The bigger problem is that Hydrogen now costs $35 per kg 5 kg per fill up = $175 for less than 300 miles of range in a vehicle with no cargo space due to the enormous fuel tanks. Compare that to
Using it to replace gas generators where possible and to power charging stations may far outpace automotive use. Obviously they're meant to be clean alternatives to that diesel tanker you're thinking of.
@@johnlopez6401 Hydrogen generated by electrolysis "Green Hydrogen" results in 70% energy lost, nearly all the other colors of hydrogen are created from conversions of fossil fuels that create more emissions than burning the fossil fuel directly. If you need to transport the hydrogen this gets even worse.
@@jjamespacbell Green Hydrogen is from renewables. So what if they lose 70% of the energy. Once they create enough energy to offset the impact of the solar panel / battery production, it's all free and clean, right? It's grey hydrogen that uses fossil fuels.
@@johnlopez6401 If hydrogen from renewables is used to replace hydrogen from fossil fuels it is great. The problem is when you use it for cars the energy lost could have been used directly replacing fossil fuels and the delivery of the hydrogen takes 16 times as many diesel trucks as if they delivered diesel.
Glad there is still some interest and investment in hydrogen. Battery electric vehicles may dominate the consumer market but I believe that there will need to be complimentary technologies for the commercial or industrial sectors.
Actually plug in hybrid hydrogen fuel cell EV is a combination of both. You can do 50/50 or 25/75. 25% battery and 75% fuel cell. Battery will move vehicle while fuel keep charging the battery statically.
I think hydrogen is gonna win out over electric unless vehicles can be charged by a hydrogen engine on the go. So no need for time wasting charge stations.
@@Gameplay-3D it is, if plug in hydrogen fuel cell EV. You use battery for the first 50 km driving then fuel cell engine will start charging the battery. If you only drive less than 50 km per day then you don't even use the fuel cell engine.
There are several key issues that no one yet has overcome with Hydrogen, cost is king and separating Hydrogen from water is very energy intensive, followed by compressing it for storage which also consumes a large amount of energy. It's way less efficient than simply charging a battery, so hydrogen will inevitably cost a lot more per mile. Then there's the safety implications, typically the tanks in the vehicle are pressurised to 700 bar, that is a worryingly high pressure, hydrogen is atomically the smallest atom and will leak out of pretty much anything. Remember the helium balloons you get at parties, even with aluminiumized plastic the helium defuses straight through in a matter of days. And hydrogen would only leak faster. This is why no automaker has managed to sell more than a handful of fuel cell cars to date. The infrastructure required to support them is also much more expensive to install compared to a bunch of chargers.
The cost of maintaining the infrastructure alone will be considerable, because of the huge pressures involved, and the need for customer safety etc. Guess who'll pay for all this?...... These folks who somehow seem to think that hydrogen is the Holy Grail, and will provide cheap and convenient fuel, may end up disappointed. Once the big oil companies get their teeth into it, and begin controlling the production, distribution and pricing, we'll be right back where we were before......
Use hydrogen only if you drive more than 50 km. If you drive less than 50 km per day going to work and groceries then use battery only. If less than 50 per km day for 30 days you will never going to use hydrogen. Hydrogen is a backup to charge the battery if you ran out of juice.
It will never take hold in the market. More hype. This story will be the same in a decade from now. Meanwhile EVs with batteries will have 75% of new car sales
@@JoeyBlogs007 Lmao, you have high hopes if you think EVs are gonna take over anytime soon. With current technology I'd be very surprised if EVs are really even a thing in 10 years. 3 big automnakers have already given up on them, and they have so many problems that people are only now figuring out. That said, without some major advances, hydrogen cells ain't it either. Way too many cost, production, and safety issues, and that that doesn't even touch on infrastructure to maintain them. I doubt ICE cars are going anywhere, anytime soon.
You buy a hydrogen car you're on a leash. You can only go where there's a fill station. In CA it's $60 to go from 10% to a full tank and that gives you a 272 mile range($4.50/gallon equivalent)
My hydrogen car owning friend tells me it is $35 per kg and it takes 5 kg for a complete fill or $175 90% of that is >$150 not $60, Their are so few stations that you need to wait for at least 4 people ahead of you so 20 minutes at least.
60kw is around 80,5 hp. that is one big unit. heavy. and that is only the generator. not with the fuel included. with so many years of expertise, it does not look promising for the aviation industry.
@@brushlessmotoring who wants someone elses battery? The concept does not work in the US. The concept that you never really own your car. Fast DC Charging is just a few years from being crazy fast. If it gets to be less than 20 minutes to take off its very acceptable.
@@ChicagoBob123 You got a laugh out of me! It's like rolling the dice on how many gallons of gas the pump is willing to dispense. Seems like battery swapping is fertile ground for the tragedy of the commons.
They won't have much luck selling anything that runs on hydrogen in the UK, as Shell UK are de-commissioning all their hydrogen assets here. That will leave around 5 hydrogen filling points in the *whole* of the UK......
Where will the green hydrogen come from? How do we decarbonize the _existing_ hydrogen production? You asked all the wrong questions. The fuel cells are not the issue - although their efficiency isn't that great, it's better than a combustion engine, but the problem is where does the hydrogen come from, and can we afford to use 3 to 4 times as much renewable energy on making hydrogen when don't have a green enough grid already?
In countries with existing natural gas pipelines, you can just install hydrogen gas production at key points and feed in to existing lines, replacing cng and lpg, thats what I think.
You cant run hydrogen through the same system as natural gas ran through, hydrogen would leak out everywhere, It would attack all the metal parts you have to use Stainless steel high pressure fittings
@3:15 - Michael Bearman does not say where this Zero Emissions Hydrogen comes from, or the logistics of delivering (assuming) LH2 to 'remote charging locations'
Exactly..... The hydrogen won't simply appear at the filling points by magic. And there's the issue of all the Co2 produced by the delivery tankers, so no advantage over fossil fuel there. And the irony is that *all* hydrogen filling points will need an electricity supply........ And there's the cost of what will be the considerable maintenance required, because of the huge pressures involved in the storage and filling systems.
Unfortunately this technology will take time to implement. And yet we had engines for years but the designs were not put into use because of big oil and auto manufacturing would loose business. Opposed piston engines still would be better fewer moving parts, better fuel economy, list goes on ,etc.
If hydrogen power grows for the commercial markets, hydrogen production could go higher scale, lowering the price and increasing availability through new infrastructure helping improve the viability of consumer hydrogen cars.
No. Not even slightly, completely different infrastructure required, costing millions of dollars per single hydrogen nozzle, you can put in 50 fast EV DC chargers for the same money and get 10 times as many cars through, and you only need to meet 10% of the charging needs, as 90% is done at work, hotel, retail or home AC charging. Hydrogen is actually pretty slow per car if there is a lineup, despite what they claim, DC charging can actually be faster.
@@brushlessmotoring It sounds hyperbolic to claim millions of dollars for a single hydrogen hookup. Maybe you're right, but it sounds an order of magnitude off to me. They'll need a pressurized tank, some fittings, valves, and a regulator. A controller of some sort to keep track of fuel dispensed and remaining supply. No million-dollar mystery tech required.
@@waylonk2453 not my numbers, this is from the hydrogen folks themselves, and from Shell too. UA-cam doesn't like links, so search Hydrogen Station Costs and Financing
Where I live they are stating a project of building hundreds of wind turbines to power a hydrogen production facility. So a greener solution is on its way.
@@Gameplay-3D On smaller scales it isn't terrible, but it doesn't really scale well. It takes too much space to generate too little power, they kill migrating/rare birds, not to mention the production and disposal is a very real issue. It's better than fossil fuels in some ways, but not good enough to be a long term solution unless technology makes some pretty major leaps.
Finally, an energy storage technology that has the potential to be viable for transportation. Battery EV's are still decades away from being viable in the real world.
You may have a problem convincing the millions of people already using EV's. They like the convenience of being able to charge at home, for way less cost than using established commercial filling points. Many also get free "fuel" from their solar panels. You can't get any of this with hydrogen. There is also the fact that hydrogen will *have* to be transported to all the filling points. Electricity requires no transportation.
I totally agree. Where I live electric vehicles would be complete garbage unless they could get some decent mileage and be able to move some weight( something an electric vehicle is totally incapable of).
Towing needs work, and likely electified trailers, but all other uses are fine. The viable future for electric vehicles is here today. It's Hydrogen that is still many decades away.
Here in canada where air pollution is hardly even existent there's no real reason to have either. We produce 1.5 percent of the world's air pollution per year. Anything we would do to produce less air pollution is gonna be like putting a bandaid on a cut off leg. Lol. Unless the major polluting countries change then what we do here isn't changing anything besides bleeding its inhabitants dry because of carbon taxes.
Meanwhile Toyota has a real fuel cell vehicle with NO TOXIC BATTERY THAT'S NOT RECYCLABLE & BUILT WITH SLAVE LABOR...AND: fuel cell busses have been around for decades. This is suck a disappointment that they're using this to charge EVs & not GET RID of EVs.
Does anyone else find it funny theiyare calling as much as I love it Hydrogen FCs zero emisiion? Like don't they realize it emits water and that's a great thing? But Yeah Hopefull we'll now see more research into afordble hydrogen production now that these guys are in the race!
You do realize that most people right now are driving around with highly explosive gas tanks right? If you don't understand go research the 1977 Ford Pinto. This isn't an issue.
85M might be alot for us average people, but for this nah. I think it's just one of their science project that moght not come to fruition ever. Isn't hydrogen like super explosive? so if I crash my car, will it explode? Let's just make our cities like Tokyo where so so less cars, and public transport is so easy, we'd definitely cut off a lot of co2 emissions.
Go back and watch the Hindenburg film. There was no explosion. It just burned. Because there was no oxygen inside the zeppelin, just as there is no oxygen inside a hydrogen tank.
@@steelcom5976 I have a diversified portfolio. But I have some investments in companies like Linde and Air Products which supply hydrogen along with many other gaseous products. Just like battery startups, many hydrogen startups will fail.
Unfortunately it makes no sense to waste primary electrical energy on making secondary elemental hydrogen that needs to be stored and transported at 10,000 psi, to then make tertiary electrical energy from a huge pressure vessel feeding a fantastically expensive fuel cell to then drive motors after losing 80% of your original energy in conversion/compression efficiencies. There are no viable applications of this technology for small transportation, especially as battery tech is accelerating, and cost per kWh will fall less than $55 in 2-3 years. Even shipping and aerospace applications may become unviable. Investors beware of snakes bearing oil.
@@huntsbychainsaw5986 How cute, you use a phrase like a pigeon with a chess piece in its beak with no idea what it's for! I majored in chemistry/physics and make battery packs for years and drive an EV. Can't beat the laws of thermodynamics dude. You put 100 % electrical energy in by electrolysis, then get about 20% it out of a fuel cell. These aren't good conversion efficiencies. Only makes sense to make H₂ from a dump load if you have to curtail solar/wind production and have nowhere to put the energy.
No they didn't. The Electrovan that GM built in the 1960s used a fuel cell produced by Union Carbide. And the fuel cell had enough platinum in it to pay for a fleet of gasoline vans.
@cccharlie1972 Then why is it every space craft ever to go into space had a Delphi fuel cell. Go to the GM pavilion at Epcot Center. They have all of the GM 0 emission vehicles that they have built since 1902!
The pyrolysis of methane approach has achieved 1kg of hydrogen at 18kw: 6kg @ 108 kw. I support all innovation, hopefully battery tech will continue improving range, cold weather performance, charging times, reduced mining and mineral usage. I'm not saying H is the answer, nor do I feel EVs will be the top option if we continue to innovate.
Add to that the cost of hydrogen production and transport, along with expensive equipment. Makes zero sense. Battery tech is evolving much faster, so there will be near zero market for hydrogen. They already have a 600 mile battery pack and super fast charging will be everywhere long term. Plus you can charge EVs at home. The game is over.
Apologies yes I meant KWh. My point is that electrolysis of hydrogen is very energy intensive. Obtaining hydrogen through steam reforming of methane is less energy intensive but produces a lot of CO2. If scientists can find a better way to split water then fine but at the minute the fundamental amount of energy required to split a single mole of water is 237KJ, then throw entropic losses, electrolyser inefficiencies, transportation costs and volatility into the mix it just doesn’t make sense. There are better ways of using energy.
@@jemima_brown electrolysis has been around for 200 years. 70% efficiency is the most they’ve achieved in that time. Anyone claiming higher than that is lying. If you have an abundance of clean energy then hydrogen can make sense but you get a lot less out than you put in, hence the problem. There are fundamental limits in place that no amount of science can overcome. Battery tech has a lot of potential (excuse the pun) and hence any investor in hydrogen as a means of road transportation would be wiped out if battery tech improves 2 fold or 3 fold which is plausible. Hydrogen just doesn’t have that potential.
Wonderful collaboration. Well done GM & Honda, truly best wishes to your teams with all of this 🙂😉 Plug in electric are a stepping stone like Hybrids were before it. Hydrogen or some other advanced technology. is the future. Battery EV's have so many batteries which are often mined in appalling conditions, so there's nearly always ethical issues. And those materials are finite. Then there's the end of life recycling of all those batteries... When an hydrogen filling station is running on renewables and doesn't need tanker trucks to bring in hydrogen, it's wicked. Those are the ones that need to be invested in. Less than five minutes to fill the tank and getting a wicked range is always so much better than waiting over half hour for crappy batteries to charge. I will never do that, it's retarded 🥴👉
Typical corrupt car companee's. Trying to flogg off massive sized hydrogen electrolsys unit's, when all's they need is water splitting H2 O2 sparkplugg's & hardened piston head's.
Doesn't make sense in the passenger market. Heavy truck, train, industrial, power storage sure. These companies will need to fight (lots of money) against local utilities to allow microgrids to sell Fuel Cell Backup Storage.
They have passenger vehicles and stations in Cali already. Just as battery tech in EVs has advanced in the past decade, advances can be made here to also make it a viable solution. It may take longer but unless strides can be made in EV range and charging speeds, there will be a need for faster fill ups which H can provide. Less Battery capacity needed, less mineral usage with existing electric motor tech, but I support innovation and options.
"Shell, a major player in the energy industry, has quietly abandoned its plans to construct 48 new light-duty hydrogen filling stations in California." 9/19/23@@Kevin-4
@@BTC909 Currently, with the cost of producing viable H for use, I'm not surprised a conglomerate whose #1 focus is the bottom line for their investors would reverse course. As innovations occur, production cost decline and profit margins increase, we could see them or others revisit an investment, but at this time it's not profitable for them. As long as the drawback in EVs continue (Range/ReCharge/Cold Weather/Mining Resources) exploration into alternative fuels will continue and maybe innovations can make them a viable option... still not close, but I also don't want us to stay complacent.
"Both companies are relentlessly pursuing yero emmisions." Please don' t say things like this, I was drinking and now the Pepsi is all over the monitor.
Er, it isn't....... The Toyota Mirai can only manage around 23% efficiency. That's worse than most ICE's.....An EV is around 80 to 90% efficient. Which EV did you try that you felt was trash?
Why would you want an engine with thousands of moving parts to wear out or break, which still needs regular servicing and replacement of parts to function correctly? An EV typically has around 30 moving parts. By comparison, a Tesla has no scheduled service intervals..... And the irony is that *all* hydrogen filling points will need an electricity supply to function....
@@Brian-om2hh Flip side. You have a small prang in an EV. Good chance of a total right off. A complicated engine as we have now. Much of the rest of vehicle can be fixed. I'm not saying either way one is better as such. But as ever there are 2 sides to every story.
I drive a manual and like vroom sounds too. It'd be interesting to see if a new type of mechanical engine could be developed to better suit H2 combustion. My bet's on H2 for the future.
@@gabrielarellano-b4b not sure what kind of false facts you have. I drove 80 miles a day and charged in -20 and -10. No big deal. I was warm as toast driving back and forth.
Battery technology is not there yet. We took what we have, improved it a little and shoved it into a car. The prototype batteries that are still in labs being further developed will crush the batteries we have today. The amount of lithium needed to make batteries is also ridiculous. It takes a DIESEL truck hours to get down into a mine and drive back up. Then it needs refining and shipped across the ocean to get built. Think how many combustion engines there are on the road/in scrap. The most efficient way is to reuse these engines by adapting them to hydrogen. We know we can make hydrogen using standard electrolysis. Yes using renewable energy will help with that. However, there are materials that can split the hydrogen and oxygen by themselves. Just like EV's, just like combustion engines, it requires research and development. 20 years ago we didn't have EV charging points. The thought of it was absurd. However, we have had LPG for a while. It'll only be a matter of time before hydrogen stations become available once the technology is finalised just like everything else was.
@@owenoj False. (geologists have discovered a massive lithium deposit within the McDermitt Caldera along the Nevada-Oregon border) There are new lithium mines popping up all the time and price is plummeting. CATL the largest battery maker is going to drop their price by 50% by mid year. You never recover the gas you burn but you can recycle the batteries. Redwood tech and others are leading the charge. Hydrogen will never ever be a thing because the stations its inefficient. They use electricity to convert hydrogen to gas then they stuff it in a car and burn it loosing a lot during the conversion to power the vehicle. Hydrogen is also absolutely awful to store. In fact in Ca they are closing the hydrogen stations they had. In less than 5 years batteries will be 3 times faster to charge and hold more power as the tech gets better. Model Y 2023 largest selling car. Outsold Toyota and still does in Ca. New Model 3 is a nice ride.
This is the holy grail of automotives. Wish them every success!
The bigger problem is that Hydrogen now costs $35 per kg 5 kg per fill up = $175 for less than 300 miles of range in a vehicle with no cargo space due to the enormous fuel tanks. Compare that to
Using it to replace gas generators where possible and to power charging stations may far outpace automotive use. Obviously they're meant to be clean alternatives to that diesel tanker you're thinking of.
@@johnlopez6401 Hydrogen generated by electrolysis "Green Hydrogen" results in 70% energy lost, nearly all the other colors of hydrogen are created from conversions of fossil fuels that create more emissions than burning the fossil fuel directly. If you need to transport the hydrogen this gets even worse.
@@jjamespacbell Green Hydrogen is from renewables. So what if they lose 70% of the energy. Once they create enough energy to offset the impact of the solar panel / battery production, it's all free and clean, right? It's grey hydrogen that uses fossil fuels.
@@johnlopez6401 If hydrogen from renewables is used to replace hydrogen from fossil fuels it is great. The problem is when you use it for cars the energy lost could have been used directly replacing fossil fuels and the delivery of the hydrogen takes 16 times as many diesel trucks as if they delivered diesel.
That won't always be the case. Plug in EV's had similar issues earlier on. Here in Britain anyway...
Glad there is still some interest and investment in hydrogen. Battery electric vehicles may dominate the consumer market but I believe that there will need to be complimentary technologies for the commercial or industrial sectors.
Actually plug in hybrid hydrogen fuel cell EV is a combination of both. You can do 50/50 or 25/75. 25% battery and 75% fuel cell. Battery will move vehicle while fuel keep charging the battery statically.
EVs are gonna die out imo
I think hydrogen is gonna win out over electric unless vehicles can be charged by a hydrogen engine on the go. So no need for time wasting charge stations.
@@Gameplay-3D it is, if plug in hydrogen fuel cell EV. You use battery for the first 50 km driving then fuel cell engine will start charging the battery. If you only drive less than 50 km per day then you don't even use the fuel cell engine.
LOL. Some but not much. Not much at all. Never will be.
There are several key issues that no one yet has overcome with Hydrogen, cost is king and separating Hydrogen from water is very energy intensive, followed by compressing it for storage which also consumes a large amount of energy. It's way less efficient than simply charging a battery, so hydrogen will inevitably cost a lot more per mile.
Then there's the safety implications, typically the tanks in the vehicle are pressurised to 700 bar, that is a worryingly high pressure, hydrogen is atomically the smallest atom and will leak out of pretty much anything. Remember the helium balloons you get at parties, even with aluminiumized plastic the helium defuses straight through in a matter of days. And hydrogen would only leak faster. This is why no automaker has managed to sell more than a handful of fuel cell cars to date. The infrastructure required to support them is also much more expensive to install compared to a bunch of chargers.
The cost of maintaining the infrastructure alone will be considerable, because of the huge pressures involved, and the need for customer safety etc. Guess who'll pay for all this?...... These folks who somehow seem to think that hydrogen is the Holy Grail, and will provide cheap and convenient fuel, may end up disappointed. Once the big oil companies get their teeth into it, and begin controlling the production, distribution and pricing, we'll be right back where we were before......
At least one person here who't awake.
Every physicist laughs at hydrogen cars
Use hydrogen only if you drive more than 50 km. If you drive less than 50 km per day going to work and groceries then use battery only. If less than 50 per km day for 30 days you will never going to use hydrogen. Hydrogen is a backup to charge the battery if you ran out of juice.
It will never take hold in the market. More hype. This story will be the same in a decade from now. Meanwhile EVs with batteries will have 75% of new car sales
@@JoeyBlogs007 Lmao, you have high hopes if you think EVs are gonna take over anytime soon. With current technology I'd be very surprised if EVs are really even a thing in 10 years. 3 big automnakers have already given up on them, and they have so many problems that people are only now figuring out.
That said, without some major advances, hydrogen cells ain't it either. Way too many cost, production, and safety issues, and that that doesn't even touch on infrastructure to maintain them. I doubt ICE cars are going anywhere, anytime soon.
You buy a hydrogen car you're on a leash. You can only go where there's a fill station. In CA it's $60 to go from 10% to a full tank and that gives you a 272 mile range($4.50/gallon equivalent)
My hydrogen car owning friend tells me it is $35 per kg and it takes 5 kg for a complete fill or $175 90% of that is >$150 not $60, Their are so few stations that you need to wait for at least 4 people ahead of you so 20 minutes at least.
60kw is around 80,5 hp. that is one big unit. heavy. and that is only the generator. not with the fuel included.
with so many years of expertise, it does not look promising for the aviation industry.
FINALLY ITS COMING ITS DREAM COME THROUGH. IN MY LIFETIME I LL DRIVE A FUEL CELL VEHICLE, WOO HOO.
The future... legitimate tech
Many companies in Europe already have the Hydrogen motor available, and they install factories for production in this very moment !
Yay faster option is hydrogen. It would be cool to see Toyota joining in with Honda and GM, powerhouses 😊
LOL Go look at the data. Hydrogen is a joke.
Faster how? No hydrogen stations you can't charge at your home. Clean hydrogen is scarce. The price of hydrogen is triple that of gas.
As fast as battery swapping?
@@brushlessmotoring who wants someone elses battery? The concept does not work in the US. The concept that you never really own your car. Fast DC Charging is just a few years from being crazy fast. If it gets to be less than 20 minutes to take off its very acceptable.
@@ChicagoBob123 You got a laugh out of me! It's like rolling the dice on how many gallons of gas the pump is willing to dispense. Seems like battery swapping is fertile ground for the tragedy of the commons.
They won't have much luck selling anything that runs on hydrogen in the UK, as Shell UK are de-commissioning all their hydrogen assets here. That will leave around 5 hydrogen filling points in the *whole* of the UK......
Yep this whole report is a joke.
The outlook for the UK seems pretty bleak then, as there's not much solar to speak of either!
Where will the green hydrogen come from? How do we decarbonize the _existing_ hydrogen production? You asked all the wrong questions. The fuel cells are not the issue - although their efficiency isn't that great, it's better than a combustion engine, but the problem is where does the hydrogen come from, and can we afford to use 3 to 4 times as much renewable energy on making hydrogen when don't have a green enough grid already?
It will be red hydrogen, not green.
In countries with existing natural gas pipelines, you can just install hydrogen gas production at key points and feed in to existing lines, replacing cng and lpg, thats what I think.
You cant run hydrogen through the same system as natural gas ran through, hydrogen would leak out everywhere, It would attack all the metal parts you have to use Stainless steel high pressure fittings
@3:15 - Michael Bearman does not say where this Zero Emissions Hydrogen comes from, or the logistics of delivering (assuming) LH2 to 'remote charging locations'
Exactly..... The hydrogen won't simply appear at the filling points by magic. And there's the issue of all the Co2 produced by the delivery tankers, so no advantage over fossil fuel there. And the irony is that *all* hydrogen filling points will need an electricity supply........ And there's the cost of what will be the considerable maintenance required, because of the huge pressures involved in the storage and filling systems.
@@Brian-om2hh Yep this whole report is a joke.
if you can't charge it the cell is worthless.... they have closed the one H charging station here.
Thank you for this content.
At $36 dollars a kg itll cost you a fortune to run !
This is amazing!
Not at all. More rehash.
Unfortunately this technology will take time to implement. And yet we had engines for years but the designs were not put into use because of big oil and auto manufacturing would loose business. Opposed piston engines still would be better fewer moving parts, better fuel economy, list goes on ,etc.
Its on the never never backburner
I like Toyota's water engine better. More moving parts but no hydrogen storage and less expensive.
If hydrogen power grows for the commercial markets, hydrogen production could go higher scale, lowering the price and increasing availability through new infrastructure helping improve the viability of consumer hydrogen cars.
HFC wont happen on mass, except perhaps in long route aviation.
Easier to fit existing gas stations with hydrogen than chargers. This can work
You know Shell just closed its hydrogen stations for lack of business.
No. Not even slightly, completely different infrastructure required, costing millions of dollars per single hydrogen nozzle, you can put in 50 fast EV DC chargers for the same money and get 10 times as many cars through, and you only need to meet 10% of the charging needs, as 90% is done at work, hotel, retail or home AC charging. Hydrogen is actually pretty slow per car if there is a lineup, despite what they claim, DC charging can actually be faster.
@@brushlessmotoring It sounds hyperbolic to claim millions of dollars for a single hydrogen hookup. Maybe you're right, but it sounds an order of magnitude off to me. They'll need a pressurized tank, some fittings, valves, and a regulator. A controller of some sort to keep track of fuel dispensed and remaining supply. No million-dollar mystery tech required.
@@waylonk2453 not my numbers, this is from the hydrogen folks themselves, and from Shell too. UA-cam doesn't like links, so search Hydrogen Station Costs and Financing
@@waylonk2453 it's easily searchable.
GM did this 20+ years ago successfully. Vehicles on the road. Nothing new here.
Issues are more of how the hydrogen is made. There is no real green hydrogen in mass.
Where I live they are stating a project of building hundreds of wind turbines to power a hydrogen production facility. So a greener solution is on its way.
@@Gameplay-3D Wind energy is not remotely green nor effective enough for mass adaptation. It's absolutely horrible, honestly.
@hehawseve3560 is it really? The wind here never stops so I figured that would be an easy and efficient energy maker. What causes it not to be green?
@@Gameplay-3D On smaller scales it isn't terrible, but it doesn't really scale well. It takes too much space to generate too little power, they kill migrating/rare birds, not to mention the production and disposal is a very real issue. It's better than fossil fuels in some ways, but not good enough to be a long term solution unless technology makes some pretty major leaps.
I'd be thrilled to see diesel generators used in outdoor events replaced by fuel cells. Diesel generators are loud and the exhaust stinks.
I agree with this, but if the hydrogen used isn't green it doesn't solve the CO2 problem, even it it does solve the tailpipe issue.
Hydrogen cartridge is the future
Finally, an energy storage technology that has the potential to be viable for transportation. Battery EV's are still decades away from being viable in the real world.
ha ha ha
You may have a problem convincing the millions of people already using EV's. They like the convenience of being able to charge at home, for way less cost than using established commercial filling points. Many also get free "fuel" from their solar panels. You can't get any of this with hydrogen. There is also the fact that hydrogen will *have* to be transported to all the filling points. Electricity requires no transportation.
I totally agree. Where I live electric vehicles would be complete garbage unless they could get some decent mileage and be able to move some weight( something an electric vehicle is totally incapable of).
Towing needs work, and likely electified trailers, but all other uses are fine. The viable future for electric vehicles is here today. It's Hydrogen that is still many decades away.
Here in canada where air pollution is hardly even existent there's no real reason to have either. We produce 1.5 percent of the world's air pollution per year. Anything we would do to produce less air pollution is gonna be like putting a bandaid on a cut off leg. Lol. Unless the major polluting countries change then what we do here isn't changing anything besides bleeding its inhabitants dry because of carbon taxes.
Where are the hover cars ?
@5:27 'Not one has failed yet'... does not draw confidence.
Speak on thousands of hours of continuous use..
Meanwhile Toyota has a real fuel cell vehicle with NO TOXIC BATTERY THAT'S NOT RECYCLABLE & BUILT WITH SLAVE LABOR...AND: fuel cell busses have been around for decades. This is suck a disappointment that they're using this to charge EVs & not GET RID of EVs.
Platinum requirements still too high for mass production. 3x or 4x the platinum in a gasoline car. Soon, hopefully.
Does anyone else find it funny theiyare calling as much as I love it Hydrogen FCs zero emisiion? Like don't they realize it emits water and that's a great thing? But Yeah Hopefull we'll now see more research into afordble hydrogen production now that these guys are in the race!
Yep this whole report is a joke.
With fuel cells be more dangerous than batteries in a crash ?
You do realize that most people right now are driving around with highly explosive gas tanks right? If you don't understand go research the 1977 Ford Pinto. This isn't an issue.
There are Toyota Mirai crash test videos here on UA-cam as well as video of a hydrogen tank being shot by a 50 caliber bullet.
Won't do any good unless there are more Hydrogen Fuel Stations
85M might be alot for us average people, but for this nah. I think it's just one of their science project that moght not come to fruition ever. Isn't hydrogen like super explosive? so if I crash my car, will it explode? Let's just make our cities like Tokyo where so so less cars, and public transport is so easy, we'd definitely cut off a lot of co2 emissions.
Liquid methanol fuel cell with ceramic and ultrasonic atomizer
Propane makes more sense...zero carbon is silly.
I remember following Ballard, how many years ago, i was starting to think we were going to see back to the future Mr Fusion 1st🤣
Ever seen a hydrogen explosion? They wouldn't be able to find one of your molecules.
Go back and watch the Hindenburg film. There was no explosion. It just burned. Because there was no oxygen inside the zeppelin, just as there is no oxygen inside a hydrogen tank.
@@cccharlie1972 I suggest you put all your money into fuel cells.
@@steelcom5976 I have a diversified portfolio. But I have some investments in companies like Linde and Air Products which supply hydrogen along with many other gaseous products. Just like battery startups, many hydrogen startups will fail.
Unfortunately it makes no sense to waste primary electrical energy on making secondary elemental hydrogen that needs to be stored and transported at 10,000 psi, to then make tertiary electrical energy from a huge pressure vessel feeding a fantastically expensive fuel cell to then drive motors after losing 80% of your original energy in conversion/compression efficiencies.
There are no viable applications of this technology for small transportation, especially as battery tech is accelerating, and cost per kWh will fall less than $55 in 2-3 years.
Even shipping and aerospace applications may become unviable. Investors beware of snakes bearing oil.
You're experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, friend.
@@huntsbychainsaw5986 How cute, you use a phrase like a pigeon with a chess piece in its beak with no idea what it's for!
I majored in chemistry/physics and make battery packs for years and drive an EV.
Can't beat the laws of thermodynamics dude.
You put 100 % electrical energy in by electrolysis, then get about 20% it out of a fuel cell. These aren't good conversion efficiencies.
Only makes sense to make H₂ from a dump load if you have to curtail solar/wind production and have nowhere to put the energy.
@@ahaveland smart grids and chargers solve the curtailment problem too, have EVs on standby ready to take the extra load.
GM made the fuel cell used on every space flight but gave up of fuel cell cars in the 60s becausevit was unsafe to store Hydrogen!
No they didn't. The Electrovan that GM built in the 1960s used a fuel cell produced by Union Carbide. And the fuel cell had enough platinum in it to pay for a fleet of gasoline vans.
@cccharlie1972 Then why is it every space craft ever to go into space had a Delphi fuel cell. Go to the GM pavilion at Epcot Center. They have all of the GM 0 emission vehicles that they have built since 1902!
Mobile charging station looks like free copper to me
No. You need 500 km extension cord. Mobile charging station will be powered by hydrogen.
👍👍👍
hydrogen is the energy of the future and will always be! :-)
Two thumbs up for H2!
Toyota Mirai requires 6kg of hydrogen. By electrolysis this would require 300kw of energy. Hydrogen as a road transportation fuel is utter nonsense.
The pyrolysis of methane approach has achieved 1kg of hydrogen at 18kw: 6kg @ 108 kw. I support all innovation, hopefully battery tech will continue improving range, cold weather performance, charging times, reduced mining and mineral usage. I'm not saying H is the answer, nor do I feel EVs will be the top option if we continue to innovate.
Add to that the cost of hydrogen production and transport, along with expensive equipment. Makes zero sense. Battery tech is evolving much faster, so there will be near zero market for hydrogen. They already have a 600 mile battery pack and super fast charging will be everywhere long term. Plus you can charge EVs at home. The game is over.
@@JoeyBlogs007 "The game is over" sounds like a line from an EVangelist sermon.
Apologies yes I meant KWh. My point is that electrolysis of hydrogen is very energy intensive. Obtaining hydrogen through steam reforming of methane is less energy intensive but produces a lot of CO2. If scientists can find a better way to split water then fine but at the minute the fundamental amount of energy required to split a single mole of water is 237KJ, then throw entropic losses, electrolyser inefficiencies, transportation costs and volatility into the mix it just doesn’t make sense. There are better ways of using energy.
@@jemima_brown electrolysis has been around for 200 years. 70% efficiency is the most they’ve achieved in that time. Anyone claiming higher than that is lying. If you have an abundance of clean energy then hydrogen can make sense but you get a lot less out than you put in, hence the problem. There are fundamental limits in place that no amount of science can overcome. Battery tech has a lot of potential (excuse the pun) and hence any investor in hydrogen as a means of road transportation would be wiped out if battery tech improves 2 fold or 3 fold which is plausible. Hydrogen just doesn’t have that potential.
Wonderful collaboration. Well done GM & Honda, truly best wishes to your teams with all of this 🙂😉
Plug in electric are a stepping stone like Hybrids were before it. Hydrogen or some other advanced technology. is the future.
Battery EV's have so many batteries which are often mined in appalling conditions, so there's nearly always ethical issues. And those materials are finite. Then there's the end of life recycling of all those batteries...
When an hydrogen filling station is running on renewables and doesn't need tanker trucks to bring in hydrogen, it's wicked. Those are the ones that need to be invested in. Less than five minutes to fill the tank and getting a wicked range is always so much better than waiting over half hour for crappy batteries to charge. I will never do that, it's retarded 🥴👉
LOL Is all I can say. Oh and they are way too late. The game is over.
Game hasn't even started. Fossil fuel use still grows every single year.
Looking at the pace of hydrogen development it does not look promising.
Exactly. General Motors were singing the praises of hydrogen back in the 80's......
If you looked at the full history of LCD flat screen TVs, you would find the timetable was no better.
Typical corrupt car companee's. Trying to flogg off massive sized hydrogen electrolsys unit's, when all's they need is water splitting H2 O2 sparkplugg's & hardened piston head's.
Doesn't make sense in the passenger market. Heavy truck, train, industrial, power storage sure. These companies will need to fight (lots of money) against local utilities to allow microgrids to sell Fuel Cell Backup Storage.
You're entirely incorrect.
They have passenger vehicles and stations in Cali already. Just as battery tech in EVs has advanced in the past decade, advances can be made here to also make it a viable solution. It may take longer but unless strides can be made in EV range and charging speeds, there will be a need for faster fill ups which H can provide. Less Battery capacity needed, less mineral usage with existing electric motor tech, but I support innovation and options.
"Shell, a major player in the energy industry, has quietly abandoned its plans to construct 48 new light-duty hydrogen filling stations in California." 9/19/23@@Kevin-4
@@BTC909 Currently, with the cost of producing viable H for use, I'm not surprised a conglomerate whose #1 focus is the bottom line for their investors would reverse course.
As innovations occur, production cost decline and profit margins increase, we could see them or others revisit an investment, but at this time it's not profitable for them.
As long as the drawback in EVs continue (Range/ReCharge/Cold Weather/Mining Resources) exploration into alternative fuels will continue and maybe innovations can make them a viable option... still not close, but I also don't want us to stay complacent.
Virtually nobody wants hydrogen. They cant charge at home anyway. Useless.
2024 and GM is still betting on hydrogen.
Proving once again that desperation has a logic all its own.
The desperation is reaching a crescendo. It's about growth and business as usual.
Stupid Car companies, clueless.
"Both companies are relentlessly pursuing yero emmisions." Please don' t say things like this, I was drinking and now the Pepsi is all over the monitor.
So they build electric cars, but 3 times less efficiently. Okay
Hydrogen is better than electric.
What a joke 😂 !
Hydrogen has no future in passenger vehicle technology.
It's not huge news. It's vapourware.
Hydrogen is a much better option than EV, trash vehicles!
Er, it isn't....... The Toyota Mirai can only manage around 23% efficiency. That's worse than most ICE's.....An EV is around 80 to 90% efficient. Which EV did you try that you felt was trash?
"much better" ??? LOL 🤣🤣🤣 Way to go ? Go back to school.
I agree. If the battery EV isn't garbage from the factory, it will be before 100,000 miles. Time to throw it away and get a new one!
HICEV, Hydrogen combustion Engine is the way to go, not the stupid hydro fuel cells or electric
Why would you want an engine with thousands of moving parts to wear out or break, which still needs regular servicing and replacement of parts to function correctly? An EV typically has around 30 moving parts. By comparison, a Tesla has no scheduled service intervals..... And the irony is that *all* hydrogen filling points will need an electricity supply to function....
LOL 🤣🤣🤣 Way to go ? Go back to school.
@@Brian-om2hh Flip side. You have a small prang in an EV. Good chance of a total right off. A complicated engine as we have now. Much of the rest of vehicle can be fixed.
I'm not saying either way one is better as such. But as ever there are 2 sides to every story.
I drive a manual and like vroom sounds too. It'd be interesting to see if a new type of mechanical engine could be developed to better suit H2 combustion. My bet's on H2 for the future.
Hydrogen a waste of time. Where are the hydrogen stations you paid for? Where is the low cost storage? Hydrogen is a waste of energy and time.
charging your testa if possible in cold weather thats a waste of time also waiting for a tesla to charge thats a waste if time 😂😂😂😂
@@gabrielarellano-b4b not sure what kind of false facts you have. I drove 80 miles a day and charged in -20 and -10. No big deal. I was warm as toast driving back and forth.
Battery technology is not there yet. We took what we have, improved it a little and shoved it into a car. The prototype batteries that are still in labs being further developed will crush the batteries we have today.
The amount of lithium needed to make batteries is also ridiculous. It takes a DIESEL truck hours to get down into a mine and drive back up. Then it needs refining and shipped across the ocean to get built.
Think how many combustion engines there are on the road/in scrap. The most efficient way is to reuse these engines by adapting them to hydrogen. We know we can make hydrogen using standard electrolysis. Yes using renewable energy will help with that. However, there are materials that can split the hydrogen and oxygen by themselves. Just like EV's, just like combustion engines, it requires research and development.
20 years ago we didn't have EV charging points. The thought of it was absurd. However, we have had LPG for a while. It'll only be a matter of time before hydrogen stations become available once the technology is finalised just like everything else was.
@@owenoj False. (geologists have discovered a massive lithium deposit within the McDermitt Caldera along the Nevada-Oregon border) There are new lithium mines popping up all the time and price is plummeting. CATL the largest battery maker is going to drop their price by 50% by mid year. You never recover the gas you burn but you can recycle the batteries. Redwood tech and others are leading the charge. Hydrogen will never ever be a thing because the stations its inefficient. They use electricity to convert hydrogen to gas then they stuff it in a car and burn it loosing a lot during the conversion to power the vehicle. Hydrogen is also absolutely awful to store. In fact in Ca they are closing the hydrogen stations they had. In less than 5 years batteries will be 3 times faster to charge and hold more power as the tech gets better. Model Y 2023 largest selling car. Outsold Toyota and still does in Ca. New Model 3 is a nice ride.
They passed I want to say an 8billion dollar bill to start building hydrogen hubs. Pa oh wv is under the arch 2 project
Hydrogen fool cells 😂😂