove 50,000 miles in an electric vehicle and never had to charge it away from home. The biggest drawback to electric vehicles is that our electric providers do not have public point of sale receptacles to sell the electricity which is virtually everywhere. If there is a common 110-120 socket that is where a charging point resides; every business ,home and apartment in the world is a charging station.
“Thank you for Toyota who sponsored this entire series”. Mmmmmmmm.
Should have been "Thank you Toyota for handing me the script."
@@Hans-gb4mv mmmmmmmm
Toyota has a very weird anti electric car attitude. To this day they are really refusing to put any serious effort into developing evs. So many of the articles online with such lies as 'eV are actually bad for the environment' or 'if we turn to the eV too quickly we'll loose a lot of jobs' or 'we really need to investigate many options (but for some reason not evs' come from Toyota. Just Google the a few of the latest statements of their CEO. Which is weird because Toyota was a leader in hybrid cars, and came out with an hydrogen car ages ago (but spoilers, they didn't sell many, and in the many years they had, it stagnated. Not a large boost in confidence when eV are exploding).
Be very very careful of manufactured information about eVs coming from Toyota
@@claudioarena6656 because of the disadvantages associated with batteries
Ya more like hmmm...
This is not what I was expecting. Seriously this is an odd video.
It feels like a raid shadow legends ad made for an auto manufacturer.
When he mentioned Nikola 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'd skip that one if I were you...
Hydrogen won't win this one...electricity is all about storage and that technology is moving forward by leaps
and bounds as is new battery technology. Electric cars and trucks have much less complexity and required
maintenance which is another winning argument. We still need more rail than heavy trucks and electrification
will solve that problem also.
5:57. Batteries 3x > Fuel Cells. Hydrogen is great for airplanes when energy/weight ratio is important, but not day-to-day cars.
Hydrogen is tragic for aircraft. Just about the worst energy storage technology. The issue is the volumetric capacity of hydrogen and the lack of suitable locations in an aircraft that you could store the tanks.
For 99.9% of aviation gaseous hydrogen just doesn't make sense.
H2 is very light, super light, but sadly in the video they do not add the tank weight, which why not great for airplanes.
@@8710ify There is a good lecture by one of the chief designers at NASA who helped develop the blended body wing.
ua-cam.com/video/x0vYuPmOPYE/v-deo.html
Batteries are poor in energy/weight, but Hydrogen is great. In blended body designs, there is plenty of space to install hydrogen tanks. The engineers consider the Energy/Volume vs Energy/Weight in the designs. Hydrogen has a higher energy/weight ratio than fossil fuels so that's a plus. As an energy efficiency issue, both fossil fuels and hydrogen are around the 30% range. So Hydrogen makes sense. Yes the volume of hydrogen is an issue, but it's solvable. Blended body wing designs seem to be the answer.
In cars however, I don't see a point in hydrogen for mainstream use. It's too inefficient. Too many steps to get from energy sources to effective work.
@@fahadkelantan I think you're missing the point here. The problem with packing hydrogen into an aircraft (blended or traditional wing) is that you need a wing that can fit the hydrogen in the first place. The chord has to be massive and the wingspan has to be massive compared to more traditional liquid fuels (or even batteries for that matter). Once you factor in the bulk volumetric density of gaseous hydrogen (in tanks) you have to make an enormous and very inefficient blended wing design to pack in these tanks. It just doesn't make any real world sense other than on super short haul routes if the hydrogen is "free" (renewable generation or off a high-temp nuclear process).
Thin wings make efficient aircraft. A hydrogen tank packed wing is just about the anti-christ of this.
When the electricity grid is down you can't fuel up with hydrogen. You need some electricity for the compressors.
More of this thinking please
Also a bike pump, obviously.
Unless the compressor is powered off grid.
@@psgouros by.... a battery?
@@LabGecko batteries are not a source of energy. Just a method of storing it. There are plenty of ways to generate (not store) electricity ’off grid’.
@@psgouros Like fossil fuel :D
A blended mix as tech grows is intriguing. When we’ve tried hydrogen on diesels as an additive it’s been awesome. Too bad generating power creates the core issue of emissions.
Also, an important consideration is that refining petroleum into gasoline actually takes more electricity than charging a car to go the same range. So transitioning to electric vehicles is far more efficient than either gas or hydrogen case on energy demand.
I'm curious, does that factor include the amount of output of the equipment needed to mine, harvest, extract, and haul the materials needed for those batteries. I'm a stats guy, i want a detailed breakdown of everything for me to make up my mind about things. Not a general overview.
@@tyrind2001 This is quite wrong because it's just 15% electricity ( search Do Gasoline Based Cars Really Use More Electricity than Electric Vehicles Do? on google) it's more about 0.2 kilowatt hours of electricity used for each gallon of gasoline produced. So for 10 gallons (im not sure it's representative) you have less than 5% the electricity needed for a battery.
If the energy used was electricity, it could be "more true", but I love Tesla and all etc
@@tyrind2001 To be fair, most of the exotics used in battery production are in the tailings of existing mines. The difficult part is separating the rare earth elements.
@@tyrind2001 one must also come to terms with the fact that raw crude needs to also account for all of the equipment needed to drill, fracture, extract, and haul the materials needed to procure that fossil fuel from underground. Not to mention the obscene amount of fresh water needed for the fracking process. Cause fresh water is super abundant right?
Let's get some more green hydrogen first. For now it's mostly gray hydrogen, meaning just another form of fossil fuels
Being from outside of the cities in Australia, where distances can be vast, hydrogen has always been my favoured choice. I always wished that batteries were designed to be interchangeable, so you could pull into a petrol station, remove depleted battery, and insert a new one. Five minute operation. It would be nice if all electric car companies could come to an agreement on battery tech to make this possible. Battery is great if you live in a city where distances driven are less per day, and chargeable overnight. Unfortunately, the driving done in my area, fuel cell is the only realistic option. Unfortunately, we don't even nearly have the infrastructure yet, but the Western Australian government is seriously investigating improving things going forward, so hopefully soon!!
I normally really love your videos so I am disappointed to see you putting out this hydrogen PR for Toyota. They are actively lobbying aganst battery electric vehicles to prop up their own profits at what long term cost electric car adoption and this damage to the environment. :(
Bruh it maybe PR but she also just stated the truth... this video is not about simply pushing for hydrogen, its more of letting people know how good hydrogen can be.
Battery will only work on small vehicles. Ships, Planes and Trucks will use Hydrogen. This means development and improvement of Hydrogen infrastructure will happen and it cant be stopped... i dont understand why Battery Frogs are always mad and always attacking videos about hydrogen.
Did you put that comment because Elon said its Fool Cell? Have you ever though Elon have his own interest in mind when he said that? Perhaps its the conspiracy about Toyota lobbying for hydrogen? And the elite pushing for Hydrogen adoption? Perhaps those conspiracy ate all real? How about you educate yourself and learn how Hydrogen might or could be better?
Almost everything I can see on this topic tells me battery electric is going to be the norm. Hydrogen electric will fill certain key niches, but won't see the burgeoning widespread use of battery electrics we are beginning to see today.
I've been driving an EV for the past 7 years. I just charge at home at no cost (solar power), if you don't have the capacity to do it at home, go to a charge station (you'd have to do that with a hydrogen car anyway). The range of 400km to 500km for newer cars is plenty. Fast charges are perfectly fine with under 30min to get to 80% of charge (because you should rest after driving 400+km anyway).
Put simply, the issues with EV's are pretty much solved and were only minor issues whilst they were developing. Hydrogen issues are all over the place - infrastructure, cost of hydrogen is far more than for gas (not mentioned in the video), servicing the car is difficult, and the cost of the actual car is very high. I can see advantages to Hydrogen, but more so in ships or possibly planes. Unless you can make hydrogen at home, it will have trouble competing with EV's.
California and the rest of the USA is only falling behind on this development, like they always do. In Norway bevs is the norm and has been for years now, and more then 65% of our new cars sold in Norway is bevs.
But we have also tried out, and totaly left the fruitless idea of hydrogen electric cars a couple of years ago.
Hydrogen will be nothing more than an afterthought in ten years. There is no upside to Hydrogen, none, it makes no sense to try and develop it.
1. The real trasportation work is made by trucks. Which, obviously, can't wait leisulerly waiting in one's coffeeshop... 2. One's goods, in order for one to consume them, besides being transported to them, must be manufactured/fabricated/drilled-out/excavated-from/molded/processed/shipped-to... Heavy machinery does that, which also has no time to wait. Once the infrastrucure is made thanks to/because of 'real' demand from the industries, it's going to be the only way to go.
@@crazycoolclips lol the same exact thing people were saying about EV 20 years ago. You're that guy👍
At the moment there are TEN hydrogen stations in the UK, thus 402 miles is useless , a diesel car has an average range of 1000km/600 miles!
Overall, pretty good analysis, but also had a bit of misinformation.
It was claimed that only "high end" battery EVs have a range over 200 miles, but the US average for a light vehicle was about $39k in 2020, roughly comparable to a Tesla Model 3 which definitely gets more than 200 even with the standard range version.
It was also claimed that renters can't install chargers, but this video said it was focused on California, which has a "right to charge" law allowing renters the right to install chargers.
I also wish they had compared the storage volume, engine power, and security concerns.
What about people without a garage?
@@k1fizz No garage required to charge a car.
@@k1fizz right to charge also means you can take your issue up with your apartments management. Which might actually result in outdoor electrical outlets all over your parking lot for charging. It would be a massive boon to the apartment complex to advertise you have EV charger access in the parking lots. Win-Win
@@CorwynGC it’s not required, but without one charging a car becomes much more inconvenient.
@@k1fizz 48 hydrogen stations in the US, 47 in California. Definitely inconvenient.
It's quite disappointing to see this biased video from this channel. The problem of efficiency is key here. If you were a policy maker, which one would you support, a battery EV or FC EV which consumes twice the energy of the BEV due to inferior efficiency. With the current energy mix of most of countries , hydrogen EV (H2 made by electrolysis) practically emits more CO2 than ICE cars. Most of the issues listed here for Bev, like charging time or driving range are already resolved with the new generation EVs. As an insider in the industry I don't really see hope for fuel cells at least for the cars, it's an interesting technology but it cannot complete with Battery for road vehicles.
what we want isn't efficiency but environmental sustainability and cleanliness. which, in the long run without seemingly impossible major scientific breakthroughs, hydrogen seems to pose a much better deal than traditional batteries
Depends. Which one donates the most to my reelection fund?
@@MsHumanOfTheDecade Yes you want efficiency, because it directly translate into what you pay for the same distance travelled. It is not so much about policy making, it is about the price for the consumer
It was sponsored by Toyota...
Do you know much fossil fuel it takes to extract lithium?
I'm in my 6th year driving an EV and often hear some of these arguments from friends against battery technology. I've never run out of power as I charge every night on 220 at my house. I rarely use the superchargers. In California, many houses have 220 outlets installed in the garage for electric dryers but most dryers sold are gas so the outlet is unused. My EV cost per mile is 3.4 cents compared to 23 cents for my wife's gas car. As a point of reference, my brother leased a Toyota Hydrogen Mirai only because Toyota provided a debit card to fill up for free during the lease. There is only 1 hydrogen station in San Diego County so he has far more planning to make sure he doesn't run out.
Interesting. How much did the car charging raise your home electric bill. Thank you and be safe..
@@Big.Ron1 3.4 cents per km, obviously (already mentioned).
I’ve never seen a gas dryer in my life
You can not fill up a hydrogen car when there is no electricity. Those filling stations waste a lot of energy in compressing the hydrogen to get it into the car tank.
If they had a fuel cell powering the fueling station, you certainly could...m
You can store hydrogen for a decade. Lets see your store battery power for that long.
@@deeeeeeps Hydrogen causes embrittlement in tanks (tanks need replacement every ten years) and is a small molecule which leaks though the tiniest of gaps. Please show an actual tank with 10 year old Hydrogen gas in it.
Why would anyone WANT to store energy for that long?
@@deeeeeeps Yeah great, and what would this be good for?
(If we forget for a moment that H2 has the tendency to diffuse through almost everything…)
@@mattpujol4787 Or you could burn the hydrogen to produce light and then power the station via solar cells…
This whole H2 thing is like a giant Rube Goldberg machine.
Hydrogen is only good for storage and for emergencies... The best case scenario is 50% efficiency... I preferer the batteries with 90+%
definitely.
i think if hydrogen is produced in an environment friendly way then people will stop talking about its efficiency, because losses wont turn up as increased emissions.
@@AshutoshSingh-to9vx *nod* another thing that really should be factored in is efficiency in long distance transmission. How much hydrogen does it take to move a tanker of the stuff a long distance vs loss of transmitting a similar amount of electric across high voltage lines.
@@AshutoshSingh-to9vx It does when It can be compared with something 30%+ more efficient !
Huge IF to produce hydrogen in an environmentally friendly way.
The argument against charging the vehicles overnight is specious, as the power can be drawn at varying times over the day. With only a 25% energy conversion efficiency, it would cost LESS energy overall to use Battery than it would to use Hydrogen.
Its not an argument for using less energy, but the timing of it. Hydrogen can potentially be produced when there is oversupply, and can be stored a long time.
@@Ravi-fx6vf yes, just like BEVs can be charged during peak production, and automatically store it onboard. (and can even supply power back to the grid in the case of V2G tech)
@@emorog You can't store electricity on the battery. If you understand physics.
The person talking about trucks seemed to suggest that all trucks are running 24 hours a day. That is totally wrong. Drivers must drive no more than 10 hours a day that means even a 2 man team has a truck not moving for 4 hours a day. The truck charges during that time and would have no impact on the productivity of the truck.
Hydrogen is touted as the most abundant substance in the universe, so it's logical to make a hydrogen based infrastructure as long as it's safe and economical. Safety is the key word. Just ask the people on the Hindenburg.....
I have always plugged into a regular outlet at my house. This is so underrated
For some reason that is only brought up to show how long they take to recharge. Funny that.
@@psikot Typical distance driven per day in the US is about 30 miles. Topping up a BEV that much off a normal home circuit is perfectly reasonable.
For boats/ships, the added weight of batteries is less important. For airplaines it likely more important.
You sure? More weight and the ship will sit lower in the water which means it'll take more energy to move the ship forward.
except hydrogen dosn't have the engergy density to make it practical for airplanes. you would have to double the fuel capacity for the same range.
@@seldoon_nemar it would also be extremely difficult to regulate fuel cell as they are high pressure.
And airplanes anyway are so efficient it wouldn’t make too much sense to invest there, not now at least
I think Ships and especially Boats are perfect for Hydrogen. I consider Hydrogen as range extender for Batteries, anything over 100-200kw/h is a lot extra weight, where the cost of the extra technology and fuel-cost would make sense
@@seldoon_nemar Just add a hydrogen balloon to the airplane lmao
I recharge my EV from my house.. And it costs me 1 UK pence per mile from a 100% renewable energy tariff... And I have 3x the range I need to cover commuting and therefore 99% of my journeys. IF hydrogen some how works out how to beat that convenience.. I'll eat my car.
Yeah, but it's lies.
Your not actually 100% renewables.
If it ain't windy at night, your getting fossils.
And for people who don't have the option of having a place to charge, either at work or overnight? If you bothered to watch the video before commenting you'd know the general consensus was both options are needed. With the number of people living in major metropolitan areas and not owning their own home, BEV's are not practical. We need FCEV's and more importantly improved public transport in major metropolitan areas. Because driving your own personal hunk of heavy metal around will never be efficient.
@@bvirtue exactly, the most green is not going anywhere really lol
Way to rub it in everyone's face who doesn't have a garage.
@@k1fizz You don't need a garage.
Conclusion (since Toyota probably told you not to do one..):
Fuel cells only start to make sense in larger vehicles since BEV's are a lot more efficient, also everyone has electricity at their home and can simply use a plug for charging since most cars only move 1 out of 24 hours.
Sad to see all this talk about hydrogen being clean and yet no talk of how the hydrogen production industry is horribly carbon producing. They have a long way to go to make it clean at scale.
And Teslas get 60-70% of their power from fossil fuel generated electricity. So there's that.