Cars in general just aren't efficient forms of transport because your moving a 2 ton hunk of metal when all you need to move is a ~150 lb human

This video got me an admission offer to a german public university! The interviewers asked me questions that were covered in this video and I answered them all of their questions in an instant! Thank you very much real engineering, you have made my life much better just by your videos! God bless you man! 😭✨

It’s 3 years after this has been posted and at the moment we are still stuck between inefficient fuel cell technology and not good enough batteries. If solid state batteries could materialize and make the much needed jump in battery technology, that would really help the case for electric vehicles. Unfortunately battery technology always seems to be 5 to 10 years away. The fact that Toyota is investing in both tells you how uncertain both technologies are.

It’s also important to consider the materials required to make batteries and fuel cells, how easy are they to get, how much is available, and how much pollution is generated gathering each

Interesting video, although I question your efficiency calculation. Instead of continuing to subtract the loss from the total available energy, it should be lost subtracted from the available energy at each stage. For example, if you consider 20% loss from electrolysis and 13% loss from compress it is NOT a total loss of 33%. Instead, it is 20% loss of the total energy available then 13% loss from the energy remaining. This would be a loss of 30.4%, not 33%. As you continue the calculation, the problem just compounds. You can't just add up all the loss and say that the efficiency, you need to look at a loss relative to the energy available at each stage.

Seeing a lot of comments about a factual error in this video, since it effects the conclusion of the analysis I am pinning a comment here. I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies. I just used the word "add" in the colloquial sense of the word without thinking. Calculations were, for battery: (.95)*(.92)* (.90)*(.90)*(.95) = 67% efficiency Hydrogen Best Case: (.92)*(.80)*(.87)*(.60)*(.90)* (.95) = 32.85% efficiency Hydrogen Worst Case: (.92)*(.70)*(.87)*(.50)*(.90)*(.95)*(.80) = 19.16% efficiency. I need to do a better job of proof reading my scripts, but I always proof read my calculations multiple times over.

This is a PSA: Owning a hydrogen car has been the worst car ownership experience in my life: stations are down OFTEN, when I call to customer service and they tell me they work and have enough hydrogen in them I often go there and there's no hydrogen or it doesn't work. And I live in northern CA where we have the most hydrogen stations. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNTIL THEY RECTIFY THIS HORRIFIC FUELING EXPERIENCE DO NOT, DO NOT BUY a hydrogen car. Just get ANYTHING else

Bravo. You have just explained the downside of hydrogen, the same way they said batteries wouldn't be practical when I was a kid. Battery technology has changed, so will hydrogen technology, if there is a market for it!

You can't add percentages like that! It's not: 100% - 20% - 13% = 66% It's: 80% * 87% = 69% You have to multiple what is left.

I'm excited to see where all of this goes. Whichever fueling method wins out, it'll likely be met by other efficiency improvements - like the autonomous car designs I've been seeing that are meant to carry only cargo rather than people. Right now the biggest energy loss comes from everyone believing they need to drive their 4,000 lb Grand Cherokee down the road to grab a loaf of bread.

A few glaring omissions: 1) You mentioned a catalyst in fuel cells. The catalyst involves platinum and rare-earth cerium. IF we release the 50% of global platinum production currently taken up by catalytic converters for petrol vehicles, then there is enough platinum to make fuel cells for about 1% of annual vehicle production. And if you avoid that by combining hydrogen with a combustion engine, you are back to that 70-80% energy loss, and subsequent shortening of range. 2) It has been cited that the BULK of compressed hydrogen tanks makes ranges of more than 200km impossible for small cars - and that hydrogen is only a practical solution for trucks. 3) Infrastructure for compressed gases in the oil and gas industry is overhauled and re-certified every 3-4 years at great cost. Given that hydrogen is more problematic and more hazardous than other gases, this level of maintenance should be required for vehicles containing tanks.

Fascinating stuff, well delivered. Comments section brings out all the issues that make it completely clear that there is a massive role in future transport for hydrogen if we are not to turn the planet into one big quarry site, not to mention the geo-strategic problems associated with the geographic location of all the raw materials

Could you please make a video on lithium extraction and how much lithium we have and the impacts of lithium extraction and advancements in recycling lithium batteries and how to dispose lithium 🙂 and great video btw🙂

Hey great video, but how about the cost of production of a battery cell and the cost of liquidation of that same battery cell once it runs out of juice? Also what are the impacts to the environment? Thanks

Thanks for this amazing overview! However there are three factors I really would like to know more about. 1) If we go with a scenario of our future where all of energy is produced by renewables and the biggest chunk by wind and solar, we will have a storage problem anyway. Wouldn't it make sense to use surplus energy to produce hydrogen? How would that change the calculation on a macro scale? 2) Is there anything promising in the field of (synthetic) liquid organic hydrogen carriers to change demands on transport and storage of hydrogen? 3) What about rare metals? Current battery technology demands huge amounts of rare metals. So does fuel cells. Also lithium batteries use their storage power over time. How would that compare with the mass production of fuel cells? If not for cars we will need them for trucks, ships any maybe airplanes.

The green hydrogen will make more sense in places where electricity doesn't make sense. These include applications like gas powered furnaces as well as the aviation market. Additionally, it will also make sense for commercial transportation where the down time will lead to major losses.

I just don't see why we shouldn't have both... battery power and hydrogen power. In a lot of cases the reduced range and longer recharge time of electric cars is tolerable and where it isn't hydrogen cars could do the long range driving. Both systems have their place and I believe we should stop trying to decide over a "better" solution and embrace both technologies where they are most useful. (e.g. hydrogen powered busses (as we have here in Hamburg, Germany) and electric powered mail delivery vehicles (as seen all over the place in Germany). Busses need long ranges and minimal downtime while mail delivery needs smaller ranges and has long downtimes which can be used for charging.

Sounds like hydrogen would be the new “diesel” and batteries the new “petrol” in regard to their use cases

Speaking of efficiency, put the Skillshare ads about a couple minutes into the video, not at the end. It will encourage complete video watching and also viewers will stay engaged as we're curious about the remaining 80% of the video. Then end your videos abruptly without fanfare. Just 2 cents ❤

Hi from sunny Australia, hydrogen produced at the point of use makes so much sense I hope we can help this technology move. We have a few big players in Australia trying to move our hydrogen technology. Pure EVs don't cut it in our vast distances, but hydrogen to electric vehicles do. I think it would be amazing to see remote H2 feeling stations with large solar arrays producing their fuel. The energy density makes so much sense. I've heard stat's that 50% of our ocean traffic is moving fuel around!

you're assuming hydrogen extraction technology does not improve. Did you calculate the lithium mining process for batteries?

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

the real truth is that if you honestly do caluculations on the the costs, its still cheaper than digging up oil , transporting it, refining it into gasoline. then retransporting it to fuel stations.

Little late to the party, but would you see any potential in hydrogen carrier fuels like ammonia? There is some interesting papers regarding using ammonia as either a direct fuel (burning) or a carrier for hydrogen. It seems to have a lot less drawbacks than hydrogen, mostly in terms of storage and current levels of production/supply chains. I'm sure there's some drawbacks, but would leave to hear your take on it

A good video and well worth watching, but it does overlook certain aspects: The loss of electrodes during electrolysis; The energy & pollution caused during production of batteries; The relatively poor life of batteries & end of life recycling/disposal costs; The extra electricity production & distribution networks needed if all vehicles became battery powered - you only talked about the distribution of hydrogen; Petrol & diesel is already shipped around the world. Moving to hydrogen would allow poor coastal states, especially African, to become the future equivalents of OPEC, giving them an economic uplift; What happens in either case in the case of a crash. I'd expect hydrogen to be safer on balance by compartmentalisating the tank; The impact of current subsidies on the cost of buying & running electric cars. These are effectively a tax on the poor as they can't afford to benefit from the subsidies; There was successful lobbying of the EU Commission by the large European manufacturers to shut out the primarily Japanese technology of hydrogen as they were already heavily invested in hybrid tech. This reduced R&D and investment in infrastructure leading to higher unit costs. A very interesting subject, thank you.

Think about being applied in different fields other than arguing with each other guys. Can you power the ships, rockets and future heavy drones taxis/planes with batteries? I highly doubt it in the weights and durability, at least the current battery techs does not support that far. Hydrogen has its ultimate strength that the batteries can not replace.

I think it would also be necessary to talk about production of the vehicles, recycling and maintenance to have a proper view of the topic, because if hydrogen is less efficient, but the cells last longer and are easier and less polluting to produce and recycle, might be still worth...

ty for the video. to judge the enviromental aspect better, it would be interesting how far one can travel with hydrogen and battery cars before the power source has to be replaced and comparing the enviromental aspect of producing those would be.

the funny thing is: fuel cells need a battery as well because they cant deliver the high power bursts needed by the motor. so every fuel cell car uses a battery anyway. (and has the same inefficiencies as a battery powered vehicle to start with)

The manufacturing of the batt is not included in the energy loss and pollution or mining the rear minerals

Very interesting video and raised a number of issues that I hadn't considered. The video covered and clarified a lot of production efficiencies, t. though I didn't understand if you included efficiency delta of the vehicles i.e. are hydrogen vehicles lighter making the vehicle more efficient. I'm sure there isnt a silver bullet and there will be pros and cons with both finding a niche in the market.

Do you have a video on the Truth about motor vehicle batteries ? It would be good to fully understand the real impact on the environment and precious metals' resources, followed up by the longevity of the battery vehicle components versus fuel cell components. Thank you.

There are many errors in this presentation. Comparing current battery electric vehicle (BEV) costs per km with current hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) is not fair because they are at different places in their development. Instead, you must compare them at projected comparable stages of development. I do not disagree with your implied cost of $17/kg delivered H2, but projected costs for larger stations with higher utilization are much lower. Most of the costs of delivered H2 occur at the refueling station from equipment located there, especially compressors. Work is being done to avoid this cost, e.g., searching for low-pressure storage methods that do not require refrigeration. I mention this to illustrate that me saying you must compare projected costs is not an empty, theoretical statement. You are correct, though, that understanding the transition is important. In considering battery electric vehicles, you must consider what a scaled up system looks like, one in which so many vehicles are being charged that it disrupts the grid architecture, especially near the ends of the power network. For example, if a single vehicle requires 25 kW when charging, a street with 40 homes could require an additional megawatt of capacity since it isn't unreasonable to think people come home and plug in at comparable times. Also, as you move upstream in the distribution network, these loads aggregate. While current over capacity handles existing electric vehicle charging, future scenarios must consider significant changes in the power grid and this should be factored into the cost assessment. This leads to another point regarding analysis, which is that at all times when making comparisons, one must take great care to ensure that the two things being considered have comparable system boundaries. The example of not factoring in grid upgrade costs is an example. Not using comparable maturity levels is another. Finally, it is critical to optimize with respect to the right parameter. You have focused on energy efficiency, which does seem right, but is it? Is energy the limiting factor? If our goal is energy security while achieving GHG emissions constraints, we must move to renewable primary energy sources, which are huge compared to our net demand. Energy isn't the limiting factor, _capital_ is. It is important to realize that the broad problem being analyzed is electrification of not just transportation (which is about 1/3 of our emissions), but electrification of industry and heating. Achieving this with renewables faces challenges with energy storage. When you consider hydrogen in this context, it may offer grid services that facilitate the build out of high levels of renewable power and the cost of those services (voltage regulation, for example, as well as storage) should be compared in a hydrogen scenario vs. a battery scenario. This is a second example of system boundary: You may not be comparing whole-system costs your two scenarios and, additionally, you may not be focusing on the right optimization variable. The quintessential error of poor engineering is thinking optimized _parts_ make an optimized _system._ It is important to consider the problem as a whole so that you end up with a system of balanced parts that, jointly, achieve performance specifications optimized against the proper metric. Optimizing individual components, unconstrained by system integration, is a good way to vector yourself to failure. If you are starting to feel like, "How can we ever possibly analyze all this, the system is big," then you are going in the right direction. I make these points not to harass you, but to illustrate for others what ought to go into good engineering. Disclaimer: I do analysis for my living. I analyze hydrogen systems. I am monitored by my employer to make sure I am free of apparent conflicts of interest between my work and any financial (or other) interests I or my spouse/family hold.

I was ready to laugh at hydrogen as a fuel, but now I'm not so sure, it could be the best low emissions option for international shipping. Edit: Some people don't seem to know that international shipping means big cargo ships, they are a major source of pollution currently and use a fuel that is second only in coal to dirtiness.

1. A fellow by the name of Billings was advocating a hydrogen economy in 1972 as I graduated from college. But the production of hydrogen was going to come from breeder nuclear reactor off peak power. These reactors made more fuel as they made electricity. That notion was killed by Jimmy Carter because the fuel produced was plutonium which can easily be made into a bomb. 2. Another method of storage can be by using a metal hydride. But to release the hydrogen requires heat which would be great if you were burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine and the exhaust heat was used to release the hydrogen. Then we are back to the IC engine efficiency of about 25% at best. Ah, the curse of the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks for this Real Engineering, always enjoying your videos. I think in your analysis you should also consider the full life cycle costs, for batteries and as well for FCVs. What is the energy costs (ie., losses) for producing li-ion batteries, and fuel cells? What is their life expectancy; and how - at and what energy costs - could these products be recycled and replaced once at end-of-life. Based on my limited knowledge I would assume that this is bigger problem for batteries compared with fuel cells.

... are you adding up the efficiency multipliers instead of... multiplying them? That 20% loss from the fuel cell still looks like 20% on the main bar even when bar is already at about 55%.

Maybe a stupid question, but should'nt you multiply the efficiencies for creating, compressing, transporting the hydrogen rather than add up the losses? Because you only lose 13% to compressing of the 80% you have after creation. For me that seems like you should multiply the efficiencies to get to the total efficiency. Sorry for my bad english btw.

I think energy loss of charging is depending on the rate. Also battery can easily lose energy by self discharging.

considering the demand of a closer range you can fill your cell on a much lower preassure, for example 50% or 25% surely max capacity can be important for covering long ranges once in a while but most of the times an average user could possibly make his weekly use with 25% or 50% considering a larger tank is provided batteries as mentioned are massive but smaller in volume new car designs might allow much larger volume fuel tanks which will end up requiring a much lower preassure for hydrogen storage+much lower mass compared to an all electric car (which results in a smaller power need and smaller motors)

Charging time for EVs is only relevant on long trips. Day to day, EVs effectively have "no" charge time, that is, you don't have to spend *your* time doing it. I drive an EV and the only charging "time" it costs me every day is a few seconds to unplug it in the morning and plug it back in at night. It's like waking up to full tank of gas every day! I never have to think about going somewhere to "fuel up". As for long trips, if you own a Tesla, their Supercharger network makes it easy to drive anywhere in almost the same time it takes a gas car: one Tesla owner recently drove from LA to NY in just 2 days! I'd rather just have to leave my phone on the charger overnight at home every night then have to go somewhere to charge it in 5 minutes once a week! That's how you have to think about it!

Bravo! Very well explained. You summarized my entire semester in 13 minutes!

A possible method for hydrogen would have to be centralised production facilities (for cheaper production per volume) and instead of road/rail/gasline transportation large volumes could be efficiently transported by airship thru using the H2 as upthruster and either cargo or water as ballast, when destination is reached offload hydrogen (whilst retaining some to enable flight), cargo / ballast for return journey.

(1:15) No doubt the Japanese government got bit of hydrogen inspiration when managed to blow out the roofs of a few of their nuke reactors (couldn't resist).

Cars are not just transportation. I mean it's not like we are talking about simply moving us about and nothing else. We also demand plenty of other power using applications such as heating, air conditioning, heated seats, demisting windows and mirrors, music and other in car entertainment, electric windows, mirrors and seats, phone and accessories charging points etc. All this will detract massively in some cases from the battery supply and overall range but it is never spoken about. I would really like to see some figures taking these into account particularly if the vehicle is used in more extreme weather conditions etc.

I know It is not the main point of this video, but what about ecological conerns of the batteries? Producing them is expensive and requires relatievely rare and harmful components (i.e. Lithium). How do these technologies compare on this front?

Great video man will you do one on race cars that are run on gas or race fuel and the effect of it if converted to hydrogen and possibly the effects and negative effects. Also show how and what is done. That would be an awesome video.

I want to thank you for this vid. It was really helpful for a project of mine in school. thanks a lot. love your other vids also.

Also, BEST segue into advertisement I've seen in my life!! Props!!!

You are forgetting the cost and lifetime of batteries and fuelcells.

Couple of points, car batteries are enormous energy consumers. You have to drive 50,000 miles to break even on CO2 with a petrol car, more against a Hybrid car. Ok, fuel cells also consume energy, but ill wager its nowhere near to battery production. Also if all cars now were electric, it would melt the grid down. OK, conversely, we don't have hydrogen infrastructure either. But maybe it can share some of the existing petrol infrastructure, at least the existing stations.

You suggested that the "best" way to store hydrogen is by compression--that just isn't the case. Hydrogen is much more easily stored as a hydride. This also eliminates the potential danger of a compression release in the event of an accident. Compression takes immense energy (which you mentioned) but converting from a gas to a hydride and back to a gas can be done extremely efficiently. I'd suggest an iron hydride maybe laced with magnesium. Missing the hydride potential means that you've missed the best means to store and transport the hydrogen, making your analysis . . . well, meaningless.

RE the new thumbnail works great, I always watch your vids, but this one caught me eye a lot better

Would be helpful to incorporate consideration of toxicity in mining and recycling/disposal, and availability of materials.

Hi, great video. Any chance you still have the references you used on the efficiencies calculations? TYIA!

I like the way he says "cares" while referring to "cars". Do not change a thing....

Thank you very much indeed for your explanation. I just have one suggestion: to take into consideration the production costs and the life cycle of the batteries and the power and another resources, consumed in it, and the cost of further utilization of them.

I know they aren't being produced yet, but what are your thoughts on nanodiamond batteries for use in hydrogen-powered vehicles?

So this video was almost three years ago, so I'm wondering what if any new developments have been made. I've seen a couple more recent videos that suggest hydrogen powered vehicle technology has advanced over the last couple years. Very interesting video you've made, well explained and put together.

Ok this is getting frustrating. If we had a limited fuel source for producing hydrogen I would totally understand the consideration of efficiency. However, wind, solar, tidal, wave, hydro... any renewable is infinitely abundant. 70% of infinity is still infinity. Shetland had more renewable energy than it knows what to do with... so it produces hydrogen and sells it. They are looking to even buy hydrogen fuel cell ferries. Our current solar and wind farm capacity could EASILY produce and store hydrogen ready to either Inject into the grid or fuel fleets of vehicles. Instead they're left to just sit and do nothing because we don't know what to do with them when demand is low. There's a million things a renewable grid could do when it's not having to prop up other grid demands. Hydrogen needs investment!

A bit late to the party, but at the end of your video you commented that your viewership is dropping off. Personally, I don't think it's because of problems with the logo, but rather the content itself. For a channel calling itself "real engineering", your videos are quite biased and don't really capture all the nuances of these engineering problems. Not to mention the annoying promotional content at the end in addition to all the ads UKposts likes to throw in my face. With respect to this video, as has already been said, you went into great detail to highlight all the problems with the hydrogen production process, but completely ignored the battery (and fuel cell) manufacturing side of the equation and battery degradation. It's fine if you like electric cars and think that's the best path forwards at the moment, but make sure you tell the whole story. At the moment your videos feel more like opinion pieces with cherry picked data to back up your opinion rather than a real engineering analysis.

2:39 it doesn’t take 3 hrs to fully recharge. It takes 30 mins top at super charger, and it might take 3 hrs to charge at home while hydrogen you can’t charge it at home. By the time we leave home, the car is already charged.

That might be the best video i've seen on the subject, it explains the whole problem much better than any other. However is still have a question in mind : would it be possible to combine both ways to power the car but using the battery at first and then hydrogen when the battery comes out of energy ? If it is, why not make modular cars that would allow to add a temporary tank for those who needs to do an extra miles once in a while and when they just have to do the daily trips they remove the modular hydrogen tank and get back to battery only ?

Isn't the production of Lithium batteries a very polluting process?

how much energy does it take to produce a battery though?

U explain what is needed to be explained. And that too in the best way!

There's a finite amount of lithium on earth, but we can build H2 producing plants everywhere we want. Lithium mining involves pretty harsh working conditions and geopolitical turmoil, not no mention we're not sure what to do with batteries once they die. Regarding mode of consumption, H2 can take profit from already existing infrastructure and requires way less time to refuel...

BOTH technologies must be persued and improved on! there is no reason to choose only one.

The efficiency to weight ratio chart of H2 is mind blowing. The author repetively slams H2 after using an ElonMusk quote as his primary critic; yet, the Japanese are going full bore forward. The naturally degrading efficiency of Lithium batteries and disposal is not even mentioned. I've enjoyed the author's other videos, but maybe his bias wasn't as apparent. I'm guessing he's looking for a free Tesla which is fine by me. Good luck!

Excellent discussions and analysis on Hydrogen. HYSR / SunHydrogen has been working on the commercial version of the laboratory version from the university of Santa Barbara and University Iowa! This is going to be revolutionary when that happens. Remain elusive but possible. Regards.

About 15 yrs ago I explored buying a cng powered Chevy since I'd had a propane powered car but found that since the pressures of the cng tanks were ten times that of propane the tanks in the car were extraordinarily more expensive and legally were required to be replaced periodically and since the energy in hydrogen is even less dense than cng it will never be cost effective.

3:58 Everyone knows hydrogen is stored in the balls

Well, I finally figured out what I want to go to school for. I've always wanted a career dedicated solely to the betterment of the human race and the state of our world. I was aware that hydrogen was used as a fuel source for vehicles and other things, but I didn't think it'd end up being that useful outside of fusion. This is literally, in-your-face, the solution to cutting the climate crisis short before the impacts are guaranteed to be savagely devastating. I feel like every generation has their responsibility. Developing all aspects of this technology to become sustainable and successful in replacing fossil fuels is my responsibility. It can be done, and in more ways than one, each within the realm of possibility given current technology. Thanks for this video, you just helped solve a years-long struggle to understand my place in the world.

I remember hydrogen cars being promoted in the 1970's as a replacement for ICE. The car cost a million dollars back then. Here it is 40+ years later and still there are almost no hydrogen cars

The phrase that destroys everything for battery cars: “assuming both use renewable energy” Lithium car just don’t u less you have some sort of hydro electricity or nuclear energy sources.

There won't be any cheap "off peak" night time electricity if everyone are charging their cars !!

Add to the cost of electric cars is battery replacement and disposal. The batteries can only be recharged so many times. What’s the replacement maintenance cost for hydrogen? Maybe a hybrid hydrogen electric car?

Stanley Meyer's on-board electrolysis technology cost him his life as it did others that stumbled into similar systems in their individual investigations. Apparently the ONLY way for hydrogen to be allowed to be produced is the complicated and expensive way, that which makes the very rich even richer.

Hydrogen for trucking, shipping and planes, batteries for small consumer cars. We need both.

Use hydrogen to power cargo ships... currently the world's biggest polluters. It would make sense for ports with access to cheap solar power.

The only "real" negatives from batteries then: 1) Production is hampered by supply of lithium. 2) Batteries tend to loose efficiency over time and needs replacement, current lithium lasts longest if never fully discharged, but even then it is still a finite time. Unsure if FEV membranes would need replacement as well? If so it's an equal negative, else that might be what makes H2 more feasible. 3) Time for recharging. Especially due to the weight to distance ratios of batteries, this means trips need to be planned in advance and only really useful for short distances with long standing times in between (perhaps ideal for daily commutes). Some of these might be overcome-able. E.g. the recharge issue would be no more if batteries can be made as a standardised replaceable unit. Effectively you'd drive up to a "uel" station and swapp a flat battery for a recharged one. The station can have a bank of these being charged. If only vehicle manufacturers could agree on some "standard" - not sure if this is possible, I feel it might be a pipe dream, but one can hope! Of course anything might happen to adjust those. New sources of lithium may be found, or easier / less costly / less polluting methods of refining. Or even some other form of battery with easier raw resources and hopefully longer lifespans. But if going that route one can just as well say anything can happen to make H2 more efficient as well. Or even something entirely different, perhaps something like alcohol fuel cells might be a direction for research, stuff like DEFC has already been shown to be "possible". We need something ... that is sure ... our current stuff is simply not good enough. Some are coming close (like batteries) and might improve. But even things which look at first to be "dumb ideas" can turn out as the "saviour" of the future energy storage. IMO research into all possibilities is not a wasted effort, even just to find out that some idea is not useful is still a good result.

My biggest concern with fully electric. Is that we would pull the grid inside out. So that would also need addressing. And probably also newly made for higher demand.

The last time I looked at this topic, it agreed with electric being more efficient, but the internal combustion vehicles still win out overall when you consider the resourcing and production start to finish theory..

This is like an anti hydrogen information commercial

The very fundamental limitation of fuel cells is the second law of thermodynamics which states that any energy conversion involves irreversible thermal losses (entropy). A fuel cell (FC) is indeed a "flameless" electric generator which "burns" (oxydize) hydrogen thus converting chemical energy into an other form of energy: electricity, with water as a by-product. Thus, a fuel cell vehicle (FCV) is in fact (sort of) an hybrid vehicle with an onboard electric generator (Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell) somewhat similar, in basic architecture, to the GM's Volt (which uses a gazoline onboard generator). As a matter of fact, a practical FCV needs a sizeable battery to work since fuel cells are a bit too slow to respond during vehicle acceleration. Furthermore, since these FCs are not designed to be reversible, they also need an energy reservoir for regenerative braking. This fundamental limitation is exactly the same as for internal combustion engines (ICE) where chemical energy is first converted into heat (hydrocarbon fuel is oxidized) and then converted into mechanical energy. Thus, it is thermodynamics which severly limit ICE to 20-30% efficiency... Bottom line: since the "hydrogen economy" always involves 2 successive energy conversions: conversion, by electrolysis, from grid electricity to hydrogen (with irreversible losses), and then, by fuel cell, from hydrogen to electricity (with irreversible losses) there is simply no way it could compete with "electron economy", that is from simple economics... Who needs such an inefficient economy? Comparing hydrogen energy density to lithium battery energy density is irrelevant, what is really at stake is the end result: does it make any economic sense given the respective Energy Return Over Investment (EROI)? On that single fundamental aspect the BEV "wins" hands down over the FCV and, sorry, all the trillions (dollars) in the world will never be able to overcome the laws of thermodynamics... Lithium cell technology improves year-over-year about 5% (whithout any technology breakthought) and right now 3 multi-billion industries uses them extensively: information (phones, computers, etc), grid energy ("peaker" power plant, PV, etc) and transportation (BEV). Economy of scale ( with gigafactories) is thus now fully working and the quest for the 100USD/kWhr goal is soon to be reached (Tesla, now producing 1 billion cells per year, is at 110USD, at cell level). Lithium batteries in EVs are still costly and heavy but they do work, from technical performance point of view and within 1-2 years from economy point of view (for overall cost of ownership).

Probably one of the best and thorough videos I have seen on Hydrogen as an energy source. I believe that there is a future for Hydrogen if the cost can be significantly reduced, which I think will be inevitable as technology to produce it evolves over time. Clearly Hydrogen has some benefits in some areas of transportation. I believe the biggest benefit is the short-term refueling time vs. electric. This can be a huge advantage for transportation areas that require rapid refueling times. Personally, I have steered away from battery powered vehicles because of the amount of time it takes to recharge them. It basically places limits on the usage of these vehicles to being mainly for short commuter transportation, and not for long-distance trips. The advancements in both battery and Hydrogen power has been vastly improving. It will be interesting to see how far they will reach in the future, but for now I think they both still have a long way to go before they are as practical as fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

I asked our local Fire Chief if he was ready for a multiple vehicle motorway crash where several EV’s were involved. He told me they are carrying extra powder but he wondered how it was to be delivered? The only other instruction they had received was to cut the orange wires. Now imagine in the middle of the pile is a hydrogen bomb? I reckon the motorway will be shut for a day and the carriageway will be left with a pit 2 feet deep.

4:55 should be conductance (inverse of resistance), not conductivity, which is a material property.

I can see two huge mistakes in this video. And I'm not sure whether someone else pointed out this before. 1. Its not supposed to add percentages of different stages as he did in this video. You have to multiply. Meaning hydrogen cells are not inefficient as the video claims. 2. In the later part of the video, tank to wheel conversation ratio explained. Why should we care about that ratio. If x $ of hydrogen promised y km, all we need to care is whether its delivered or not. After all what matters is price per km.

Good start, look forward to more videos looking at whole of life economies for renewable technologies.

The inventors Stanely Meyer and Dennis Klien solved the problem by gasifying water right on the vehicle by exciting water molecules with certain resonate frequencies, but the technology has been suppressed. Can you imagine what this technology would do to the oil industry when people could simply fill up their fuel tank with a garden hose?

Cost to produce batteries? Longevity of batteries? Pollution in creating batteries? You left out a lot of stuff.

Your economic analysis is flawed. Here in the Pacific Northwest, there is a large overcapacity of hydroelectric power plants, the dams on the Columbia, Snake and other rivers. At any given time the BPA orders the dam operators to spill over the dams rather than spin turbines. Even if you electrolyzed water and compressed the hydrogen, the cost are the same as spilling water over the dams. Essentially, the huge over capacity of electrical generation makes the economics a moot point.

There is no mention of ammonia (liquid anhydrous ammonia) as a storage and transport solution for hydrogen gas. It can be produced at the fuel site from a chemical plant that requires only electrical energy. It may also be practical to store ammonia on the vehicle itself for larger applications, i.e. semi-trucks, buses, ships, etc. I would really like to see a video about that.

A good video - but one have to consider the entire value chain costs. I would like to know what kind of grid infrastructure investments that are required in order for eg cities to meet peak rush hour demand.

you didnt include the production of a lithium ion battery. It is so much more complex than Hydrogen Production (electrolysis). They have to pump water into the ground to get the lithium salt onto surface. And then using large amount of land they have to dry to salt. Then they transfer the salt into a lithium ion factory where all sorts of heavy mechanical & chemical process is being used to make a Lithium Ion Ingot. Then the ingot can be converted into battery.

Still seems like hydrogen does more to facilitate “clean” driving at the tailpipe without submarining the vehicle’s utility. Efficiencies are all well and good, but until that charge time out in the real world gets down to 5-10 minutes, and extreme weather doesn’t obliterate your range, EVs are not going to be viable for the general population

Hydrogen under pressure with Mzgnesium and Iron forms MgFeH6. Raney Nickel type alloys (the metal hydride in Nickel Metal Hydride batteries) reversibly stores Hydrogen and lower Hydrogen overvoltage than most electrodes in electrolysis. Biggest hurdle is a cathode catalysing Air instead of Oxygen and Palladium Oxide catalyst.

Awesome vid, dont totally agree with the charging prices of a ev, the fast charger prices are no where near the 10 to 12 cents but more like 33 to 36 cents per kwh, this means with a 75 kwh (model 3) battery youre still paying a good 20 to 25 euro per full charge.

Y'all just need matter/anti-matter reactors.